#101

She didn’t include one table/summary that illustrates her point that now she is able to place in that race higher as people are dropping off, looks like the younger are dropping off more, and those who are staying behind are slower. The summary of findings is shown below:

  • The younger female participants have slowed down more than the older ones in general.
  • The youngest female participants have slowed down by 12% (from 34:30 to 38:38 min).
  • The ones in their 20s have slowed down by 8.1% (from 35:51 to 38:44 min).
  • The ones in their 30s have slowed down by 10.7% (from 36:21 to 40:13 min).
  • The ones in their 40s have slowed down by 7.3% (from 38:51 to 41:40 min).
  • The participants in their 50s have slowed down by just 0.3% (from 43:48 to 43:57 min).
  • The participants over 60 have slowed down just by 1.5% (from 47:58 to 48:41 min).
2 Likes
#102

I am in the male category JK. (long story). And what I am pointing out is that the participation rate at age 60 declines rapidly and severely across a range of running distances. So what happened to all the participants up to this point of age? They dropped out for some reason. They didn’t all drop dead.

So I find this disturbing. You show up at a race at a certain age and by default you podium just by showing up.

Given this topic’s subject, “The tide turns on VO2max?” - I see this drop-off as possible evidence that trying to maximize training could lead to this type of drop-off of participation happening. On the other hand, these drop-outs could be very healthy and just doing other activities. Pickle ball comes to mind.

5 Likes
#103

Right. You are basically raising concern in the context of the VO2 maxing as optimal strategy for longevity that it may not be sustainable and people both males and females drop off. I share your sentiment. In my mind a better idea is to make sure that you do your minimum 2 minutes everyday of either running at any pace or skipping the rope to protect your bones. weightlifting won’t work here by itself as you need an impact exercise. Not everybody will be motivated to do more. Also doing more may be nice, but at certain point depending on your exercise skill set and your body, the marginal benefit of the next unit of exercise will not exceed its cost. The cost may be a risk of injury combined with how much more you value your other activities.

3 Likes
#104

I don’t get your conclusions here, these are literally the statements below the graph you posted.

  • The sharpest decline in male participation is among the participants between 20 and 50.
  • There’s an increase among the male participants over 60.

similar for the women participation

  • The biggest decline in participation in the last 5 years is among the women in their 20s and 30s.
  • The only age group that has increased continuously is of the participants over 50.

So the drop off for males is between 20-50 and just the opposite over 60, not sure if this proves anything but certainly exercise does not see to be harming older people… it’s probably helping them to stay active for longer… seems like a longevity promoting factor to me.

#105

Exactly right. It’s all about healthspan, both for Peter Attia and me. I don’t know how much control I have over lifespan, but I don’t want to be immobile, or have sarcopenia.

That being said, I think it’s important to find some activity that is not just like taking your medicine, but is something you enjoy doing. While it is good for your brain to do things that you perceive as hard and that you don’t necessarily want to do, it’s unlikely that you will continue that activity very long, and consistency is the most important part of this.

4 Likes
#106

The statements in the 5k article are referring to changes in participation over time. I agree the data presented have little relevance to our discussion here, but for fun what I’d speculate is that there was a boom in 5k popularity in the early 2010’s (a quick Google search seems to support this). The boom affected all ages, and those people kept participating over time, minus some attrition due to aging. But over the succeeding decade the runners who started in 2012 got shifted to older age brackets, explaining the decline in all but the oldest bracket.

1 Like
#107

Another “fun” speculative perspective is that 5k runs are a little old school compared to what is available now. Mud runs, obstacle courses etc. I didn’t see anything at runrepeat.com beyond 2018 in terms of participation, but I would imagine those types of events are cutting into participation generationally.

#108
3 Likes
#109

I don’t know, Lustgarten makes it sound like 6 years of gain isn’t much. I disagree with that. My wife says the same thing, “you may live longer, but you spend the whole time working out”.

1 hour per week X 52 weeks is about 4 (12 hour) days lost per year. So if you work out like that for 25 years, that’s a third of a year lost, but you gain 6 years? Good deal. The other thing is that everything you do is easier when you’re fit. I can put on my socks while I’m walking down the hall in the morning. Since I don’t drink coffee and can skip breakfast, really I can get up 4 minutes before I need to be in the car. Really if it only takes a half hour twice a week, then this is the way to go.

8 Likes
#110

Yes there’s tradeoffs. Obviously a huge difference whether you love the time spent exercising or consider it merely as a cost. Remember that 5-6 year difference is between the most fit and the least fit though. If you’re somewhere in between fitness wise you’re not leaving 5-6 years on the table but less, possibly not leaving anything at all depending on other factors. It also depends on goals for old age. I am not climbing mountains today and don’t plan to start in my 80s and 90s. I just want to be able to walk a lot without being knackered, pick up my own grandkid or great grandkid, lift my own suitcases… and really, most of all, not be demented. I might even end up exercising more heavily than my personal longevity calculus dictates if the evidence for dementia prevention warrants it.

3 Likes
#111

There’s quite a jump between High (75% centile to 97.7%) and Elite (97.7%+) in terms of fitness. And not much mortality benefit. I’d be interested in a more granular best fit graph.
Those graphs look impressive until you realise the x axis is based on categories not vo2 max.

The underlying data could easily show a plateau well before the 97.7th centile.

8 Likes
#112

Exactly. Rapidly diminishing marginal returns.

3 Likes
#113

My main exercise is walking quickly

2 Likes
#114

The risk difference between Elite and High fitness is as much as having CAD disease, from the Vo2 max study… so if that doesn’t impress you then you might as well not worry about your LDL either.

1 Like
#115

But look at the error bars on your adjusted HR chart For high vs elite they overlap:

Screenshot_20240502-085020
Screenshot_20240502-0850201080×2340 86.4 KB

1 Like
#116

YEs uncertainty is higher, that’s why we have a mean

Thus

The underlying data could easily show a plateau well before the 97.7th centile.

OR

the effect is actually much higher

Look, I am not a statistician, but the authors of the paper calculated the odds using and drew their conclusions using the mean… papers like that have professional stats…

But this is why you look at multiple studies, that confirm the same conclusion. Elites have a better health outcomes. Is it purely genetic? Unlikely, you are not born in to high Vo2 max, you have to train. If anything they might be genetically predisposed to handle the extremely heavy exercise loads.

#117

You never just look at the mean. That’s 101 of statistics. The error bars overlap showing that the conclusion could be the other way round. Elite vo2 max could actually have a higher Hazard Ratio than High vo2 max

2 Likes
#118

Answer this: IS this statement TRUE OR FALSE

Chances that Elite vo2 max could actually have LOWER Hazard Ratio than High vo2 max are higher than Elite vo2 max could actually have a HIGHER Hazard Ratio than High vo2 max based on the data presented.

BUT LIKE I SAID:

this is why you look at multiple studies

And other studies point to the same conclusion. Elites have better outcome.

#119

They didn’t adjust for confounding factors like education or intelligence (which unlike the stereotypes, those on the highest end are quite fit, strong, physically active, etc). But it does make me interested in getting off the couch until more data for or against shows up, maybe a MR study that selects for VO2 max but not genes in the brain.

#120

Yes but you can’t just LOOK at multiple studies. If single studies aren’t conclusive, you need to apply a systematic review to make sure you’re looking at all the relevant studies and then conduct a meta analysis to see if the collective data is significant.

My original point stands:

I don’t think there’s any mathematical way of knowing from those charts. Optimum VO2 max could easily be at say 95% and still be consistent with the chart.

2 Likes