STUDY: Exercise Is Not Heart Healthy For Many
Jack From Waaaaaayyyyy Back
forms of cardiac conditioning since 1986, and lifting weights since
1970. All for naught??
____________
EXCERPT: But 20 per cent saw their maximum oxygen increase by less
than five per cent - a negligible improvement. Around 30 per cent
showed no increase in insulin sensitivity, meaning that the exercise
did not reduce their risk of diabetes.
_____________
Millions of people who strive to keep fit by jogging, swimming or
going to the gym are wasting their time, scientists said.
By Matthew Moore
Published: 7:00AM GMT 04 Feb 2010
Researchers have discovered that the health benefits of aerobic
exercise are determined by our genes - and can vary substantially
between individuals.
Around 20 per cent of the population do not get any significant
aerobic fitness benefit from regular exercise, according to an
international study led by scientists at the University of London.
Researchers say they would be better off abandoning their exercise
regime and focusing on other ways of staying healthy - such as
improving their diet or taking medication.
James Timmons of the Royal Veterinary College at the University of
London, who led the study, said that the discovery would pave the way
for more personalised treatments, with patients able to take DNA tests
to find out the most effective way of keeping their own hearts
healthy.
It could also be used to root out would-be recruits to the Armed
Forces who will never be able to reach the required fitness standards.
Dr Timmons said the research broke new ground by using the human
genome - the genetic map of the body which was decoded by scientists
10 years ago - to suggest improvements to healthcare.
"This would be one of the first examples of personalised,
genomic-based medicine," he said.
As part of the research, published in the Journal of Applied
Physiology, more than 500 participants in Europe and the US were asked
to undergo various aerobic training programmes in line with government
advice to do 30 minutes of exercise five times a week.
By the end of the 20, 12 and six week programmes the majority of
people had shown a measurable improvement in how much oxygen their
body consumes during exercise, a key indicator of aerobic fitness.
But 20 per cent saw their maximum oxygen increase by less than five
per cent - a negligible improvement. Around 30 per cent showed no
increase in insulin sensitivity, meaning that the exercise did not
reduce their risk of diabetes.
A pioneering analysis of muscle tissue samples taken from the
participants revealed a set of about 30 genes that predicted the
increase in oxygen intake. Of these, 11 were shown to have a
particular impact on how much a person could benefit from aerobic
exercise.
Dr Timmons said: �We know that low maximal oxygen consumption is a
strong risk factor for premature illness and death so the tendency is
for public health experts to automatically prescribe aerobic exercise
to increase oxygen capacity.
"Our hope is that before too long, they will be able to target that
prescription just to those who may stand a greater chance of
benefiting, and prescribe more effective preventive or therapeutic
measures to the others.�
(...)
The research was conducted in association with the Human Genomics
Laboratory in Louisiana and the Centre for Healthy Ageing at the
University of Copenhagen.
John Hurley
snip
> Currently age 66. On a regular basis, I've been running or doing other
> forms of cardiac conditioning since 1986, and lifting weights since
> 1970. All for naught??
If the research or study does not make any sense then ignore it.
Common sense and years of experience make it obvious that running has
significant short term and long term benefits.
That's all you really need to know right?
Swimming and cycling are also pretty darn good substitutes for running
if necessary. Really if one can swim well and quickly enough to get
the aerobic system working theres probably nothing better than an hour
a day of swimming ... well except for dealing with the chlorine
issues.
Lifting weights probably does not do a whole lot for you except when
one starts to get to the age of 40 and 50 and beyond where keeping
enough strength in the upper body may start to become problematic.
Just my opinion!
D Stumpus
I2Run
news:hkhoc6$3av$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
| Just thought I'd reword the title a bit...
It helped me to get over chronic asthma induced by dust.
No more, freak'in inhalers for the last 10 years, since I started
long distance walking and then running for the last 4.
Doug Freese
"D Stumpus" <dstumpu...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:hkhoc6$3av$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
And the rest die? :)
-D
D Stumpus
"Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote
> And the rest die? :)
Even worse, we all do :)
Headline: 100% of aerobic exercisers die!
John Hurley
snip
> Even worse, we all do :)
# Headline: 100% of aerobic exercisers die!
Unproven and slanderous!
My plans on dominating the fast guys in my age group involve a fair
amount of preparation but even more patience and the old wait till
they drop approach!
Charlie Pendejo
> My plans on dominating the fast guys in my age group involve a fair
> amount of preparation but even more patience and the old wait till
> they drop approach!
If you can't beat 'em, join their funeral processions?
Marcus Aurelius
preventing and/or ameliorating cardiomyopathies resulting from
various etiologies while, of course, increasing cardiac output.
Aerobic exercise increases collateral circulation through out the
body, including the heart, improves the immune response, delays organ
deterioration, and improves psychiatric well being and intellectual
functioning. Aerobic exercise, also, improves the general biochemical
status of the body (for example it's beneficial affect with regard to
maintaining normal blood sugar and insulin levels). Of course, I have
not listed all of the general nor particular beneficial affects of
regular aerobic exercise. Without a doubt, regular aerobic exercise,
adequate appropriate nutrition, abstinence from tobacco use, and
adequate rest and recreation should be the foundation of preventive
health care. I am 64 and engage in aerobic exercise each day.
dood
So go out and buy a dozen doughnuts, rent some movies, lie down on
the couch and relax. Me, I'm going to err on the side of caution
becasue it makes me feel great.
That's why I run.
d
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7147952/Millions-of-peop...
Let It Rock
wrote:
>It's on the internet so it must be true, huh?
It's on the Internet so it must be false, huh?
Or is it false because you disagree with it?
Maybe you have a scientific refutation which also employed the human
genome.
The study doesn't trash exercise but the conclusions are significant
for a surprisingly large percentage of the population.
____________
>So go out and buy a dozen doughnuts, rent some movies, lie down on
>the couch and relax. Me, I'm going to err on the side of caution
>becasue it makes me feel great.
>
>That's why I run.
>
>d
>
>On Feb 5, 11:26=A0am, hereiam@home. (Jack From Waaaaaayyyyy Back) wrote:
>> Currently age 66. On a regular basis, I've been running or doing other
>> forms of cardiac conditioning since 1986, and lifting weights since
>> 1970. =A0All for naught??
>> ____________
>> EXCERPT: But 20 per cent saw their maximum oxygen increase by less
>> than five per cent - a negligible improvement. Around 30 per cent
>> showed no increase in insulin sensitivity, meaning that the exercise
>> did not reduce their risk of diabetes.
>> _____________
>>
>> Millions of people who strive to keep fit by jogging, swimming or
>> going to the gym are wasting their time, scientists said.
>>
>> By Matthew Moore
>> Published: 7:00AM GMT 04 Feb 2010
>>
>> =A0 Researchers have discovered that the health benefits of aerobic
>> Dr Timmons said: =93We know that low maximal oxygen consumption is a
>> strong risk factor for premature illness and death so the tendency is
>> for public health experts to automatically prescribe aerobic exercise
>> to increase oxygen capacity.
>>
>> "Our hope is that before too long, they will be able to target that
>> prescription just to those who may stand a greater chance of
>> benefiting, and prescribe more effective preventive or therapeutic
>> measures to the others.=94
Wildbilly
hereiam@home. (Jack From Waaaaaayyyyy Back) wrote:
> Currently age 66. On a regular basis, I've been running or doing other
> forms of cardiac conditioning since 1986, and lifting weights since
> 1970. All for naught??
> ____________
> EXCERPT: But 20 per cent saw their maximum oxygen increase by less
> than five per cent - a negligible improvement. Around 30 per cent
> showed no increase in insulin sensitivity, meaning that the exercise
> did not reduce their risk of diabetes.
> _____________
>
> Millions of people who strive to keep fit by jogging, swimming or
> going to the gym are wasting their time, scientists said.
>
> By Matthew Moore
> Published: 7:00AM GMT 04 Feb 2010
>
> Researchers have discovered that the health benefits of aerobic
> exercise are determined by our genes - and can vary substantially
> between individuals.
>
> Around 20 per cent of the population do not get any significant
> aerobic fitness benefit from regular exercise, according to an
> international study led by scientists at the University of London.
>
> Researchers say they would be better off abandoning their exercise
> regime and focusing on other ways of staying healthy - such as
> improving their diet or taking medication.
>
> James Timmons of the
Royal Veterinary College (!??)
> at the University of
> London, who led the study, said that the discovery would pave the way
> for more personalised treatments, with patients able to take DNA tests
> to find out the most effective way of keeping their own hearts
> healthy.
>
> It could also be used to root out would-be recruits to the Armed
> Forces who will never be able to reach the required fitness standards.
>
>
> Dr Timmons said the research broke new ground by using the human
> genome - the genetic map of the body which was decoded by scientists
> 10 years ago - to suggest improvements to healthcare.
>
> "This would be one of the first examples of personalised,
> genomic-based medicine," he said.
>
> As part of the research, published in the Journal of Applied
> Physiology, more than 500 participants in Europe and the US were asked
> to undergo various aerobic training programmes in line with government
> advice to do 30 minutes of exercise five times a week.
>
> By the end of the 20, 12 and six week programmes the majority of
> people had shown a measurable improvement in how much oxygen their
> body consumes during exercise, a key indicator of aerobic fitness.
>
> But
20 per cent saw their maximum oxygen increase by less than five per
cent (I would call that an improvement, not to mention increased
flexibility and stamina)
> a negligible improvement.
> Around 30 per cent showed no
> increase in insulin sensitivity, meaning that the exercise did not
> reduce their risk of diabetes.
>
> A pioneering analysis of muscle tissue samples taken from the
> participants revealed a set of about 30 genes that predicted the
> increase in oxygen intake. Of these, 11 were shown to have a
> particular impact on how much a person could benefit from aerobic
> exercise.
>
> Dr Timmons said: �We know that low maximal oxygen consumption is a
> strong risk factor for premature illness and death so the tendency is
> for public health experts to automatically prescribe aerobic exercise
> to increase oxygen capacity.
>
> "Our hope is that before too long, they will be able to target that
> prescription just to those who may stand a greater chance of
> benefiting, and prescribe more effective preventive or therapeutic
> measures to the others.�
>
> (...)
>
> The research was conducted in association with the Human Genomics
> Laboratory in Louisiana and the Centre for Healthy Ageing at the
> University of Copenhagen.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7147952/Millions-of-people-waste-
> their-time-by-jogging.html
If exercise has never helped you, maybe the above would hold true, but a
continued improvement, even at 2% oxygen uptake improvement, out comes
for muscle mass, reduced osteoporosis, improved sleep, and just to know
that you hadn't given up on yourself, would seem to be important
benefits.
"In conclusion, combining RNA profiling with single-gene DNA marker
association analysis yields a strongly validated molecular predictor
with meaningful explanatory power."
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/01295.2009v1
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/01295.2009v1
How strong (quantifying) a predictor isn't isn't mentioned, so that it
is to be presumed that the predictor isn't a 100% correlation. This
study may apply to some, but not to all. These researchers (just people,
folks) are giving people an excuse to not try to improve their health.
At the risk of seeming vulgar, I'd say it's bullshit.
Exercise like your life depends on it.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_arresting_activists
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines
dizzy
>It's on the internet so it must be true, huh?
>So go out and buy a dozen doughnuts, rent some movies, lie down on
>the couch and relax.
Don't forget the handful of various drugs each day...
>Me, I'm going to err on the side of caution
>becasue it makes me feel great.
>
>That's why I run.
Just pop some pills, man! Altering your body chemistry with various
drugs is the *real* answer!
Doug Freese
I'm going to join the Methuselah Running club a shoot for 970 years.
-D
Marcus Aurelius
inclusive of peripheral tissues, is not the result of a single factor
as the study implies but of many factors such as tidal volume,
respiratory rate, obesity, chronic disease, lung dead space, oxygen
content of air breathed, age, cardiac output (rate and volume), lung
and chest distensibility, level of consciousness and many other
factors. The study, also, did not note the difference between alveolar
v. arteriolar oxygen concentration that would further appropriately
delineate and be probative of the same. Given the aforementioned, the
results of the study are without scientific validity as they do not
incorporate the aforementioned well established principles of
oxygenation, respiration, and ventilation.
On Feb 5, 7:49 pm, AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse. (Let It Rock)
wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:09:57 -0800 (PST), dood <dood...@yahoo.com>
> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7147952/Millions-of-peop...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jack From Waaay Back
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume that those
factors were controlled and considered and the bottom line of oxygen
usage as it relates to cardiac health was factually demonstrated.
I'm more impressed with the conclusion relating to insulin
sensitivity, and most impressed with use of the human genome.
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:53:33 -0800 (PST), Marcus Aurelius
<alexan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>With regard to the original post, adequate oxygen for the body,
>inclusive of peripheral tissues, is not the result of a single factor
>as the study implies but of many factors such as tidal volume,
>respiratory rate, obesity, chronic disease, lung dead space, oxygen
>content of air breathed, age, cardiac output (rate and volume), lung
>and chest distensibility, level of consciousness and many other
>factors. The study, also, did not note the difference between alveolar
>v. arteriolar oxygen concentration that would further appropriately
>delineate and be probative of the same. Given the aforementioned, the
>results of the study are without scientific validity as they do not
>incorporate the aforementioned well established principles of
>oxygenation, respiration, and ventilation.
>
>On Feb 5, 7:49=A0pm, AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse. (Let It Rock)
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:09:57 -0800 (PST), dood <dood...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >It's on the internet so it must be true, huh?
>>
>> It's on the Internet so it must be false, huh?
>>
>> Or is it false because you disagree with it?
>>
>> Maybe you have a scientific refutation which also employed the human
>> genome.
>>
>> The study doesn't trash exercise but the conclusions are significant
>> for a surprisingly large percentage of the population.
>> ____________
>>
>>
>>
>> >So go out and buy a dozen doughnuts, rent some movies, lie down on
>> >the couch and relax. =A0Me, I'm going to err on the side of caution
>> >becasue it makes me feel great.
>>
>> >That's why I run.
>>
>> >d
>>
>> >On Feb 5, 11:26=3DA0am, hereiam@home. (Jack From Waaaaaayyyyy Back) wrot=
>e:
>> >> Currently age 66. On a regular basis, I've been running or doing other
>> >> forms of cardiac conditioning since 1986, and lifting weights since
>> >> 1970. =3DA0All for naught??
>> >> ____________
>> >> EXCERPT: But 20 per cent saw their maximum oxygen increase by less
>> >> than five per cent - a negligible improvement. Around 30 per cent
>> >> showed no increase in insulin sensitivity, meaning that the exercise
>> >> did not reduce their risk of diabetes.
>> >> _____________
>>
>> >> Millions of people who strive to keep fit by jogging, swimming or
>> >> going to the gym are wasting their time, scientists said.
>>
>> >> By Matthew Moore
>> >> Published: 7:00AM GMT 04 Feb 2010
>>
>> >> =3DA0 Researchers have discovered that the health benefits of aerobic
>> >> Dr Timmons said: =3D93We know that low maximal oxygen consumption is a
>> >> strong risk factor for premature illness and death so the tendency is
>> >> for public health experts to automatically prescribe aerobic exercise
>> >> to increase oxygen capacity.
>>
>> >> "Our hope is that before too long, they will be able to target that
>> >> prescription just to those who may stand a greater chance of
>> >> benefiting, and prescribe more effective preventive or therapeutic
>> >> measures to the others.=3D94
>>
>> >> (...)
>>
>> >> The research was conducted in association with the Human Genomics
>> >> Laboratory in Louisiana and the Centre for Healthy Ageing at the
>> >> University of Copenhagen.
>>
>> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7147952/Millions-of-peop..=
Wildbilly
here@yomomma. (Jack From Waaay Back) wrote:
> In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume that those
> factors were controlled and considered and the bottom line of oxygen
> usage as it relates to cardiac health was factually demonstrated.
>
> I'm more impressed with the conclusion relating to insulin
> sensitivity, and most impressed with use of the human genome.
What you are impressed with, and $2.50 will buy you a cup of coffee.
Don't forget the American contribution to philosophy, "why not?".
Remember, an ant can't move a rubber tree plant. Whoops, there goes
another rubber tree plant.
Jack From Waaaayy Back
wrote:
>In article <4b6e1ea9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> here@yomomma. (Jack From Waaay Back) wrote:
>
>> In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume that those
>> factors were controlled and considered and the bottom line of oxygen
>> usage as it relates to cardiac health was factually demonstrated.
>>
>> I'm more impressed with the conclusion relating to insulin
>> sensitivity, and most impressed with use of the human genome.
>
>What you are impressed with, and $2.50 will buy you a cup of coffee.
>Don't forget the American contribution to philosophy, "why not?".
>Remember, an ant can't move a rubber tree plant. Whoops, there goes
>another rubber tree plant.
Well, I was brainwashed into believing that diabetes type 2 could be
prevented by aerobic exercise in virtually 100% of the population.
Also, 90% of the population would benefit from a cardiac standpoint.
The only exceptions would be those with an apparent genetic defect,
such as idiopathic cardiomyopathy. You see this sometimes in young,
lean, fit basketball players.
But this study threw cold water on the exercise fire.
Edward Edmonds
wrote:
> Well, I was brainwashed into believing that diabetes type 2 could be
> prevented by aerobic exercise in virtually 100% of the population.
You might have better luck w/ coffee; decaf coffee seems to offer the same
protection.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BD50N20091214
E**2
John Hurley
snip
> Well, I was brainwashed into believing that diabetes type 2 could be
> prevented by aerobic exercise in virtually 100% of the population.
Who brainwashed you into that belief?
AFAIK the more common belief is that exercise when young and avoiding
in the first place gaining too much weight are good but not perfect in
any way means or form.
Some people believe that walking is aerobic exercise. It's better
than nothing but ...
Jack From Waaay Back
<johnb...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Feb 7, 8:26=A0am, here@yomomma. (Jack From Waaaayy Back) wrote:
>
>snip
>
>> Well, I was brainwashed into believing that diabetes type 2 could be
>> prevented by aerobic exercise in virtually 100% of the population.
>
>Who brainwashed you into that belief?
The medical community.
E.g.,
http://www.drmirkin.com/diabetes/exercise_intensity.html
How does exercise prevent diabetes?
Gabe Mirkin, M.D.
(snip)
Wildbilly
here@yomomma. (Jack From Waaaayy Back) wrote:
As Marcus Aurelius posted on Feb. 6."With regard to the original post,
adequate oxygen for the body, inclusive of peripheral tissues, is not
the result of a single factor as the study implies but of many factors
such as tidal volume, respiratory rate, obesity, chronic disease, lung
dead space, oxygen content of air breathed, age, cardiac output (rate
and volume), lung and chest distensibility, level of consciousness and
many other factors. The study, also, did not note the difference between
alveolar v. arteriolar oxygen concentration that would further
appropriately delineate and be probative of the same. Given the
aforementioned, the results of the study are without scientific validity
as they do not incorporate the aforementioned well established
principles of oxygenation, respiration, and ventilation."
Let me add that. Exercise reduces blood sugar and its' concomitant
insulin peaks that are the causes of diabetes, and obesity.
Lastly, it appears that this correlation may be statistically valid for
groups, and not necessarily valid for individuals. In other words, you
may have the constellation of genetic markers that mark you as a
failure, but you may perform just fine, and visa versa.
These researchers did something with the human genome map, and now all
their friends are very happy for them, but it is too early to go
"deterministic" based on their results.
Jack From Waaay Back
wrote:
As I responded on 2/6:
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume that those
factors were controlled and considered and the bottom line of oxygen
usage as it relates to cardiac health was factually demonstrated.
I'm more impressed with the conclusion relating to insulin
sensitivity, and most impressed with use of the human genome.
>Let me add that. Exercise reduces blood sugar and its' concomitant
>insulin peaks that are the causes of diabetes, and obesity.
Yeah, that has been the party line and is apparently true for 70% of
the populace.
>Lastly, it appears that this correlation may be statistically valid for
>groups, and not necessarily valid for individuals. In other words, you
>may have the constellation of genetic markers that mark you as a
>failure, but you may perform just fine, and visa versa.
Apparently, 30% of the population has these "genetic markers."
>These researchers did something with the human genome map, and now all
>their friends are very happy for them, but it is too early to go
>"deterministic" based on their results.
No one is trashing exercise, per se. How can we when the results
suggest that 80% and 70% of the population can benefit from same?
But the results are sobering.
Wildbilly
An assumption based on an absence of evidence?
> factors were controlled and considered and the bottom line of oxygen
> usage as it relates to cardiac health was factually demonstrated.
>
> I'm more impressed with the conclusion relating to insulin
> sensitivity, and most impressed with use of the human genome.
People could help themselves by cutting back on carbohydrates (refined
grains and sugar, .a.k.a. "junk food"). Once you have diabetes, exercise
will lower your blood sugar.
>
> >Let me add that. Exercise reduces blood sugar and its' concomitant
> >insulin peaks that are the causes of diabetes, and obesity.
>
> Yeah, that has been the party line and is apparently true for 70% of
> the populace.
Another assumption based on an absence of evidence? The article says
20%. Why do you say 70%? Sugar (starches) seem to be at the bottom of
"Metabolic Syndrome" (obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high blood
pressure, premature aging).
<http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16717>
>
> >Lastly, it appears that this correlation may be statistically valid for
> >groups, and not necessarily valid for individuals. In other words, you
> >may have the constellation of genetic markers that mark you as a
> >failure, but you may perform just fine, and visa versa.
>
> Apparently, 30% of the population has these "genetic markers."
The correlation was never explained. Don't be surprised if the markers
are statistically valid for groups and not individuals. Which would mean
that they are worthless. You sound like you just want an excuse not to
get off your couch.
>
> >These researchers did something with the human genome map, and now all
> >their friends are very happy for them, but it is too early to go
> >"deterministic" based on their results.
>
> No one is trashing exercise, per se. How can we when the results
> suggest that 80% and 70% of the population can benefit from same?
>
> But the results are sobering.
>
Ah, now that one hurts ;O)
>
--
rick++
not for some vague long term benefit.
If the study showed that running had a long term
harm, then maybe I'd look at it then.
Jack From Waaay Back
wrote:
You were expecting the entire methodology spelled-out in a newspaper
article?
>> factors were controlled and considered and the bottom line of oxygen
>> usage as it relates to cardiac health was factually demonstrated.
>>
>> I'm more impressed with the conclusion relating to insulin
>> sensitivity, and most impressed with use of the human genome.
>People could help themselves by cutting back on carbohydrates (refined
>grains and sugar, .a.k.a. "junk food"). Once you have diabetes, exercise
>will lower your blood sugar.
>>
>> >Let me add that. Exercise reduces blood sugar and its' concomitant
>> >insulin peaks that are the causes of diabetes, and obesity.
>>
>> Yeah, that has been the party line and is apparently true for 70% of
>> the populace.
>
>Another assumption based on an absence of evidence? The article says
>20%. Why do you say 70%? Sugar (starches) seem to be at the bottom of
>"Metabolic Syndrome" (obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high blood
>pressure, premature aging).
><http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16717>
Uh, reading comprehension if you please. I'm saying that by
inference, 70% of the people benefit from exercise from the stanpoint
of type 2 diabetes. 100-30=70.
>>
>> >Lastly, it appears that this correlation may be statistically valid for
>> >groups, and not necessarily valid for individuals. In other words, you
>> >may have the constellation of genetic markers that mark you as a
>> >failure, but you may perform just fine, and visa versa.
>>
>> Apparently, 30% of the population has these "genetic markers."
>
>The correlation was never explained. Don't be surprised if the markers
>are statistically valid for groups and not individuals. Which would mean
>that they are worthless. You sound like you just want an excuse not to
>get off your couch.
Same response: Apparently, 30% of the population has these "genetic
markers."
And again you're not following the thread.
I've been lifting regularly since 1970, and running or doing some type
of cardio exercise regularly since 1986.
Wildbilly
Pharmaceutical companies Lundbeck A/S, and Pfizer Global Research and
Development where two of the funders of this "research". Funders are
infamous for getting the results that they are paying for.
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/01295.2009v1
>
> >> factors were controlled and considered and the bottom line of oxygen
> >> usage as it relates to cardiac health was factually demonstrated.
> >>
> >> I'm more impressed with the conclusion relating to insulin
> >> sensitivity, and most impressed with use of the human genome.
> >People could help themselves by cutting back on carbohydrates (refined
> >grains and sugar, .a.k.a. "junk food"). Once you have diabetes, exercise
> >will lower your blood sugar.
> >>
> >> >Let me add that. Exercise reduces blood sugar and its' concomitant
> >> >insulin peaks that are the causes of diabetes, and obesity.
> >>
> >> Yeah, that has been the party line and is apparently true for 70% of
> >> the populace.
> >
> >Another assumption based on an absence of evidence? The article says
> >20%. Why do you say 70%? Sugar (starches) seem to be at the bottom of
> >"Metabolic Syndrome" (obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high blood
> >pressure, premature aging).
> ><http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16717>
This site seems to have some bugs. Google "Sugar: The Bitter Truth",
produced by the University of California.
>
> Uh, reading comprehension if you please. I'm saying that by
> inference, 70% of the people benefit from exercise from the stanpoint
> of type 2 diabetes. 100-30=70.
>
> >>
> >> >Lastly, it appears that this correlation may be statistically valid for
> >> >groups, and not necessarily valid for individuals. In other words, you
> >> >may have the constellation of genetic markers that mark you as a
> >> >failure, but you may perform just fine, and visa versa.
> >>
> >> Apparently, 30% of the population has these "genetic markers."
> >
> >The correlation was never explained. Don't be surprised if the markers
> >are statistically valid for groups and not individuals. Which would mean
> >that they are worthless. You sound like you just want an excuse not to
> >get off your couch.
>
> Same response: Apparently, 30% of the population has these "genetic
> markers."
By the end of the 20, 12 and six week programmes the majority of people
had shown a measurable improvement in how much oxygen their body
consumes during exercise, a key indicator of aerobic fitness.
But 20 per cent saw their maximum oxygen increase by less than five per
cent - a negligible improvement. Around 30 per cent showed no increase
in insulin sensitivity, meaning that the exercise did not reduce their
risk of diabetes.
I guess the thing that really sticks is the dismissiveness of people's
efforts by these academics. If a person had a 1% improvement over 6
months (negligible according to these academics), that would translate
into a 20% improvement over 10 years.
Maybe not great, but not that bad. Better stamina, cardio-vascular
function, stronger, and more flexible (except for weight lifters).
Combine this with a low carb diet (which may in itself ward off diabetes)
high in vegetables, and low in refined carbs (white flour, white rice,
sugar, and, sadly, beer), and you would have the beginnings of a healthy
life style.
>
> And again you're not following the thread.
So you say.
>
> I've been lifting regularly since 1970, and running or doing some type
> of cardio exercise regularly since 1986.
Has that been wasted time?
>
> >> >These researchers did something with the human genome map, and now all
> >> >their friends are very happy for them, but
it is too early to go "deterministic" based on their results. Each of us
has some control over our own individual future. Give up, and you're
half dead already.
John Hurley
snip
> >> Well, I was brainwashed into believing that diabetes type 2 could be
> >> prevented by aerobic exercise in virtually 100% of the population.
>
> >Who brainwashed you into that belief?
>
> The medical community.
>
> E.g.,
>
> http://www.drmirkin.com/diabetes/exercise_intensity.html
This study appears to start only with women above 72 years of age.
What possible significance could you think it would hold to the
general population?
One might be tempted to argue that by starting with people that old
you have already selected out many/most of the people that might have
developed diabetes during a normal lifetime.
Believe what you want to believe. It doesn't take a lot of common
sense to understand the benefits both short term and long term that
running can give to people.
Running does take a toll on your body and many people do not enjoy
it. Probably works best when started earlier in life and used long
term.
Swimming is a good alternate option and much less stressful on many
parts of the body. You have to be a fairly strong swimmer to get a
huge aerobic thing out of it though but anything is better than
nothing.
Jack From Waaay Back
wrote:
You have evidence that the findings are not valid?
But does it continue improving?
>Maybe not great, but not that bad. Better stamina, cardio-vascular
>function, stronger, and more flexible (except for weight lifters).
You're assuming that improvement will continue at the same rate.
Seem to recall a finding some years ago that after you have jogged 50
miles a week, results tend to skew in the opposite direction.
>Combine this with a low carb diet (which may in itself ward off diabetes)
>high in vegetables, and low in refined carbs (white flour, white rice,
>sugar, and, sadly, beer), and you would have the beginnings of a healthy
>life style.
The article gives very high grades to diet.
>> And again you're not following the thread.
>So you say.
If you had been following the discussion, you wouldn't have alluded to
"couch potato."
>> I've been lifting regularly since 1970, and running or doing some type
>> of cardio exercise regularly since 1986.
>Has that been wasted time?
I don't know.
Would I be less healthy without the exercise?
Who can say?
Wildbilly
<372ef990-08df-45ac...@s12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
John Hurley <johnb...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/01295.2009v1
Jack From Waaay Back
<johnb...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Feb 7, 12:07=A0pm, stayin@home. (Jack From Waaay Back) wrote:
>
>snip
>
>> >> Well, I was brainwashed into believing that diabetes type 2 could be
>> >> prevented by aerobic exercise in virtually 100% of the population.
>>
>> >Who brainwashed you into that belief?
>>
>> The medical community.
>>
>> E.g.,
>>
>> http://www.drmirkin.com/diabetes/exercise_intensity.html
>
>This study appears to start only with women above 72 years of age.
>
>What possible significance could you think it would hold to the
>general population?
Gimme a break. I merely typed "Exercise prevents type 2 diabetes"
into Google, got a zillion hits, and copied the first one.
Also, if exercise is beneficial for geezer ladies who have never
exercised before, why not other demographic groups?
Point is that exercise has been regarded as valuable in preventing or
lessening the severity of type 2.
Wildbilly
brown colored glasses on, because that is who you are. Good luck with
that.
In article <4b6f4243...@news.qis.net>,
John Hurley
snip
> Gimme a break. I merely typed "Exercise prevents type 2 diabetes"
> into Google, got a zillion hits, and copied the first one.
>
> Also, if exercise is beneficial for geezer ladies who have never
> exercised before, why not other demographic groups?
>
> Point is that exercise has been regarded as valuable in preventing or
> lessening the severity of type 2.
Did it not work for you?
I am not understanding where you are trying to go here ...
There is a whole wide range of things that some people might call
exercise ... starting with walks around the block and going up from
there.
The more you put into it the more that you get out of it ... it is
really that simple.
Jack From Waaay Back
<johnb...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Feb 7, 5:53=A0pm, stayin@home. (Jack From Waaay Back) wrote:
>
>snip
>
>> Gimme a break. =A0I merely typed "Exercise prevents type 2 diabetes"
>> into Google, got a zillion hits, and copied the first one.
>>
>> Also, if exercise is beneficial for geezer ladies who have never
>> exercised before, why not other demographic groups?
>>
>> Point is that exercise has been regarded as valuable in preventing or
>> lessening the severity of type 2.
>
>Did it not work for you?
Who knows?
>I am not understanding where you are trying to go here ...
Nowhere. Merely pointing out a study that bucks the party line
regarding the beneficial effects of exercise on cardiac status and
insulin resistance.
>There is a whole wide range of things that some people might call
>exercise ... starting with walks around the block and going up from
>there.
>
>The more you put into it the more that you get out of it ... it is
>really that simple.
Now you know that's not true.
There's a point of diminishing returns in every endeavor.
You wouldn't, e.g., recommend jogging 12 hrs. a day.
Dear ol' granny used to say as she ate her sausage sandwich and drank
her one bottle of beer every day at 12 noon, "Everything in
moderation."
She went to her eternal reward at age 96.
Jack From Waaay Back
wrote:
>You are obviously from alt.bitterness, and you are going to keep your
>brown colored glasses on, because that is who you are. Good luck with
>that.
The a.b newsgroup died 10 years ago, and now merely serves as a place
to launch cross-posts.
Hey man, if you believe that exercise is a panacea then by all means
be content with your beliefs.
John Hurley
snip
> >The more you put into it the more that you get out of it ... it is
> >really that simple.
>
> Now you know that's not true.
Most of the top long distance runners are doing 100 to 150 miles a
week. They would not be doing that much if it was not needed to
compete at the highest level.
So let's just guess that the point of diminishing returns for long
distance running is over a 100 miles a week.
How does that stack up to what you are doing?
Jack From Waaayyy Back
<johnb...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Tore knee cartilage lifting weights two months before age 61 in 2005
and stopped running, not really because of the knee which is fine, but
because of simultaneous foot problems: plantar's fasciitis, hammertoe,
right bunion, and recurring sole blisters. Prior to stopping, did 4
miles a day, 7 days a week. So now the aerobic workout consists of
ski machine, stair climber, and gliding machine, 6 days a week, 36
minutes a day.
Weights 2-3 days a week.
k
news:op.u7rl5tbah5l7nc@desktop:
decaff coffee induces insulin resistance. every time I drink a cup my
neuropathy is increased