Not one NFL, NBA, strongman or similar body type has ever seen 100 years.
Health and fitness are directly related age 90+ 400-800m types have been proven to live the longest. A blend of strength- endurance wins out. Not extreme endurance or extreme power-strength.
A low BMI, strong social network, access to quality healthcare, moderate exercise regiment, good nutritional habits, etc. That is the secret.
Only about 2 individuals studied in over 1,000 that had a portly 24 BMI, made it to 100.
"11 studies that included 1075 centenarians, the BMI range was between 19.3-24.4 kg/m2, with an average BMI of 21.8"
Longest lived former president Jimmy Carter currently is 21.2 and will most likely see 100 years. He was never more than 22.6 in life. Not a random coincidence. - even a recent former president 6'1" 250lb may see 90 years, but no more.
The one most important ingredient is a low body mass in a steady consistent matter throughout your life and fitness keeps you healthy. Many have made it to 85 or even 90 with higher body mass index and in reality this is a good long life for most. A 33 bmi individual might, 1 in a 100k make it to 90, but never 110 or 115. Of course only quality of life matters past 80 or 90 years.
There is a myth on these forums that 15-20mpw is optimal for health. I don't know where it came from, but it's not supported by research. This is a recent (2022) large study showing best benefit is 5-10hrs a week but no detriment above 10 hrs. Cardio health specifically was looked at given rumours it can be bad.
The bodybuilders dying in their early 30s are part of the "fitness" industry.
Yup the bodybuilding industry is a sad state of affairs. For most elite bodybuilders strength training and PEDs go hand in hand and cardio is a total afterthought. In this case the PED’s help stimulate muscles to grow, including the heart. However the heart in a lot of cases just can’t keep up which is why there are so many cases of bodybuilders dropping dead via heart attack.
There is a myth on these forums that 15-20mpw is optimal for health. I don't know where it came from, but it's not supported by research. This is a recent (2022) large study showing best benefit is 5-10hrs a week but no detriment above 10 hrs. Cardio health specifically was looked at given rumours it can be bad.
If you think walking alone is ok you're kidding yourself.
It would be interesting to see who financed/ encouraged such research.
When James O’Keefe came out with the findings of his research in 2012…there was such a knee jerk reaction from the running industry…you could almost hear the rush to keyboards in a mad attempt to refute his work.
Simce then there has been more studies to back up O’Keefe’s original premise.
Both diametrically opposed viewpoints can’t be right. And of course there are the increasing findings and observations to show the growing numbers of heart issues / complications from overdoing cardio efforts.
A recent long term study, keenly quoted by cardiologists, point to this being the case.
It is in the interests of many in the sports industry to push the idea that more is better. You can’t sell many $10,000 bikes or expensive carbon plated shoes or sports gels etc if the only thing required was a short jog or ride across town. Too many careers would be affected if this was found to be the case…
There is a myth on these forums that 15-20mpw is optimal for health. I don't know where it came from, but it's not supported by research. This is a recent (2022) large study showing best benefit is 5-10hrs a week but no detriment above 10 hrs. Cardio health specifically was looked at given rumours it can be bad.
If you think walking alone is ok you're kidding yourself.
It would be interesting to see who financed/ encouraged such research.
When James O’Keefe came out with the findings of his research in 2012…there was such a knee jerk reaction from the running industry…you could almost hear the rush to keyboards in a mad attempt to refute his work.
Simce then there has been more studies to back up O’Keefe’s original premise.
Both diametrically opposed viewpoints can’t be right. And of course there are the increasing findings and observations to show the growing numbers of heart issues / complications from overdoing cardio efforts.
A recent long term study, keenly quoted by cardiologists, point to this being the case.
It is in the interests of many in the sports industry to push the idea that more is better. You can’t sell many $10,000 bikes or expensive carbon plated shoes or sports gels etc if the only thing required was a short jog or ride across town. Too many careers would be affected if this was found to be the case…
This recent study, if you read it carefully, is not reversing the well known results that moderate exercise suffices and that very high exercise is correlated with slightly higher mortality. Several quotes below, where VPA and MPA are respectively vigorous and moderate physical activity:
” the nearly lowest mortality was observed among individuals who reported ≈150 to 300 min/wk of long-term leisure-time VPA or 300 to 600 min/wk of long-term leisure-time MPA. Higher levels of either VPA or MPA did not clearly show further lower all-cause, CVD, and non-CVD mortality or harm. Moreover, for individuals who reported <300 min/wk of long-term leisure-time MPA, additional leisure-time VPA was associated with lower mortality; however, among those who reported ≥300 min/wk of long-term leisure-time MPA, additional leisure-time VPA did not appear to be associated with lower mortality beyond MPA.
…
Our findings suggest that any combinations of medium to high levels of VPA (75–300 min/wk) and MPA (150–600 min/wk) can provide nearly the maximum mortality reduction (≈35%–42%). “
This figure is particularly visually illustrative in that VPA benefits little if you are already getting ~5 hours of moderate physical activity. In my reading, the most interesting aspect of this study is to introduce a 2-year lag between exercise reporting time and mortality assessment to remove the reverse causation bias in previous studies (where mortality risk factors cause people to start or stop exercising), which seems to remove most, but not all, of the slightly higher mortality risk for VPA over 5 hours/week.
There is a myth on these forums that 15-20mpw is optimal for health. I don't know where it came from, but it's not supported by research. This is a recent (2022) large study showing best benefit is 5-10hrs a week but no detriment above 10 hrs. Cardio health specifically was looked at given rumours it can be bad.
If you think walking alone is ok you're kidding yourself.
On another point of rebuttal…
I’ve yet to see one interview with a centenarian, or one stat coming from a blue zone that attributes their longer life to the pursuit of race times / miles per week/ PB’s/ or even weight lifted…not one. Perhaps you have, but they would be very rare examples.
Instead the common denominators appear to be, good social connections, activity ( not exercise) but a good amount of the low level day to day sort, a good diet ( with a few treats now and then) and a life relatively free of stress ( exercise is a stress to the body…the more volume / frequency / intensity…think fight or flight…the more stress).
To be fair Runnersworld and others did a good job refuting O'Keefe. He massively misrepresented the data. I've not seen any large studies supporting his work.
If you take a large population some will have heart defects and exercise may exacerbate these conditions. Same reason some people can run all their lives and others need new hips at 40 - an underlying cause or bad genetics.
Exercise is generally very good and as long as you're not overtraining it should be healthy and a lot better than doing too little. There're far too many anecdotal stories about exercise leading to problems. What about all the people who have health problems despite doing 3hrs per week? You take a large enough population and you'll find problems in every group.
To be fair Runnersworld and others did a good job refuting O'Keefe. He massively misrepresented the data. I've not seen any large studies supporting his work.
If you take a large population some will have heart defects and exercise may exacerbate these conditions. Same reason some people can run all their lives and others need new hips at 40 - an underlying cause or bad genetics.
Exercise is generally very good and as long as you're not overtraining it should be healthy and a lot better than doing too little. There're far too many anecdotal stories about exercise leading to problems. What about all the people who have health problems despite doing 3hrs per week? You take a large enough population and you'll find problems in every group.
We have mundane statistical techniques to answer such whataboutist questions. It’s not that complicated.
To be fair Runnersworld and others did a good job refuting O'Keefe. He massively misrepresented the data. I've not seen any large studies supporting his work.
If you take a large population some will have heart defects and exercise may exacerbate these conditions. Same reason some people can run all their lives and others need new hips at 40 - an underlying cause or bad genetics.
Exercise is generally very good and as long as you're not overtraining it should be healthy and a lot better than doing too little. There're far too many anecdotal stories about exercise leading to problems. What about all the people who have health problems despite doing 3hrs per week? You take a large enough population and you'll find problems in every group.
We have mundane statistical techniques to answer such whataboutist questions. It’s not that complicated.
What I was getting at is that large studies are what are important. Not anecdotal evidence around your peer group, which is what a lot of people report.