#22

I will stick with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that vigorous exercise builds muscle mass and preserves cardiovascular resources.

Further, like all studies, it can and probably does have little to do with our individual situation. If an exercise regime results in major improvements in a multitude of bio indicators, then it is clearly working for me and I will continue it.

3 Likes
#23

Right! Only a truly clueless person regarding exercise could think their varsity high school fitness regime covers them past a few months.

It is such an obvious finding. “We found that when falling out of a boat in the ovean, our subjects became wet, but only remained that way while afloat.”

3 Likes
#24

Yes, perhaps the Finnish study connects nicely to the concept of healthspan vs lifespan when it comes to high active individuals. It makes sense to consider all of the negative aging aspect of intense exercise. The increased injuries, inflammation, calories, mTOR, etc. It becomes an informed cost/benefit decision for those of us that have to face the risks of overdoing it many times a week.

What doesn’t necessarily makes sense is that a pair of identical twins would choose to engage in different levels of physical activity throughout their lives. I’ve always felt like those of us that are compelled to being highly active are genetically predisposed to it. Likewise, being less active and more relaxed seems like another predisposed personality type.

Hyperactivity is definitely a genetic trait. Why would one twin be highly active and one not if they are identical?

2 Likes
#25

What’s the heritability of exercise? It’s a question that can be answered.

#26

Environmental factors and convenience are things that seem to have as big an effect than genetic traits for physical activity. Trivial example : one twin could be a farmer, while the other one a banker. I would guess the farmer would be getting more physical activity, on average.

1 Like
#27

We agree that it builds muscle and supports cardiovascular fitness

And I also agree that the literature suggest that it helps with disease and healthspan

But do you disagree that there does not seem to be a lot of evidence that it supports longevity or the slowing down of aging?

2 Likes
#28

This :point_up_2:

(Extra char)

#29

I absolute hate the terms vigorous vs moderate activity or sedentary vs. active. One person vigorous is the other person’s moderate activity. Finnish definition of sedentary may be active in US. No mention of kind of work they did - a sedentary mailman (who walks 20 miles a day) or very active desk jockey. No mention of quality of the exercise, did they burn the candle at both ends training for a marathon by running in zone 3-4 12 hours a week ? Did they recover properly. Absolute mess of data.

This is why Vo2 max correlation studies are so much more elegant. Perfectly quantifiable highest attainable Vo2 max reflects QUALITY and quantity of exercise - the athletes spend right amounts in in their appropriate zones, recovered well and fueled properly.

5 Likes
#30

This why VO2 max studies are more informative. Because plenty of people poorly execute the necessary training and therefore will never achieve their potential VO2 max.

2 Likes
#31

I wonder how much this is genetics vs exercise though?

Driving the reverse correlation where “good” genes => high V02 max and those genes also => longevity and not exercise => longevity.

If it really is exercise improvement in V02 big impact on longevity one would think it would be picked up in the study under discussion.

1 Like
#32

It’s an interesting point, which I’ve thought about before. But is this not a tissue-dependent effect?

Like, it’s hard to see how mTOR activation in skeletal muscle would be detrimental, especially if that’s in response to resistance training. There are so many benefits of muscle, including the physical and metabolic.

Same for IGF-1. It’s a big difference between lots of IGF-1/PI3K/AKT pathway activation in skeletal muscle versus, for example, liver tissue.

2 Likes
#33

My simplistic view is that cycles of growth stimulus vs cleanup (of old and damaged) is the key. It’s the non stop growth that is the problem with over consumption of calories (insulin) and amino acids (mTOR) . A lack of growth signal would also be a problem.

<This is why a steady state of low signal (CR plus low exercise) seems wrong to me.>

I look at it this way…

We live in a package of programs that evolved to handle entropy and to survive in a world that required the use of energy to get more energy. Lower metabolism means less aging, while higher metabolism means better survival and procreation. There’s a sweet spot in the middle. Exactly where depends on what you want. Build the body you need to live the mental and physical life you want.

The body runs its programming. We must not interfere with the body’s need to breakdown old proteins (the signal is a lack of nutrients or high use of energy) …and we must, separately, provide stimulation for use of nutrients in the way we want (eg, muscle/mito building vs fat storage) when nutrients are available.

This is the basis of my own protocol. I keep on the lookout for disconfirming data.

3 Likes
#34

That is a common bias in most studies, isn’t it? Degree of response to a treatment can be genetic.

#35

I think I understand that your goal is health and vitality and if you get some longevity along the way that is great?

What do you think for someone that is optimizing for longevity even if at other costs (even like if current vitality, energy, athleticism, etc becoming lower)?

In such a world, were there things in my framework above that you believe to be wrong?

1 Like
#36

Yes, not in twins studies though - like the one underlying this thread - which is why it is so interesting

2 Likes
#37

Yeah, I think that’s a reasonable approach.

I’d also consider that the human body evolved to die mostly from communicable diseases and pathogens (including things like infections of wounds).

Nowadays we die mostly from non-communicable diseases. It’s an entirely different paradigm. As you said, moving away from the short-term survival and procreation drive.

Totally agree with you about the nutrient signalling. The constant “grow, grow” messaging is definitely bad for longevity, and we need periods of catabolism for autophagy, clearing old cells and proteins etc.

1 Like
#38

@Neo Choose your goals carefully. You just might achieve them. That said, I don’t see anything wrong. Good luck to us all.

1 Like
#39

I should respond to this statement. I think it is a mistake to believe that health and vitality are separate from longevity. No one can have or should want longevity without health and vitality. I will never live in a retirement home where someone has to help me off the toilet; someday, hopefully far into the future, I will take a long walk in Rocky Mountain National Park to find a beautiful spot to spend the rest of my life (a day or two is my guess). The trick is avoiding the creeping acceptance of less and less capability until I’ve forgotten who I am and what makes life wonderful.

8 Likes
#40

To avoid any misunderstanding, I don’t think they are completely separate, but they are clearly not the same or mapped 1-to-1 and hence there truly do seem be certain potential important trade-offs.

When I personally weigh those tradeoffs some of the big uncertainties that I may weigh differently from you might be

  1. what is the probability of truly extra ordinary progress in science, technology and medicine occurring in the coming decades

  2. what is the probability that adding even just a few extra years to my life increased the probability of being able to intercept enough of the progress in (1) to
    (A) truly transform my health, tap into true rejuvenation therapies and potentially even reach longevity escape velocity and love in a youthful biological state for many extra decades, or centuries or even millennia
    (B) experience the potentially, truly amazing future that world may be in half a century, several centuries and so on

Even a small probability of (A) and (B) make me consider at least some degree of vitality sacrifice today (eg some mild CR, key “growth/anti longevity” protein restriction (methionine, etc) and frequent fasting, and working out frequently but not more than 5-6 hours a week) even if that leads to me having a bit less athleticism, muscle, etc today

Everyone should of course weight things they way they see the best, just saying that we all will either explicitly or implicitly be making trad-offs on these topics and in my view I’d prefer making it intently and explicitly.

3 Likes
#41

Cool. Just like everyone, you “pays your money and you takes your chances”. In my mind, the idea of chronic CR for human longevity is based on guesses and leaps of faith. I like the idea of finding the minimum calorie consumption (over time but not everyday) needed for the life you want, but think it is smart to find a path that provides options over time so that accumulating wisdom can be acted upon. Use it or lose it (maybe forever) is the way it goes. Rather than a steady state program, I think cycles of growth (calorie surplus, high protein, hard exercise overload) and then rejuvenation (calorie deficit, low protein, fat loss, autophagy, mitophagy) is the middle path that preserves vitality and health and builds a platform for a good life regardless of the arrival time for life extending technologies. The devil is in the details but the key is avoiding becoming addicted to the part that makes us feel good about ourselves: the group we belong to, the way we look, the feeling of accomplishing something important. Addiction leads to short term misallocation of invested time which leads to long term straying from the selected path. This is my own battle.

2 Likes