Fifty Plus (50+) - Vigorous Exercise Like Running Linked To Longer Life And Less Disability In Old Age

Hi all

Just came across this report that's of interest to all of us here.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/117929.php

I guess most of us already knew or could have guessed that exercising regularly was beneficial in reducing the effects of aging. Still it's nice to have it confirmed by the scientists.

brigadon

Good find.

Odd that "back when" the experts cautioned about those over fifty starting up rigorous excersize for fear of injury, and now it is decidedly a major benefit at any age.

Seems that along the way, I would not excersize because that opportunity did not allow the right heartbeats per minute at the right duration. Now. adding walking brisly when able, if even from the parking lot, is deemed beneficial and with cumulative affect.

Getting back into using bicycling for all the many benefits at age 55, has me wondering why I ever stopped.

There are two books on the subject: Spark on the mental aspects and Younger Next Year on the physical aspects. Both recommend weight training as well as aerobics and the use of heart rate monitors.

Al

I liked this item from the article: "Runners' initial disability was 16 years later than nonrunners."
It confirms "Younger Next Year's" claim that you can shave as much as 20 years off what your body age would seem without exercise.

I think you will find nothing but believers in this forum. I'll turn 58 this month, and I am already reaping the immense benefits of 40 years of bicycling, walking, and running for exercise and transportation. Diet, exercise, mental attitude, lifestyle in general = the fountain of youth.

One has to be careful about these sorts of findings.

I do not think they made any attempt to control for the fact that people who are healthy are able to exercise. The habit of fitness may be a result of health and not the cause of health. Really sick people do not exercise because they can't.

I would think that a healthy life style would be a to one's long term health. But you can get a pretty large effect in a statistical study by just inadvertantly including unhealthy people in one group and excluding them from the other group.

One has to be careful about these sorts of findings.

I do not think they made any attempt to control for the fact that people who are healthy are able to exercise. The habit of fitness may be a result of health and not the cause of health. Really sick people do not exercise because they can't.

I would think that a healthy life style would be a to one's long term health. But you can get a pretty large effect in a statistical study by just inadvertantly including unhealthy people in one group and excluding them from the other group.

That sounds like a good subject for a follow-up study. And you're right, of course.

Darn - someone's trying to be scientific and accurate.

No way. I like these biased surveys and results.

When I looked at the article, there was an ad for "Helping Seniors live an independent life at home" with one of those "life alert" buttons. And I love the phrase, "compression of morbidity". I'm going to try to use it in conversation often!

exercise will add life to your years...not necessarily years to your life...

train safe-

exercise will add life to your years...not necessarily years to your life...

train safe-

We don't really know if that is true or untrue.

It seems to me, for example, in the management of diabetes - a known killer if not properly cared for - that exercise likely WILL extend life. Ditto for managing obesity, blood pressure, etc.

I suspect that a decent longitudinal study will show that exercise does extend life.

I was just reading something on this subject in the Rivendell Reader and the author (not Grant Petersen) was saying that our exercise should be like back in the Cromagnon days, i.e. walk a lot, run very fast very occasionally, eat protien and veggies and not much carbo at all.

Long efforts at sustained high energy outputs (only possible while injesting large amounts of carbos) was particularly bad. It was based on how we (humans) evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, and how we've change our ways (for the worse) since the invention of agriculture (read: easy carbohydrates).

While it did all make sense, within it's own context, I really don't remember Cromagnons living all that long, i.e. 35 years was a average lifetime. Anyway, I'll try to find a link and post it here via an edit.

Rick / OCRR

Edit: Well, I thought I'd be able to find the article over on rivbike.com, but I was wrong, or at least, not searching very well . . . It's in the latest issue of the Rivendell Reader, if your bike shop has one laying about.

Darn - someone's trying to be scientific and accurate.

No way. I like these biased surveys and results.

That's exactly my feeling Dnvr. This is one bit of science that I don't want to be critical of because I want it to be true.

However, Pat seems to have fomented a following within the group so I have emailed the emeritus Professor Fries office and asked for a copy of the original paper which will expand on his methodology for this study.

Will get back to this if I get a reply. :roflmao2:

I believe that there are a lot of people that take virtually no exercise and will live a relatively long life. As long as they stay on that couch and do not attempt to run for that bus. I would suggest that longivity is in the genes. Exercise will give you a much better quality of life for the amount of years that you have and stave off disease that would kill you earlier. Hard/extreme daily physical exercise IMHO is not always a good thing, you just need to keep moving. Look at nature, the slow steady movers [elephants/turtles] last the longest. Cheetahs? No chance. Pro athletes do not have a lifespan longer than the average.

Jim

One has to be careful about these sorts of findings.

I do not think they made any attempt to control for the fact that people who are healthy are able to exercise. The habit of fitness may be a result of health and not the cause of health. Really sick people do not exercise because they can't.

I would think that a healthy life style would be a to one's long term health. But you can get a pretty large effect in a statistical study by just inadvertantly including unhealthy people in one group and excluding them from the other group.

You make a valid point, but I see no reason to avoid exercise until all of the facts are in. There are numerous well-established chemical and physiological links among diet, exercise, obesity, and illness. Exercise elevates good cholesterol and lowers bad, and it stabilizes blood sugar, as does a high-fiber diet, etc.

I believe that there are a lot of people that take virtually no exercise and will live a relatively long life. As long as they stay on that couch and do not attempt to run for that bus. I would suggest that longivity is in the genes. Exercise will give you a much better quality of life for the amount of years that you have and stave off disease that would kill you earlier. Hard/extreme daily physical exercise IMHO is not always a good thing, you just need to keep moving. Look at nature, the slow steady movers [elephants/turtles] last the longest. Cheetahs? No chance. Pro athletes do not have a lifespan longer than the average.

Jim


I don't know about pro athletes and elephants, but I'll go with the science. You are incorrect about life span. In Physical Activity and Health, figure 9.5 shows that a top tier aerobically fit man has less than 1/5 the death rate of the couch potato type. This particular study was of 25,341 men at the Cooper institute.

I've been a student of physical activity vs health for about 40 years ever since I cured my own high blood pressure with jogging.

The more ft you are, the less cancer, diabetes, cardio and other diseases you suffer. You live not only better, but you live longer. The actual data is very convincing, but one has to be aware of it.

Back to elephants. One interesting fact is the long lived elephant and the shrew (lives a year?) have about the same number of life-time heart beats. Relating human life span to either seems silly to me. That said, what happens with aerobics is that you drive yourself to very high heart rates (or should) with the net result that your none exercising heart rate goes much lower than a couch potatoes. That's not the reason for the longer life span, but an aerobically fit individual does conserve heart beats like the elephant in a sense.

What does keep you alive longer is that aerobics (and weight training) causes sufficient cell damage to stimulate the body's repair mechanisms (human growth hormones and other chemicals). Those mechanisms repair the aerobics damage plus the decay damage due to aging. You don't do the damage, the age-related decay does not get repaired and you degenerate far faster and are more prone to disease than the fit individual.

Genetics for most people is a small factor. You can suppress most negative genetic tendencies through a lifestyle of strenuous activity, reducing meat/dairy and emphasizing fresh/frozen fruits/vegetables

Al

So does anybody really care?

So if I get up early every day for 16 years and go running or something eventually I'll feel better?

Honestly, I'm thinking that, if folks don't find a shorter term benefit, a 16 year exercise program is going to fall by the wayside. How many people are paying monthly health club fees for services that they never use?

Do we have to turn everything into a job so that we can piously tell our friends that "Studies show etc.etc." What's wrong with just bicycling for fun?

So does anybody really care?

So if I get up early every day for 16 years and go running or something eventually I'll feel better?

Honestly, I'm thinking that, if folks don't find a shorter term benefit, a 16 year exercise program is going to fall by the wayside. How many people are paying monthly health club fees for services that they never use?

Do we have to turn everything into a job so that we can piously tell our friends that "Studies show etc.etc." What's wrong with just bicycling for fun?

What an incredible concept!

Bicycling for fun?

Naw

It's just too easy.

We humans HAVE to put facts and figures around everything we do.

Like - how many miles did you ride today? What was your average speed? Top speed? Slowest speed? How many times do you turn the crank every minute? How many hours should you rest between rides? How many days/hours/minutes/seconds/microseconds until you have a recovery ride? How long and fast should that recovery ride be? How ofeten does your heart beat when resting - when riding - when climbing hills - when slowing down - when it is 220 - age - when you are riding upside down. And on and on, ad infinitum. Check out the Roadie forum!

Ride for fun?

That would be no fun!:p

So does anybody really care?


Do we have to turn everything into a job so that we can piously tell our friends that "Studies show etc.etc." What's wrong with just bicycling for fun?

Why not do both; fun and fitness? I look around me and see a lot of old and not so old not having any fun what so ever. Matter of fact I know some who are either in pain, or have lost so much of their active brain that they are barely functional. I had a painful lifestyle until my late teens when new drugs became available.

I'll do both having been there. At 69 and after 40 years of heavy duty activity, it's been working very well on both accounts.

Al

Why not do both; fun and fitness?

But which came first - the chicken or the egg?

My point is that, if people don't percieve a short term benefit (fun), they'll never stick with any kind of exercise program long enough to get fit. The proof is the huge number of unused gym memberships. People join to get fit but, if they don't find fun in the process, they stop going.

I like to ride my bike. I like to go downhill fast and scare the bejeebers out of myself. I like covering big mileage and having the satisfaction of making it there and back under my own power. If there are other benefits then I will take them with a grin. Somehow, telling a bike forum that what we are doing is beneficial to our physical and emotional health is like carrying coals to Newcastle. :)

What does keep you alive longer is that aerobics (and weight training) causes sufficient cell damage to stimulate the body's repair mechanisms (human growth hormones and other chemicals). Those mechanisms repair the aerobics damage plus the decay damage due to aging. You don't do the damage, the age-related decay does not get repaired and you degenerate far faster and are more prone to disease than the fit individual.

Genetics for most people is a small factor. You can suppress most negative genetic tendencies through a lifestyle of strenuous activity, reducing meat/dairy and emphasizing fresh/frozen fruits/vegetables

Al

Now that makes sense...stressing the cells and body systems stimulates the bodies repair mechanisms, which also treat the decayed parts...kinda like bringing the past to the present for healing.

So does anybody really care?

So if I get up early every day for 16 years and go running or something eventually I'll feel better?

Honestly, I'm thinking that, if folks don't find a shorter term benefit, a 16 year exercise program is going to fall by the wayside.

I think you misunderstood the study. It doesn't take 16 years to see a benefit, the physical benefits start quickly. But if they stick with it over the years the exercisers will feel 16 (20?) years younger and will (on average) start to see life restricting disabilities much later in life! That is huge.




My point is that, if people don't perceive a short term benefit (fun), they'll never stick with any kind of exercise program long enough to get fit.
I disagree to a point. Many people do stick with boring, un-fun exercise programs for decades - I see them at the gym every day. Many others go for it long enough to improve their fitness and then burn out. I know lots of them. I think where you are right is that many of us simply won't stick to it unless it is fun, period. Feeling fit will help motivate us but if the exercise regiment is not fun we just don't stick to it. I was that way on aerobics until I started riding -- which is fun. I noticed the physical benefits immediately - I feel much better and I lost 16 pounds and counting - but I would be hard pressed to keep it up if I didn't enjoy riding.

I work out at the gym and at home on weight equipment, and I don't find it boring and un-fun. If I did, I probably wouldn't keep it up.

However, I consider the trainer boring and un-fun, and, generally, the trainer just sits there unused.

I was just reading something on this subject in the Rivendell Reader and the author (not Grant Petersen) was saying that our exercise should be like back in the Cromagnon days, i.e. walk a lot, run very fast very occasionally, eat protien and veggies and not much carbo at all.

Long efforts at sustained high energy outputs (only possible while injesting large amounts of carbos) was particularly bad. It was based on how we (humans) evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, and how we've change our ways (for the worse) since the invention of agriculture (read: easy carbohydrates).

While it did all make sense, within it's own context, I really don't remember Cromagnons living all that long, i.e. 35 years was a average lifetime. Anyway, I'll try to find a link and post it here via an edit.

Rick / OCRR

Edit: Well, I thought I'd be able to find the article over on rivbike.com, but I was wrong, or at least, not searching very well . . . It's in the latest issue of the Rivendell Reader, if your bike shop has one laying about.

Yeah... I follow the CroMag life-style when I've run out of food in the house. Then, I get on the bike and hunt me up a Big Mac, fries, and chocolate shake. :D They don't give me much of a struggle. The struggle comes when I try to get served at the McDonald's drive-thru window on my bike. :mad:

But which came first - the chicken or the egg?

My point is that, if people don't percieve a short term benefit (fun), they'll never stick with any kind of exercise program long enough to get fit. The proof is the huge number of unused gym memberships. People join to get fit but, if they don't find fun in the process, they stop going.

For me it was the fitness "egg". Through college I was a couch potato due to chronic Asthma. The result was that after a few years of a high pressure job I developed high blood pressure at 26. My doctor wrote me a prescription for bp medication. I asked if I got on drugs now, what was he going to do for me when I got in my 40's? He said not to worry about. I gave him back the prescription and went home and happened to picked up the latest Readers Digest and read an article written by Billy Grahms doctor. Grahm had had fainting spells. His doctor reasoned that it must be stress and had him jogging. Problem went away. I figured I'd try it and three months later had my pressure measured. It was perfect. I've been doing strenuous aerobics ever since (42 years) and about 30 years of weight training.

I got a new doctor and as luck would have it I got one that had just gotten out of the Air Force. Tyndall, the AF base east of town was apparently the site of some of those 5000+ AF "volunteers" that were participating in the initial research by Dr. Kenneth Cooper who created the jogging craze. My new doctor apparently had done some work with cooper on the project and was now an avid jogger.

Until I had time to bike regularly which did not occur until I retired at 58, the jogging paid of in being able to have a very active lifestyle and do fun things. I also had far more energy than ever and far more than most folk except the other physically fit ones. You also gain a far more positive outlook which makes life in general more fun.

I would agree that the majority will not exercise for health. Some of that is a lack of maturity. Most of that however is due to the lack of information and misleading information like health claims for drugs and advertising. Government policies (the USDA nutrition triangle is a joke) promote obesity and disease, the medical profession lacks any formal training in nutrition, physical fitness and prevention vice cure, Then there's conflict of interests in the medical profession, including the research community, with the medical companies, the meat and dairy industry and the grain industry.

However, there is light at then end of the tunnel. In the first two chapters of Spark is described a school system in Illinois (20,000 students) who have redesigned their gym classes to emphasize individual high aerobics activities vice team actives. Each student wears a heart rate monitor while in gym class and they keep records. Not only have these kids realized far greater health, but their test scores have dramatically improved. On the standardized tests which are used for comparison with foreign students, these kids now score near the top. Florida's Governor Crist is trying to get the same system installed across the Florida school system.

It is now known that regular and strenuous activity builds neural networks. It's the same process I described in an earlier post on this thread. If you stress your brain (thinking) with these additional networks, you gain intelligence.

Personally, I've found being fit, having limitless energy and being relatively quick mentally as a lot of fun. It also saved my life and possibly my mind when I suffered a shredded inner layer of a carotid artery in my early 50's. That's according to the three neurologists who pulled me through. I had a 20% chance of survival and a near zero chance of escaping brain damage. How well I escaped that last part is debatable according to my old boss.

Al

Re-running. So what about all the damage to the joints in later life? Surely it is all about what makes you happy. Now tell me why women live longer as the majority of heavy exercisers are men.

Jim

This is really big news. Exercise is good for you? Who knew?

More than anything else -- almost even more than riding -- I enjoy feeling good, strong, healthy, and fitting into my clothes too much to let it all go, so even if my activities were boring, I'd do them anyway. There are no words to adequately express the difference in how I feel now compared to how I felt 4 years ago when I was sedentary and overweight.

I went to a meeting the other day with 2 co-workers. One of them (about 10 years older) led us to the elevator to go down ONE FLOOR to the meeting. I said "We're taking the elevator?!? :eek:" He explained we'd have to walk a little further if we took the stairs. He asked if there's some reason I don't want to take the elevator.... I explained that I just always take the stairs because it's good exercise. He said it's not much exercise going down stairs. Sigh..................

I'm reading "Younger Next Year" and I'm almost constantly reminded of my dad -- he stayed active (physically and socially), then BAM it was all over in an instant at 88 (like the graph illustrates in the book). But all 88 years were good, healthy, active years.

all the studies are important, i suppose. they provide work for scientists. they provide evidence that exercise is something that the potatoes should consider. those of us who are already riding are probably not the primary audience for the study... we already know or at least strongly suspect that exercise has benefits.

that said.... riding is fun. i look forward to every ride... well, almost every ride. when i feel good, it helps me feel even better. when i am not feeling well, the rides help. my daily ride is my mindless escapism. i prefer not to clutter my mind with facts when i am riding. it is a time for cleansing.

.... and there's something kinda fun and cool in looking down at the cyclocomputer and seeing that you are going 30 miles an hour on a flat stretch of road UNDER YOUR OWN POWER!!! it's a feeling of pure accomplishment and unbridled joy!

be well,

jim

then BAM it was all over in an instant at 88 (like the graph illustrates in the book). But all 88 years were good, healthy, active years.

That's been my goal since I started exercising; the "BAM" exit strategy.

Al

I believe that there are a lot of people that take virtually no exercise and will live a relatively long life. As long as they stay on that couch and do not attempt to run for that bus. I would suggest that longivity is in the genes. Exercise will give you a much better quality of life for the amount of years that you have and stave off disease that would kill you earlier. Hard/extreme daily physical exercise IMHO is not always a good thing, you just need to keep moving. Look at nature, the slow steady movers [elephants/turtles] last the longest. Cheetahs? No chance. Pro athletes do not have a lifespan longer than the average.

Jim

Jim,

You never took looked at comparitive physiology have you. You can graph size of an organism against life span on semilog paper and get a straight line. The notion is that increased metabolic rate is inversely related to age.

Elephants fall pretty much on the line. They do not have a long life span, given their size.

But 2 groups of vertebrates are much more long lived than their size and metabolic rates would predict. One of these groups happens to be turtles. I think the galapagos tortoises have the longest lifespans on the planet. I have also heard that they live so long that no one has really been able to get a decent estimate on their lifespan.

The other group is on of the champions of high energy, fast moving life styles: birds. A large cockatoo which is the size of a large squirrel (which has a life span of about 7 years) can live well over a century.

It seems that turtles both have some sorts of adaptations that promote astonishing longevity (in birds it can be 10X what one would predict).

There have been studies on oppossums on lifespan. It seems that oppossums suffering high predation reproduce young and die of old age young. But populations of oppossums that are protected from predation seem to live longer or are selected for longer life spans. So it seems as if there are variations that allow for selection of longevity.

By the way, people are decent on lifespan but not extraordinary like tortoises and parrots. So if you want to live long and prosper, you chose the wrong species.

Re-running. So what about all the damage to the joints in later life? Surely it is all about what makes you happy. Now tell me why women live longer as the majority of heavy exercisers are men.

Jim

Women do not always have longer life expectancies than men. In the 19th century, women had much shorter life expectancies. This was the result of a significant mortality rate in childbirth.

In the 20th century, women live a fair bit longer. I think most of the difference is explained by the fact that women have superior fat metabolisms than men. Men get killed by strokes and heart attacks in excess to women. I have read that the gap is getting smaller because men are taking things like lipitor.

Sometimes what seems to us as a law of nature actually isn't.

I have lost 122 pounds by just working out. my body and heart is strong i can out run all 11 of my grandkids all day long. not one can touch me on the big hills:lol: with my bike:thumb:

maybe i'll live longer maybe i'll get hit by a bus but have fun that's what's important

Regular exercise doesn't necessary give you a longer life... mostly, it gives you a better quality of life. You're able to do more, for longer, keep up with the grandkids, keep the mind sharp. It's not a guarantee you'll avoid every disease, but it significantly slows the downward progression and provides better resistance to health and disabilities overall.

You never took looked at comparitive physiology have you.
knew that I had slipped up somewhere. yet don't think birds are a goo anology. they do not support the heavy exercise theory. They glide during much of their flights, rather like the cyclist cruising downhill. The albotross spends much of it,s life on the wing but it does not flap them that much. The question of the ladies living longer has not been answered. Do you think it can have anything to do with the constant motion concept. Cleaning, cooking, kids demands etc? Whilst we are out hammering the bike for an hour then spending 3 hours watching the magic box? Hmmm.
Jim

One has to be careful about these sorts of findings.

I do not think they made any attempt to control for the fact that people who are healthy are able to exercise. The habit of fitness may be a result of health and not the cause of health. Really sick people do not exercise because they can't.

I would think that a healthy life style would be a to one's long term health. But you can get a pretty large effect in a statistical study by just inadvertantly including unhealthy people in one group and excluding them from the other group.

After Pat raised this issue about the choice of participants in this type of study I wrote to the office of the authors who kindly sent me a copy of the original research paper. Unfortunately, I can't post it here for copyright reasons. It didn't give any useful information about the choice of participants but referred to earlier reports of this study which has been continuing for 20 years.

An earlier report by Prof. Fries of the same study describes the selection of participants in great detail:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1295658&pageindex=1#page

A word of warning, this stuff is very heavy going for anyone not familiar with scientific jargon, but it's clear that the authors are very conscious of the problems in analyzing disparate groups and have gone to great lengths to reduce the effects of bias.

There has been a surprising number of studies done on this topic. A Google search for "compression of morbidity" (which is what we're talking about) gives 49,500 results. All studies of this subject (apparently) point to the same conclusions, that moderate to vigorous exercise after age 50 is good for you and will delay the onset of aging related medical conditions. One writer claims that not one published study points to any other conclusion.

As for the credibility of this type of study, Pat is quite correct in warning that great care needs to be taken that they do not contain built-in flaws. This paper and others I came across all freely admit to this and other difficulties in the designing of studies of this kind and are careful to describe their results as suggestive of an association between exercise and health benefits in the elderly, rather than scientifically proven conclusions.

Re-running. So what about all the damage to the joints in later life?
Jim

This is what I've run into many times in talking to others. Lots of joint damage later in life from running. Maybe a better title for the paper would have referred to cardio exercise as being better for people.

jff@stanford.edu

Dear Professor Fries,

Your Research and "Elderly"

I found your research regarding exercise and morbidity most interesting.

However, I am concerned over the use (overuse) or terms such as "elderly," "senior," "older," and the like.

They have no specific meaning, and are generally defined in the eyes of the beholder. So, a 20 year-old might define "elderly" as someone who is 50, and someone who is 50 might define "elderly" as 70, and someone 70 might define "elderly" as someone 80.

How about using phrases such as "Over 65" or "Over 80" or whatever is appropriate to the subjects studied?

I am,

Yours truly,


Denver C. Fox, Ed.D.
Someone who is 68, bicycles 125 miles per week, swims 3 miles per week, weight lifts several hours per weeks, and enjoys walking and singing (a very aerobic exercise, also) and who is definitely NOT "elderly."

Please also see our large 50+ bicycling forum composed of others similar to me.

http://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=220

I will bring up another aspect to fitness. In about a month I will have reached two years of riding a bicycle. The changes for me have been big. A total weight loss of 30+ pounds, a different body shape and I am no longer on any medicine. All of this has been expressed by others on this forum. This other aspect of fitness is a feeling that I am viewed differently by people I come into contact with during both business and personal contacts.

I am asked constantly about my "new" body. "What did you do." "Tell me how to have a fit body like yours at age 59." These are the types of comments I get. Even more so are the ones that do not comment, but seem to approach me differently. There are so many people in our country that are so out of shape. A person at our ages in good condition is actually "refreshing".

Am I the only one that has seen this, or is this a normal experience?

Very interesting. Wonder what the results would be if we combined regular exercise with lower caloric intake? http://starbulletin.com/2004/08/31/news/story4.html

Very interesting. Wonder what the results would be if we combined regular exercise with lower caloric intake? http://starbulletin.com/2004/08/31/news/story4.html

It's an old concept, There is a group of believers that are nearly starving themselves to live longer. Animal studies have shown some promise. The problem I have with it is the relative risks of all-cause age-adjusted mortality for both fit and non-fit men is higher for lean men (< 16.7% body fat) then it is for normal and obese men (> 25% body fat). It's like 30% higher than for normal men. Not a good sign. This is from fig. 9.9, Physical Activity and Health (edited by Bouchard, Blair & Haskell).

Dr Ratey (MD) indicates in Spark that fasting may cause sufficient cell damage to stimulate the body's repair process like exercise does. Once initiated, the repair process also repairs the age-related decay and hence less degenerative disease and a longer life span.

I can't imagine living with that low an energy level. It would be tough to exercise suffiently hard to get into carb burning (vice fat burning) intensity which is beneficicial from a health/longevity perspective. Those (too) lean non-fit individuals have twice the relative risk of dying than the fit (too) lean individuals (fig 9.9).

Al

Similar article in our rag today - Pittsburgh Post Gazette - "Experts Agree: Run Long, Live Long".

The one thing that I thought was interesting was this: "You have to exercise a lot - at 60 to 85% of you max heart rate for 40 min or more 5 times a week - to reduce significantly your risk of death."

Honey, I need to ride at least 5 times a week according to the experts.

For more and detailed information go to I Tunes and download the free podcasts titled Fitness Rocks. This podcast is hosted by a MD and has scads of interesting interviews with health researchers and reviews of credible studies. Basically for a male its exercise for 199 minutes a week. Its easier for me to maintain my HR while running rather than biking. I run and swim to support my biking.
Run for your life and exercise as if your life depended on it!