Does exercising really make you live longer?

[Princess Arabia]

@YousifPlease stop comparing animate objects to inanimate objects in this way. It will make your arguments futile and harder for your point to come across because you cannot compare the two when it comes to over-usage. A glass sitting on a shelf for 100 years is not equivalent to a glass being unused for 100yrs because it is inanimate and is not in the same category as a human body.

[Princess Arabia]

5 minutes ago, Yousif said:

They do say that being athletic will make you live longer. 
 

look up how to live longer, any doctor or scientist Will tell you to be more athletic and that athleticism is healthy

It has the potential to optimize the body to make it work more productively and efficiently but only in addition to other aspects. You cannot be athletic and eat 20 burgers a day and it producing the same effect. The difference though is that someone being athletic and not eating the 20 burgers will fair better than someone who does in the long run.

Lots of people now are doing better than lots of other people doing the same things they're doing because of practices they had growing up as in if they were active or not. For example, what can make the difference in 2people who smoke apart from genetics, could be if one is either more active now or was more active as a child where the body was predisposed to these benefits and was programmed to operate more efficiently for a longer period of time. Please don't take that statement as absolutely correct as it is only an educated/intellectual guess based off of what I have observed in the differences between the two.

[Yousif]

5 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

@YousifPlease stop comparing animate objects to inanimate objects in this way. It will make your arguments futile and harder for your point to come across because you cannot compare the two when it comes to over-usage. A glass sitting on a shelf for 100 years is not equivalent to a glass being unused for 100yrs because it is inanimate and is not in the same category as a human body.

Fine, my point is still valid even if the heart gets better with more usage or exercise, that is illogical, things get old the more you use them is what logic says, maybe the way reality is ran is illogical, but the issue here would be that we’re still defending a powerful system that has a lot of money, power and influence, even though it’s very base ( logic) isn’t valid to get to the truth, and that’s my problem, if the base the whole building will collapse eventually, and the whole point was to show a few of science believes that are in this forum the sorta of systems they’re defending blindly,

 

which leads to my point, if they know that it’s illogical for something to get better after more usage, why are they still loyal to logic?

[Yousif]

My point is, it isn’t that hard to figure out logic from illogic, and they way they describe the human body and its function isn’t logical at all, and yet, they’re still loyal to logic 

Edited March 6 by Yousif

[Princess Arabia]

14 minutes ago, Yousif said:

My point is, it isn’t that hard to figure out logic from illogic, and they way they describe the human body and its function isn’t logical at all, and yet, they’re still loyal to logic 

I guess it's the only way to conclude through measurement. And since they quantify everything, logic is the only tool they have to come to conclusions. Don't know how that works with them but I know they are not conclusive when it comes to consciousness and the likes because the Universe is not logical.

Edited March 6 by Princess Arabia

[Yousif]

19 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

I guess it's the only way to conclude through measurement. And since they quantify everything, logic is the only tool they have to come to conclusions. Don't know how that works with them but I know they are not conclusive when it comes to consciousness and the likes because the Universe is not logical.

You can still make logical sense of consciousness like leo does, but  that logic is translogic which they’re unable to understand or accept, 

Ultimately everything is obvious and nothing is hidden, and those defending science in its current form, logic ( not referring to trans logic) , religion and ideology, are refusing to look at the truth, because of their corruption, selfishness, double standards, Devilry, and ignorance.

 

the truth of their situation and what they’re doing is too ugly to look at, so they just look the other way.

[MuadDib]

9 hours ago, Yousif said:

My point is that the more you exercise the more your heart has to work which means it will age sooner than it should which means you’ll die age and die sooner.
 

there is no such a thing is reverse aging or making something work harder to live longer, this notion is not logical.

The heart works harder during exercise, but as you get fitter it becomes a stronger, more efficient system in conjunction with the vascular and respiratory systems. So it ends up working LESS in all the time you are not exercising.

There is a point of diminishing returns, where too much exercise leads to premature death, but the average person doesnt have to worry about that... it really is an extreme amount of exercise.

For example, lets say you and I start out with the same fitness levels and hearts and we both have 10,000,000 beats left until we die.

I start exercising 1 hr a day in which my heart rate increases to 160bpm and you dont. 

To begin we both have an average heart rate of 65bpm throughout the day.

65bpm x 24hrs = 1560 beats per day

But now I am exercising for an hour so my heart is beating more:

65bpm x 23hrs + 160bpm x 1hr = 1655 beats per day

 

I continue for a year, but as I get fitter my average heart rate through the day gets lower because all my vascular systems are more efficient, down to 50 bpm through a day, and I keep exercising for an hour at 160bpm:

50bpm x 23hrs + 160bpm x 1hr = 1310 beats per day

Now for the rest of my life my heart is beating 250 times less than yours each day. This is a simplified example, but its how it works. In reality if you worked out for an hour a day at that intensity, you would get much greater benefits. Not just for your heart, but all your systems including your brain, which will be getting a lifetime of improved blood supply etc ... aerobic exercise is one of the best protective factors for age related cognitive decline.

So now we're 50, my heart is beating less, my brain is working better and my dick is getting more blood than yours.

 

Edited March 7 by MuadDib

[Yousif]

On 3/6/2024 at 4:50 PM, MuadDib said:

The heart works harder during exercise, but as you get fitter it becomes a stronger, more efficient system in conjunction with the vascular and respiratory systems. So it ends up working LESS in all the time you are not exercising.

There is a point of diminishing returns, where too much exercise leads to premature death, but the average person doesnt have to worry about that... it really is an extreme amount of exercise.

For example, lets say you and I start out with the same fitness levels and hearts and we both have 10,000,000 beats left until we die.

I start exercising 1 hr a day in which my heart rate increases to 160bpm and you dont. 

To begin we both have an average heart rate of 65bpm throughout the day.

65bpm x 24hrs = 1560 beats per day

But now I am exercising for an hour so my heart is beating more:

65bpm x 23hrs + 160bpm x 1hr = 1655 beats per day

 

I continue for a year, but as I get fitter my average heart rate through the day gets lower because all my vascular systems are more efficient, down to 50 bpm through a day, and I keep exercising for an hour at 160bpm:

50bpm x 23hrs + 160bpm x 1hr = 1310 beats per day

Now for the rest of my life my heart is beating 250 times less than yours each day. This is a simplified example, but its how it works. In reality if you worked out for an hour a day at that intensity, you would get much greater benefits. Not just for your heart, but all your systems including your brain, which will be getting a lifetime of improved blood supply etc ... aerobic exercise is one of the best protective factors for age related cognitive decline.

So now we're 50, my heart is beating less, my brain is working better and my dick is getting more blood than yours.

 

Yes, your heart beat rate does drop when you become more athletic, which means less work for the heart,

but that sort of linear thinking is what I have a problem with, 

There are other factors you’re not considering, like how athletes tend to want to be more and more active which means that they’ll be using their heart way more than a person that isn’t athletic , 

- yes my resting heart rate is 50 bpm, but I’m athletic, I’m never resting, it becomes a sort of androgens / endorphins addiction. 
 

- You have the factor of a higher sex drive, more cardio work 

 

- you have the factor of having an insane appetite that’s due to being active , and based on what the science says, the more calories you consume the less you live.

 

- yes you become a well oiled, perfectly functioning machine, but the amount of high energy state you’re in can easily cause something to go wrong not just the heart, your kidneys, your joints, nerves, or just a simple athletic accident.

 

Edited March 9 by Yousif

[MarkKol]

It’s probably more effective at that than food if done correctly

Once you’ve got diabetes your risk of all other diseases (that are far more likely to kill you) is exponentially higher.

another question you should ask yourself is, would you like to stand up from a chair once you’re 70? That requires muscle mass/strength, muscle mass is only built with exercise and good luck building up 20 pounds of muscle at that age.

Edited March 10 by MarkKol

[Yousif]

2 hours ago, MarkKol said:

It’s probably more effective at that than food if done correctly

Once you’ve got diabetes your risk of all other diseases (that are far more likely to kill you) is exponentially higher.

another question you should ask yourself is, would you like to stand up from a chair once you’re 70? That requires muscle mass/strength, muscle mass is only built with exercise and good luck building up 20 pounds of muscle at that age.

my whole argument was that being athletic may not get you to 70 yr of age,

being extremely fit and athletic is one extreme 

being lazy and eating junk is another extreme 

if you truly wanted to maximize longevity you would go with something in between.

 

But that’s not what most people would tell you, most people think that the more fit and active you are, the longer you will live, and that I disagree with

 

Edited March 10 by Yousif

[MuadDib]

10 hours ago, Yousif said:

Yes, your heart beat rate does drop when you become more athletic, which means less work for the heart,

but that sort of linear thinking is what I have a problem with, 

There are other factors you’re not considering, like how athletes tend to want to be more and more active which means that they’ll be using their heart way more than a person that isn’t athletic , 

- yes my resting heart rate is 50 bpm, but I’m athletic, I’m never resting, it becomes a sort of androgens / endorphins addiction. 

- You have the factor of a higher sex drive, more cardio work 

 

As I said.

On 07/03/2024 at 8:50 AM, MuadDib said:

There is a point of diminishing returns, where too much exercise leads to premature death, but the average person doesnt have to worry about that... it really is an extreme amount of exercise.

I don't think you appreciate the simple math of how much less work your body has to do once you are fit to function normally.
My resting heart rate is in the 40s, when I am just doing regular day-to-day stuff my heart rate doesn't go above 100.

You have to sleep at least 6 hours a day on average, no matter how active you are. All of these factors combined mean I would have to spend at least 5 hours a day in moderate to high-intensity exercise just to get back to the same amount of heartbeats per day as an unfit person. I would then have to spend a few more hours exercising like that each day for my heart to start being overused, and yes my body would likely break down before my heart did. As for the high sex drive, it's only 2 minutes here and there each day, so that's not a lot.

Also, serious athletes are perfectly aware of this. They know recovery is just as important as work done because it's the combination that leads to improvement. Most athletes start out overworking and learn this the hard way, so I don't agree with this:

10 hours ago, Yousif said:

There are other factors you’re not considering, like how athletes tend to want to be more and more active which means that they’ll be using their heart way more than a person that isn’t athletic , 

 

10 hours ago, Yousif said:

- you have the factor of having an insane appetite that’s due to being active , and based on what the science says, the more calories you consume the less you live.

I'd be curious to see which studies you have read. What was their methodology for selecting subjects?
Were they looking at calories consumed among inactive people? Active people? A combination?
We want to avoid that pesky linear and unscientific thinking you are so upset about, no?

[Yousif]

11 hours ago, MuadDib said:

As I said.

I don't think you appreciate the simple math of how much less work your body has to do once you are fit to function normally.
My resting heart rate is in the 40s, when I am just doing regular day-to-day stuff my heart rate doesn't go above 100.

You have to sleep at least 6 hours a day on average, no matter how active you are. All of these factors combined mean I would have to spend at least 5 hours a day in moderate to high-intensity exercise just to get back to the same amount of heartbeats per day as an unfit person. I would then have to spend a few more hours exercising like that each day for my heart to start being overused, and yes my body would likely break down before my heart did. As for the high sex drive, it's only 2 minutes here and there each day, so that's not a lot.

Also, serious athletes are perfectly aware of this. They know recovery is just as important as work done because it's the combination that leads to improvement. Most athletes start out overworking and learn this the hard way, so I don't agree with this:

 

I'd be curious to see which studies you have read. What was their methodology for selecting subjects?
Were they looking at calories consumed among inactive people? Active people? A combination?
We want to avoid that pesky linear and unscientific thinking you are so upset about, no?

- What’s the point of living to 70 yrs of age if you’re gonna sleep 1/4 of it

- your heart not going above 100 depends on what kinds of things you’re doing and your weight, a lot of us do physical work that already is a workout although for longer hours of the weak so it makes you lose and not gaining muscle. 

- as I said above, once you’re athletic, it becomes an endorphin/ androgen addiction, so you’re more likely to do more and more

- a lot of us get more than 2 mins of sex, especially if you’re in a good shape 

you gotta remember this talk is not about whether exercise will make you feel better or healthier or not, its about the question of is it really the best strategy to live longer ? 
 

On the side it was also about a philosophical question of, how can overusing a thing make it last longer? And I don’t care how low your resting heart rate goes,

just how a fat person builds the habit of being lazy and inactive and can’t seem to break out of it, 

 

the same goes for a fit/ athletic person, they also got themselves into this being active habit and it’s very hard for them to just sit down and rest, which means their heart will be working more than average as well.
 

If you were fit enough, you’ll know what I’m talking about.

which is why I said somewhere in between is probably our best bet to live longer, 

if you already get enough moving around from your job, and daily life, while eating a healthy diet, you would probably live longer than athletic folks. 

 

 

[Jason Actualization]

23 minutes ago, Yousif said:

- What’s the point of living to 70 yrs of age if you’re gonna sleep 1/4 of it

How do you mean? Ideally you'd sleep even more, closer to 1/3 of it (for the vast majority of people, myself included).

Sleep is the cornerstone of enhancing the quality and quantity of one's life.

When I'm sleeping this well, I feel on top of the world:

[Carl-Richard]

Firstly, an organism is not a stationary object. All organisms evolved to move in one way or another (either more overtly/motorically like most animals or more metabolically like most plants). Secondly, stress is not unhealthy: chronic and overly intense stress is. Stress in manageable doses makes you stronger, and being strong means you're more capable to handle stress in general, which makes you less prone to chronic stress and injuries, which makes you more healthy.

Imagine what would happen if one day you just stopped walking. That is one big source of stress off your back. "But that isn't stress though, is it?". Well, let's say you stopped walking for a whole month, causing significant muscle atrophy in your legs. Then try to walk up a couple of flights of stairs. Tell me if that is not stressful. Now, did walking suddenly become a bad activity just because it caused you a bit of stress? No. Unless you keep walking without ever taking a break, causing you to be in a state of chronic stress, or you walk too intensely and for example pull a muscle, walking is not bad for you. So why is working out supposedly bad for you?

The problem is not walking or working out: the problem, if any, is that you're weak and that you need to train yourself up to tackle it better. And so it is with everything in life. All of life is really just a big collection stressors, and some of it might cause you to be chronically stressed or cause injuries if you're too weak to handle it. Grandma might break her back just by bending down funnily, which is not something you want to emulate. An unathletic person might have an existential crisis just while carrying groceries or standing too long in line (or when something slightly bad happens at work, because, as you know, health is bio-psycho-social). So, would you like to face those stressors while being weak or while being strong? Which do you think makes you more healthy?

Edited March 10 by Carl-Richard

[Yousif]

4 hours ago, Jason Actualization said:

How do you mean? Ideally you'd sleep even more, closer to 1/3 of it (for the vast majority of people, myself included).

Sleep is the cornerstone of enhancing the quality and quantity of one's life.

When I'm sleeping this well, I feel on top of the world:

I’m not saying sleep isn’t good or won’t make you feel good 

 

but if you’re sleeping and exercising just to live longer, what would be the point of prolonging life? Is it just to sleep and exercise? 
 

a lot of people don’t enjoy exercising and being healthy, but they do it to live longer, what’s the point of prolonging a life you don’t enjoy?
 

 

[Yousif]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Firstly, an organism is not a stationary object. All organisms evolved to move in one way or another (either more overtly/motorically like most animals or more metabolically like most plants). Secondly, stress is not unhealthy: chronic and overly intense stress is. Stress in manageable doses makes you stronger, and being strong means you're more capable to handle stress in general, which makes you less prone to chronic stress and injuries, which makes you more healthy.

Imagine what would happen if one day you just stopped walking. That is one big source of stress off your back. "But that isn't stress though, is it?". Well, let's say you stopped walking for a whole month, causing significant muscle atrophy in your legs. Then try to walk up a couple of flights of stairs. Tell me if that is not stressful. Now, did walking suddenly become a bad activity just because it caused you a bit of stress? No. Unless you keep walking without ever taking a break, causing you to be in a state of chronic stress, or you walk too intensely and for example pull a muscle, walking is not bad for you. So why is working out supposedly bad for you?

The problem is not walking or working out: the problem, if any, is that you're weak and that you need to train yourself up to tackle it better. And so it is with everything in life. All of life is really just a big collection stressors, and some of it might cause you to be chronically stressed or cause injuries if you're too weak to handle it. Grandma might break her back just by bending down funnily, which is not something you want to emulate. An unathletic person might have an existential crisis just while carrying groceries or standing too long in line (or when something slightly bad happens at work, because, as you know, health is bio-psycho-social). So, would you like to face those stressors while being weak or while being strong? Which do you think makes you more healthy?

The topic was about whether or not being active/ athletic is the best strategy for living as long as possible, 

I’ve said it many times here that I don’t doubt that exercising makes you stronger, but stronger doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll live longer.

[Jason Actualization]

59 minutes ago, Yousif said:

but if you’re sleeping and exercising just to live longer, what would be the point of prolonging life? Is it just to sleep and exercise? 

You make a good point. For me, I sleep and exercise to be a high testosterone man which renders a qualitative experience that I'm partial to. I do not do these things for the sake of themselves, but rather, the life experience they afford me.

1 hour ago, Yousif said:

a lot of people don’t enjoy exercising and being healthy, but they do it to live longer, what’s the point of prolonging a life you don’t enjoy?

I agree, I would not see the point in that. Personally, I love sleeping like a rock and waking up as hard as one, lol. I also love picking up heavy things and putting them down.

For the average person though, exercise is quite overrated and I believe nutrition is far more important for quality and duration of live.

The healthiest form of exercise is honestly just walking.

[Princess Arabia]

11 hours ago, Yousif said:

a lot of people don’t enjoy exercising and being healthy, but they do it to live longer, what’s the point of prolonging a life you don’t enjoy?

Yeah, but you didn't say they hated their lives only that they hated exercising and being healthy. Maybe they enjoy other aspects.

[Carl-Richard]

14 hours ago, Yousif said:

The topic was about whether or not being active/ athletic is the best strategy for living as long as possible, 

I’ve said it many times here that I don’t doubt that exercising makes you stronger, but stronger doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll live longer.

I literally laid out how being strong makes you healthy. Maybe read it again.

[Yousif]

On 3/11/2024 at 1:27 PM, Carl-Richard said:

I literally laid out how being strong makes you healthy. Maybe read it again.

You’re mistaken living longer with being healthy.

 

My points above weren’t about whether or not exercise will make you stronger or healthier, it was whether or not it’s the best strategy to make you live as long as possible 

 

you can be too healthy and lively for your own good, which may results in you actually living less.