Jseis 

I was fine with the OP's lust for some slender 48 YO hottie but the thread's turned so many corners that it has rent the space time continuum.

Bacciagalupe

The study not only acknowledges EPO use, it assumes it.

In their results, they have not detected any uptick in mortality rates for those who were pros from the 90s forward. Longer-term studies are almost certainly needed, as that could change as those riders get older.

Dunbar

AFAIK this is an observational study that isn't trying to determine causation. I am aware that epidemiology is full of really bad science, especially in the area of diet/nutrition. If the top athletes in the sport who spend 25-30hrs/week doing hard training for years live longer than average lifespans than the rest of us are probably safe. Unless you think life is just a contest to see who lives the longest this should be seen as positive news. BTW, if you think superior genetics predispose all professional athletes to longer lifespans look no further than the NFL for some sobering statistics.

Long Tom

merlinextraligh

Actually the data there is rather conflicting. NFL players appear to die of alzheimers and CTE at arate above the avearage population. Heavier players, i.e. offensive linemen tend to have higher than normal CV disease.

But as a group the average life expectancy for NFL players is above average for American males.

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...ger/54847564/1

So even for something that seems obvious, the datat isn't as clear as you might expect.

Bah Humbug

Yup. Back when I was a gym rat all the bros would love these studies for any excuse to do even less cardio than they did already, as if 30 mild minutes on the elliptical was going to hurt them.

TromboneAl

Often it's the media that changes an association into causation. In this case

"The findings offer "good proof that sports—even if the sport is very, very intensive—among healthy people, without any heart disease, is still beneficial," said Eloi Marijon, one of the study authors and a cardiologist at the European Georges Pompidou Hospital and Paris Descartes University."

If instead of "good proof" it had said "support for the idea," I would have gone along with it. This chart:



offers support for the idea that organic food causes autism, but it does not offer good proof that organic food causes autism.

This is the assumption. However, maybe these guys would have lived 12 years longer than the rest of us had they not performed all this extreme training. That's entirely reasonable.

This may seem like overly hard-nosed science or nit-picking, but as you say, major scientific errors have been made based on just this kind of bad science.

Dunbar

What does the current science say about people who exercise more modestly? If it doesn't show those people living 12 years longer than average than that doesn't seem like a very reasonable hypothesis to me. Of course, you are free to run your own studies and attempt to prove me wrong.

TromboneAl

Sorry for not being clear. Genetics can cause some people to live longer than others, unrelated to exercise. Some people die at 60, others at over 100-- quite a range . Do we know how long TDF athletes would live if they didn't do all that training? No. So, we don't know whether the training caused them to die early.

TDF athletes and normal people are different genetically, so comparing the life expectancy of those two groups is comparing apples and oranges, and we can't make any conclusions about the effect of training.

Dunbar

Technically we're all genetically unique. I think you're proposing a study that would be impossible to conduct. By definition, in order to find gifted athletes they would need to have proven themselves in that sport which presupposes they've spent years of their lives training. AFAIK, they actually have done studies on general population engaged in various levels of exercise and none of those have shown it to reduce life expectancy vs. average lifespan.

Bacciagalupe

Is it? I don't see why.

The TdF study showed that the ex-pros not only outlived the general population by 6 years, they also had 33% lower rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes. That's a pretty good indicator that vigorous exercise doesn't cause long-term heart problems.

The genetic variations that lead to excellent cycling performance -- e.g. specific body shapes, higher natural hematocrit levels -- do not necessarily increase longevity. Determining which physiological factors do contribute to longevity, or how lifelong moderate exercisers compare to life-long vigorous exercisers, would all require... the kinds of studies you're criticizing.

I also don't see how scientific research, when conducted in good faith, is the core problem. E.g. the "MMR vaccine causes autism" claim was not originated by honest science; the initial paper was actually fraudulent. The refusal to let go of the fraudulent claim is not perpetuated by science, but by a refusal to accept the subsequent research.

Journalists can get things wrong, but that's not the fault of the scientists. (They can also get things right.) And whatever "bad science" is produced, it has a good chance of being tested and falsified.

Bacciagalupe

Odd, I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. Small amounts of moderate exercise, along with avoiding sedentary behavior, provides most of the benefits you can get from exercise: Lower blood pressure, improved cholesterol levels, lower cardiac risks, lower chance of getting diabetes, lower risks of colon and breast cancer, slows bone density loss, improved mood, improved longevity....

https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/health/

merlinextraligh

The public health people tend to undersell the value of more exrcise, and strenuous exercise. They know most people hardly exercise at all, and they don't want the exercise recommendation to seem overwhelming. So they settle for trying to get people to do something.

Your link for example says 150 minutes a week gets you a benefit, but it also suggests that 7 hours, 420 minutes a week, which would be huge for the average American would be btter.

Long Tom

Well, in honor of my wife's concerns.... lol... I did an aggressive 57 miles today that beat my previous best average mph for this route by a full .7 mph! Woohoo! I was attacking the hills hard, and there are several big 'uns on this ride, and hammering everywhere else.

I'm a little whipped, but I feel great.

Machka 

+1

A number of years ago, the advice was that people should aim for a minimum of 60 minutes of moderate exercise a day (7 hours a week), and preferably 90 minutes a day (10.5 hours a week).

They barely published that suggestion, when they were flooded with people gasping in horror that they it might be suggested that they spend 6.25% of their week doing moderate exercise.

The study tried to ease that burden by suggesting that people break the exercise up over the day ... take the stairs, walk to work, do a bit of gardening, toss the ball around with your kids .... but it was still too much of a shock. And although it is still a good idea to exercise that much, they don't advertise it around because they're afraid it will turn people off exercise entirely.


[HR][/HR]

I log almost half the recommended 10.5 hours a week just walking to and from work. And this week, I've already logged about 5 hours in additional exercise (cycling + walking). So I'm pretty much at the recommended level. It's really not hard to do.

[HR][/HR]

And just to throw something else into the mix ... what about people who have physically active jobs?

I've done that a few times over the years. When I was in uni, I had a physically active job 2 days a week, 8 hours a day. It took a bit of getting used to for the first couple weeks, but then I got into it, and it was great (I had upper body strength for the first time in years!). Rowan is currently in a physically active job ... 5-6 days a week, 8 hours a day. It took him about 10 days to feel comfortable out there, but it's all good now.

The human body is meant to work and be strong. It functions better that way.

Long Tom

Amen, brother.

I didn't go to my 30th high school reunion, which just happened, but they emailed me a few pics. I would say that 2/3 of the people were OBESE; not overweight, obese. And then there were some just overweight people. It did not appear there's been much exercising going on in the last 3 decades with that crew.

I have been lucky to have recieved a couple pearls of wisdom, dropped on me when I was a young man, and they really resonated at the time, and then they've turned out to be great, great advice. The first was to learn how to be happy when things were a PITA, because life is a PITA. The other is very succinct: use it or lose it. Truer words have not been spoken in regards to the human body.

Machka 

If that was for my comment ... I'm not a "brother".

elcruxio

Don't be a Bro man...

Machka 

I'm neither "Bro" or "man".

achoo

Pro cyclists at that level tend to be smaller ectomorphs.

Comparing them a "general population" that has a much different genetic makeup in general seems rather dubious.

Bacciagalupe

Only if you can demonstrate:
• a link between specific body types and longevity
• that cyclists have specific genetic makeup(s)
• that any genetic variations specific to cyclists are linked to longevity

E.g. if it turns out that high hematocrit does not result in a longer lifespan (afaik that seems to be the case), then we might not expect pro endurance athletes to live longer lives.

In addition, other studies don't have this potential problem, and produce similar results. E.g. researchers looked at the Copenhagen City Heart Study, and compared "joggers" (anyone who runs regularly, not elites) to the general population. Regular jogging increased longevity by 6 years for men, 5 years for women.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23449779

Bacciagalupe

That may be possible. But more likely is variations in the conclusions of different studies, and nuances of the recommendations.

The current research is showing that you should aim for 150 minutes of low- or moderate-effort exercise, or 75 minutes of high-intensity exercise, or a combination thereof (e.g. 75 low, 40 high). When you go over that amount, exercise provides diminishing returns in terms of longevity and heart benefits. A typical example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21846575

The TdF study and the Copenhagen study fit this hypothesis well, since you have a group of high-intensity exercisers who get roughly the same benefit as regular non-elite joggers.


You may be thinking of studies on sedentary behavior.

The claim in that respect is that being sedentary causes its own problems, which might not be offset by exercise. Thus you should try to walk instead of drive, take the stairs instead of the escalator, use a standing desk, and so forth. (https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/1...-out-dont-sit/ is a typical example.)


A better way to think of it is: All the research are pieces in a puzzle, that is nowhere near complete. The best you can do is take a look at the studies, and try to figure out how it fits together; or, rely on someone who tries to do that for you. (IMO, Gretchen Reynolds does a pretty good job of the latter.)

merlinextraligh

I don't think it shows that at all. That link and your previous link both show that that much exercise is good, but more is better.

"Every additional 15 min of daily exercise beyond the minimum amount of 15 min a day further reduced all-cause mortality by 4% (95% CI 2·5-7·0) and all-cancer mortality by 1% (0·3-4·5)."And your previous link showed that 420 minutes a week is better than 150.

The recommendation is a public health recommendation for a general population, and it's better to get a lot of people doing some exercise than it is to set the bar impossibly high, and have everyone throw their hands up.

It by no means suggests that more than 150 minutes a week is not beneficial.

Long Tom

Dude.

bigfred 

Not.