Pepin Posted February 15, 2015 Posted February 15, 2015 I think I disagree with that. In the modern time, most people aren't active or strong compared to humans from three hundred years ago. What is considered strong nowadays was weak to average in the past. The basic movements like squats and deadlifts played an integral part in everyday life. Now, these movements are not as well favored due to a completely different way of living, which causes issues in how we move. Worse, some muscles get overworked which cause large imbalances in how we move. I am not saying that this is good or bad, rather that most people have to be taught the more natural movements and how to exercise. A good coach or instructor will teach you a lot. As far as P.E teachers, I really doubt they are qualified to teach. We actually have to work a lot harder to achieve the same fitness levels in the past, mostly because our whole day isn't structured around surviving anymore.
BD91 Posted February 15, 2015 Posted February 15, 2015 What is considered strong nowadays was weak to average in the past. Oh really?
st434u Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 I'm not so convinced that exercise is as beneficial for health as most people think. I think it could be that there is selection bias involved. That is, people who are healthy exercise more, because they feel like it, and those who are unhealthy exercise less, since they feel less drive to and are less able to exercise. I still think that exercise probably has some benefits for health, and if someone felt like exercising but they were kept locked in a dark room, that would clearly be bad for their health, but I'm still looking for evidence that supports the idea that exercise is greatly beneficial.
luxfelix Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 I'm not so convinced that exercise is as beneficial for health as most people think. I think it could be that there is selection bias involved. That is, people who are healthy exercise more, because they feel like it, and those who are unhealthy exercise less, since they feel less drive to and are less able to exercise. I still think that exercise probably has some benefits for health, and if someone felt like exercising but they were kept locked in a dark room, that would clearly be bad for their health, but I'm still looking for evidence that supports the idea that exercise is greatly beneficial. Could you design an experiment for yourself to see whether or not exercise benefits your health personally? That way, you'll have first-hand data.
J. D. Stembal Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Everyone in this thread has a different definition of exercise in their minds. You have to remember to define your terms. In my mind, there are three basic requirements for fitness, and they aren't running, swimming, skiing, or cycling. Of course, nutrition has to come before fitness, so if you eat a lot of processed foods and more than 150 grams of carbohydrates per day, you are preventing yourself from reaching any lofty fitness goals. 1) Walk a minimum of an hour a day outside. 2) Don't sit for more than 10 minutes at a time. 3) Be flexible, energetic, and have a strong posture. Everything else athletic you can add on top of this foundation. Mark Serene posted a great video by Elliot Hulse in reply # 26. That video series on bioenergetics is life-changing to put it simply. I feel like a completely different person after following these routines for a few weeks.
st434u Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Could you design an experiment for yourself to see whether or not exercise benefits your health personally? That way, you'll have first-hand data. I don't think I could, because I myself would suffer from the same selection bias. That is, if I'm healthy I will feel like exercising, and if and when I am unhealthy I wouldn't. As I said above, I agree that forcing someone (or yourself) to not exercise when they want to is bad. What I'm dubious about is that exercise is greatly beneficial for the health of those people who feel they are too tired to exercise. Most people think of them as lazy, because they don't want to exercise (and most of the time they also see themselves that way). But I think their bodies might be telling them not to exercise for a reason. That's not to say they can't exercise. Obviously if a tiger is coming to get you and you're unarmed, you run, even if you could injure yourself while running. You can force someone to exercise even if it would damage their health to do it. And it could be that you still see many of the biological markers for health in those people, because now they're exercising, just like the healthy people are, who exercise because they feel like it. Again, I'm not saying that I know for a fact that the idea that exercise is wonderful for everybody is false, I'm just saying I don't know for a fact that it is true.
Anuojat Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 I don't think I could, because I myself would suffer from the same selection bias. That is, if I'm healthy I will feel like exercising, and if and when I am unhealthy I wouldn't. As I said above, I agree that forcing someone (or yourself) to not exercise when they want to is bad. What I'm dubious about is that exercise is greatly beneficial for the health of those people who feel they are too tired to exercise. Most people think of them as lazy, because they don't want to exercise (and most of the time they also see themselves that way). But I think their bodies might be telling them not to exercise for a reason. That's not to say they can't exercise. Obviously if a tiger is coming to get you and you're unarmed, you run, even if you could injure yourself while running. You can force someone to exercise even if it would damage their health to do it. And it could be that you still see many of the biological markers for health in those people, because now they're exercising, just like the healthy people are, who exercise because they feel like it. Again, I'm not saying that I know for a fact that the idea that exercise is wonderful for everybody is false, I'm just saying I don't know for a fact that it is true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_exercise#Health_effects ""Not everyone benefits equally from exercise. There is tremendous variation in individual response to training; where most people will see a moderate increase in endurance from aerobic exercise, some individuals will as much as double their oxygen uptake, while others can never augment endurance. However, muscle hypertrophy from resistance training is primarily determined by diet and testosterone.This genetic variation in improvement from training is one of the key physiological differences between elite athletes and the larger population. Studies have shown that exercising in middle age leads to better physical ability later in life.""" REALLY important this part of the artictle on wikipedia
st434u Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Yeah, but what I'm saying is that even if a couch potato becomes fit/muscular/athletic by forcing themselves to exercise, that doesn't necessarily mean they are now healthier than they were before. It just means they have the same type of bodies as those who are generally healthy. Athletes dropping dead all of a sudden, or developing cancer or other life threatening diseases is not uncommon. It happens less often than to the general population, but again, this might be selection bias. It doesn't in and of itself necessarily show causation, only correlation.
J. D. Stembal Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Yeah, but what I'm saying is that even if a couch potato becomes fit/muscular/athletic by forcing themselves to exercise, that doesn't necessarily mean they are now healthier than they were before. It just means they have the same type of bodies as those who are generally healthy. Athletes dropping dead all of a sudden, or developing cancer or other life threatening diseases is not uncommon. It happens less often than to the general population, but again, this might be selection bias. It doesn't in and of itself necessarily show causation, only correlation. Where is the evidence that exercise correlates with disease and death? Which types of exercise correlate with which disease and which cause of death?
st434u Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Where is the evidence that exercise correlates with disease and death? Which types of exercise correlate with which disease and which cause of death? No, sorry for the misunderstanding, I realize what I typed may not have been entirely clear. What I meant was that there is correlation between athletic performance/fitness/big muscles and health, but that those things don't necessarily cause health.
Anuojat Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Yeah, but what I'm saying is that even if a couch potato becomes fit/muscular/athletic by forcing themselves to exercise, that doesn't necessarily mean they are now healthier than they were before. It just means they have the same type of bodies as those who are generally healthy. Athletes dropping dead all of a sudden, or developing cancer or other life threatening diseases is not uncommon. It happens less often than to the general population, but again, this might be selection bias. It doesn't in and of itself necessarily show causation, only correlation. Wait so bodies that are more fit and less fat/obese/thin are the same for health? I might have it toally wqrong here but the point of exersise is not to become healthies in the absense of your current condition. If youre not fat/thin (thin being muscularly weak) and you maintain healthy diet then exersise certainly isint required for health, becasue whatever is it that you do already evidently keeps your msucles strong enough and bodys fat/weight ratio to one which is healthy. Now as for ADDITIONAL exersise beyond this, ill leave that to each personal taste and experiences if mroe exersise helps one feel better and scientific papers to reveal us more. Also defininf exersise is important too, 10 minutes walking outside is considered "exersise" by some. While other only attrivbute it to athletic or bodybuilding activities.
J. D. Stembal Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 No, sorry for the misunderstanding, I realize what I typed may not have been entirely clear. What I meant was that there is correlation between athletic performance/fitness/big muscles and health, but that those things don't necessarily cause health. We need to step back and define exercise, then we need to define health. Does health mean that one has no diseases at all? If I get a pimple, am I no longer disease free? How many diseases can you have before you are unhealthy? Is health more closely correlated to nutrition instead of exercise? If you are three hundred pounds and obese, you won't have the capability to get much exercise done. The effects of exercise can be measured empirically with strength, flexibility, endurance, body symmetry, and speed. However, we are still left with an apparent inability to measure health. How about we measure health by how few health care dollars will be spent on a person during a lifetime?
Pepin Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Health is a high level abstraction containing a large set of different measurements. There is not some thing out there called "health", rather it unifies many different concepts with similar properties. Health might be defined as "a physical state which is preferable". That is off the top of my head and there is a likely a better definition. Anyway, when we say that someone is healthy, we are saying that among the various measurements of health, they check out pretty well. Doctors and physical trainers are capable of providing these tests. Something which improves health would be something that would improve your physical state. In a way, being healthy is more a measure of not being unhealthy. What a doctor does is check across a variety of measurements, and will attempt to identify a problem and gauge its magnitude. If you smoke, the doctor will say that it will have a large negative effect on your cardiovascular system, that it increases your chance getting cancer, and so on. These are states which are argued to not be preferable. As with any high order concept, it is possible to gauge measurements according to circumstance. Someone who is born with a rare genetic disorder will have a different standard of health than someone without it. Someone who picked up an STI can still be deemed "healthy" by either omitting the STI in the equation, or by taking the effects of the STI and readjusting the calculation. The elderly have a different standard of health than the young. With that said, it makes sense to use the term healthy to quickly convey that a person checks out on a number of measurements without providing the particular details, all which is basically saying that the person's physical state is preferable.The term unhealthy tends to be more focused as in "eating that food is unhealthy", but in essence the same is being said, that the physical state is not preferable. Now if someone were to ask "what is healthy/unhealthy about them", you could go into detail about all the various measurements. They might have a great diet, work out frequently, but have a meth problem. Their blood work may be rather good and the few bad things have little effect on their physical state. Meh, it would take a lot more time to flesh out this post completely, especially since a lot of it is providing shorthand instead of accuracy, but I think it gets the idea across. Then again, i am a little sick and sleep deprived, so this post might be more difficult to read than I think.
AccuTron Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Oh really? I hope that guy doesn't play with small children by tossing them around--they'd go orbital !!
AccuTron Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Health is a high level abstraction containing a large set of different measurements. There is not some thing out there called "health", rather it unifies many different concepts with similar properties. ... Then again, i am a little sick and sleep deprived, so this post might be more difficult to read than I think. That's a great post. If you can be healthy doing it, do more of your work a little sick and sleep deprived!
J. D. Stembal Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 In a way, being healthy is more a measure of not being unhealthy. This is why I suggested measuring health by adding up all the health care dollars one consumes over time. It stands to reason that on average healthier people will see doctors less often.
shirgall Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 This is why I suggested measuring health by adding up all the health care dollars one consumes over time. It stands to reason that on average healthier people will see doctors less often. There is a certain amount of investment in time and money in its maintenance that goes up as we age, I can attest.
J. D. Stembal Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 There is a certain amount of investment in time and money in its maintenance that goes up as we age, I can attest. Indeed, but a diabetic, for example, is going to need more medical maintenance than a non-diabetic.
st434u Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Wait so bodies that are more fit and less fat/obese/thin are the same for health? It depends on what you mean, and I don't know if I got it. Maybe if you ask me in another way, I'll be able to understand what you think I said, and then I can answer if that's what I meant or not. We need to step back and define exercise, then we need to define health. I'd say health is a lifeform living in a condition that is optimal, or close to it, biologically. How about we measure health by how few health care dollars will be spent on a person during a lifetime? The problem with this is that someone who is dead doesn't have any health care dollars spent on them.
Mark Serene Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 I'd say health is a lifeform living in a condition that is optimal, or close to it, biologically. How do you know what's optimal? I think, depending on the age of a person, optimal health means a person has a high capacity for physical functioning.
J. D. Stembal Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 It depends on what you mean, and I don't know if I got it. Maybe if you ask me in another way, I'll be able to understand what you think I said, and then I can answer if that's what I meant or not. I'd say health is a lifeform living in a condition that is optimal, or close to it, biologically. The problem with this is that someone who is dead doesn't have any health care dollars spent on them. Then, it no longer matters as they are neither healthy or unhealthy. They have expired and cease to exist on a timeline. We are trying to correlate exercise and health, if that is possible. The definition of health you offered doesn't get us any closer to that goal.
Pepin Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 This is why I suggested measuring health by adding up all the health care dollars one consumes over time. It stands to reason that on average healthier people will see doctors less often. Philosophically I would disagree as it isn't measuring health directly. As a proxy? Sure, it might have a good deal of accuracy for 75-95% of the population. There would be issues with the method such as not being able to tell the difference between health and lack of money. Someone who is poor is much more likely to avoid going to the doctor at all cost. The homeless cannot really go to the doctors. There might also be people who don't believe in doctors and instead prefer going to alternative medicine type places. Another issue is that health is dependent upon genetics. Some people can doing awful things to their bodies and never have any complications from it. While others who spend a lot of time taking care of their body seem to have lots of issues just because of their genes. Those outside the standard deviation would be exempt from this measurement. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a metric that would correlate with health, but rather that it wouldn't be the best metric. It would still be pretty useful, especially if you start to compare it against other figures.
st434u Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 How do you know what's optimal? It's not easy, but a combination of functionality, absence of disease, and a full lifespan would be what I'm looking for in determining this. I think, depending on the age of a person, optimal health means a person has a high capacity for physical functioning. Well I agree. But someone can be healthier or less healthy for their age; in the same way that we can say that someone is a faster or slower runner given their age, or their sex, or their race, or their body fat %, etc; but not in the absolute, or when compared to the rest of the population at large. Then, it no longer matters as they are neither healthy or unhealthy. They have expired and cease to exist on a timeline. We are trying to correlate exercise and health, if that is possible. The definition of health you offered doesn't get us any closer to that goal. So, in your view, a 22 year old award winning athlete who all of a sudden collapses and dies of a heart attack during a warmup, was perfectly healthy, because his athletic performance was top-notch? I don't see health in this way. Health is a continuum that goes from alive to dead, with dead being the ultimate state of unhealthiness.
aliasneo Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 Just dance! Shake what your momma gave you because it's yours. "Thanks for the gift of life, ma. I never asked for it, but I'm here now and I'm going to do what makes me feel good. I hope to see you in the future! I'm going to go dance now!" - an actual conversation. Exercise is good, but a lot of people see it as a boring, tedious chore. Don't be afraid to use your imagination and create your own exercises. Last week, I went outside and pretended the mole hills in my yard were landmines and I had to keep the cats away and lead them to safety. I ran, dove, crept slowly, jumped and when I was done, I forgot it was even winter outside. LOL
J. D. Stembal Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 So, in your view, a 22 year old award winning athlete who all of a sudden collapses and dies of a heart attack during a warmup, was perfectly healthy, because his athletic performance was top-notch? I don't see health in this way. Health is a continuum that goes from alive to dead, with dead being the ultimate state of unhealthiness. Averages would make this extraordinary individual case irrelevant. Death is not unhealthiness. Death is death. A car accident could deliver a healthy person to "the ultimate state of unhealthiness", as you put it.
Recommended Posts