**Official Longevity Thread** (1 Viewer)

[Terminalxylem]

NY Times article on caloric restriction and longevity

 

[3C's]

From the NYT article linked above: Research consistently finds that people who are classified as overweight have a lower risk of death than those who are normal or underweight.

Fatties rejoice!

 

[Joe Bryant]

Not really a fan of learning via podcasts, but this is a really good one about exercise and longevity. It hits upon the major talking points about the type/intensity/duration with practical applications of exercise physiology data, with scientific references sprinkled throughout. I definitely learned something.

Thanks. Can you give us a summary? Thanks.

please

A lot of stuff that’s been mentioned before:

Exercise is really important for healthy aging; physical fitness is one of the best predictors of all-cause mortality.

Being elite physically, as measured by vO2 max, improves survival five-fold over the least fit. And the biggest benefit is seen between the least fit and second lowest fitness quintile, so you don’t have to be an Olympian to get a lot of bang for your exercise buck.

For comparison purposes, smoking, or having diabetes increases risk of death ~40%.

It’s important to exercise regularly, both at a basal level (Zone 2, like brisk walking, where you can speak comfortably while exercising) and at lactate threshold (all out, HR zone 4/5, like 4 minute run/walk intervals). The latter helps bump up vO2 max, and may stave off dementia via something called BDNF.

150-300 minutes/week of mild-moderate exercise, or half as much high intensity + 2 sessions of strength training/week is recommended.

Resistance training is also associated with longevity. Both cardiovascular and strength training stimulate adaptations which preserve muscle, which is critical as we enter old age (65+).

Being sedentary for extended periods is detrimental to health. The podcast guest recommended exercise “snacks” - activity, rather than sitting, every 30 minutes at work.

Thank you. The one I see differing opinions on, and one I care about is the how much high intensity is needed. Seems like some talk just regular walking is enough but others say no, that you also must have the high intensity.

 

[notoriousbill]

Not really a fan of learning via podcasts, but this is a really good one about exercise and longevity. It hits upon the major talking points about the type/intensity/duration with practical applications of exercise physiology data, with scientific references sprinkled throughout. I definitely learned something.

Thanks. Can you give us a summary? Thanks.

please

A lot of stuff that’s been mentioned before:

Exercise is really important for healthy aging; physical fitness is one of the best predictors of all-cause mortality.

Being elite physically, as measured by vO2 max, improves survival five-fold over the least fit. And the biggest benefit is seen between the least fit and second lowest fitness quintile, so you don’t have to be an Olympian to get a lot of bang for your exercise buck.

For comparison purposes, smoking, or having diabetes increases risk of death ~40%.

It’s important to exercise regularly, both at a basal level (Zone 2, like brisk walking, where you can speak comfortably while exercising) and at lactate threshold (all out, HR zone 4/5, like 4 minute run/walk intervals). The latter helps bump up vO2 max, and may stave off dementia via something called BDNF.

150-300 minutes/week of mild-moderate exercise, or half as much high intensity + 2 sessions of strength training/week is recommended.

Resistance training is also associated with longevity. Both cardiovascular and strength training stimulate adaptations which preserve muscle, which is critical as we enter old age (65+).

Being sedentary for extended periods is detrimental to health. The podcast guest recommended exercise “snacks” - activity, rather than sitting, every 30 minutes at work.

Thank you. The one I see differing opinions on, and one I care about is the how much high intensity is needed. Seems like some talk just regular walking is enough but others say no, that you also must have the high intensity.

High intensity interval training (HIIT) will improve VO2, where just simply walking, while great to do, won't improve VO2. VO2 takes a long time to improve as well, it just doesn't happen overnight.

I hope this helps.

 

[brun]

From the NYT article linked above: Research consistently finds that people who are classified as overweight have a lower risk of death than those who are normal or underweight.

Fatties rejoice!

I knew if I stayed committed there would be a payoff.

 

[Terminalxylem]

From the NYT article linked above: Research consistently finds that people who are classified as overweight have a lower risk of death than those who are normal or underweight.

Fatties rejoice!

It also mentions some problems with that finding, not the least of which is undiagnosed disease being the cause of weight loss, and smokers being included in early studies. When smokers and people diagnosed with stuff like cancer contributing to weight loss are excluded, the healthiest BMI is between 20-22, or possibly lower.

In other words, non-smokers who are thin voluntarily tend to live the longest.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Not really a fan of learning via podcasts, but this is a really good one about exercise and longevity. It hits upon the major talking points about the type/intensity/duration with practical applications of exercise physiology data, with scientific references sprinkled throughout. I definitely learned something.

Thanks. Can you give us a summary? Thanks.

please

A lot of stuff that’s been mentioned before:

Exercise is really important for healthy aging; physical fitness is one of the best predictors of all-cause mortality.

Being elite physically, as measured by vO2 max, improves survival five-fold over the least fit. And the biggest benefit is seen between the least fit and second lowest fitness quintile, so you don’t have to be an Olympian to get a lot of bang for your exercise buck.

For comparison purposes, smoking, or having diabetes increases risk of death ~40%.

It’s important to exercise regularly, both at a basal level (Zone 2, like brisk walking, where you can speak comfortably while exercising) and at lactate threshold (all out, HR zone 4/5, like 4 minute run/walk intervals). The latter helps bump up vO2 max, and may stave off dementia via something called BDNF.

150-300 minutes/week of mild-moderate exercise, or half as much high intensity + 2 sessions of strength training/week is recommended.

Resistance training is also associated with longevity. Both cardiovascular and strength training stimulate adaptations which preserve muscle, which is critical as we enter old age (65+).

Being sedentary for extended periods is detrimental to health. The podcast guest recommended exercise “snacks” - activity, rather than sitting, every 30 minutes at work.

Thank you. The one I see differing opinions on, and one I care about is the how much high intensity is needed. Seems like some talk just regular walking is enough but others say no, that you also must have the high intensity.

It's all a balance, as high intensity stuff is more likely to cause injury. And being injured can sideline you from consistent exercise, and/or cause chronic pain.

The video says both are important, and recommends a base of consistent low-moderate intensity exercise (like 30-60 minutes of walking a day), with a few (2-3) sessions of 4x4 minute high intensity intervals. Plus resistance exercise 2X/week (men tend to overdo this part of the equation, at the expense of CV fitness).

They go on to say you can use streetlights as markers for beginner intervals - walk from one to the next, then try briskly walking between the next two, followed by usual walking speed, etc. You gradually ramp up the quick speed segments, such that eventually you're sprinting between every other set of lights.

But @notoriousbill is right, vO2 max won't really budge with casual walking (unless you're starting from extremely deconditioned/sedentary).

All that said, you don't need to train for ultramarathons, or participate in CrossFit, to attain a decent vO2 max.

I prefer ramping up my HR walking hills, to avoid wear and tear on my joints. And while I won't be winning any races with the 10K guys, I also am probably less likely to need a knee replacement. I'm willing to accept that trade-off.

ETA Between walking hills, hiking, climbing, and skiing, in some combination, most days of the year, I've been able to attain a vO2 max around the 95th percentile for my age and gender (per iWatch estimates, which are ?validity).

 

[notoriousbill]

Not really a fan of learning via podcasts, but this is a really good one about exercise and longevity. It hits upon the major talking points about the type/intensity/duration with practical applications of exercise physiology data, with scientific references sprinkled throughout. I definitely learned something.

Thanks. Can you give us a summary? Thanks.

please

A lot of stuff that’s been mentioned before:

Exercise is really important for healthy aging; physical fitness is one of the best predictors of all-cause mortality.

Being elite physically, as measured by vO2 max, improves survival five-fold over the least fit. And the biggest benefit is seen between the least fit and second lowest fitness quintile, so you don’t have to be an Olympian to get a lot of bang for your exercise buck.

For comparison purposes, smoking, or having diabetes increases risk of death ~40%.

It’s important to exercise regularly, both at a basal level (Zone 2, like brisk walking, where you can speak comfortably while exercising) and at lactate threshold (all out, HR zone 4/5, like 4 minute run/walk intervals). The latter helps bump up vO2 max, and may stave off dementia via something called BDNF.

150-300 minutes/week of mild-moderate exercise, or half as much high intensity + 2 sessions of strength training/week is recommended.

Resistance training is also associated with longevity. Both cardiovascular and strength training stimulate adaptations which preserve muscle, which is critical as we enter old age (65+).

Being sedentary for extended periods is detrimental to health. The podcast guest recommended exercise “snacks” - activity, rather than sitting, every 30 minutes at work.

Thank you. The one I see differing opinions on, and one I care about is the how much high intensity is needed. Seems like some talk just regular walking is enough but others say no, that you also must have the high intensity.

It's all a balance, as high intensity stuff is more likely to cause injury. And being injured can sideline you from consistent exercise, and/or cause chronic pain.

The video says both are important, and recommends a base of consistent low-moderate intensity exercise (like 30-60 minutes of walking a day), with a few (2-3) sessions of 4x4 minute high intensity intervals. Plus resistance exercise 2X/week (men tend to overdo this part of the equation, at the expense of CV fitness).

They go on to say you can use streetlights as markers for beginner intervals - walk from one to the next, then try briskly walking between the next two, followed by usual walking speed, etc. You gradually ramp up the quick speed segments, such that eventually you're sprinting between every other set of lights.

But @notoriousbill is right, vO2 max won't really budge with casual walking (unless you're starting from extremely deconditioned/sedentary).

All that said, you don't need to train for ultramarathons, or participate in CrossFit, to attain a decent vO2 max.

I prefer ramping up my HR walking hills, to avoid wear and tear on my joints. And while I won't be winning any races with the 10K guys, I also am probably less likely to need a knee replacement. I'm willing to accept that trade-off.

ETA Between walking hills, hiking, climbing, and skiing, in some combination, most days of the year, I've been able to attain a vO2 max around the 95th percentile for my age and gender (per iWatch estimates, which are ?validity).

@Terminalxylem is spot on. Walking is very good, especially incorporating hills in the walks. That will get heart pumping for sure.

I started at over 300 lbs 3 years ago. Just did diet to start with and lost over 50 lbs. I then incorporated walking as a daily activity; I'd walk 4 miles every day (2 in morning and 2 at lunch). Lost over 50 more lbs. My VO2 was 28 (November 2022 - I was 56) which is well below average. I then started incorporating 1/4 mile "repeats" of walking and slow jogs. VO2 started going up gradually. By June 2023 it increased to 34 which put me in the Average category. I started running in June 2023 incorporating 5 mile Tempo Runs and 5-5.5 mile repeat runs into my workouts along with an Effort Run on Saturday and an easy run on Sunday. I do 4 miles on elliptical between Tempo Run and Repeats as well as between Repeats and Effort Run. I take a well deserved rest day every Monday. My weight is 175ish and VO2 is 40 which is Above Average for a 58 year old. My goal is to get it over 41.

I hope this helps and again, walking is an excellent way to get cardio in and can improve VO2 if you incorporate hills and some repeats into workout as well. Key is getting heart rate up and recovering , rinse and repeat...

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thought this was good. It's not exactly "longevity" but related.

https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/a-harvard-study-reveals-secret-to-health-happiness.html

If you want to lead a long, happy, and fulfilling life marked by good health and vitality, then you should take a close look at the Harvard Study of Adult Development. This is one of the longest-running studies of adult life, having started in 1938. Over the past 85-plus years, the study has followed the lives of more than 700 original participants and over 1,300 of their descendants.

The study's main goal was to identify the key factors contributing to human happiness and well-being. Researchers collected vast amounts of data through interviews, medical exams, questionnaires, and even brain scans, tracking various aspects of the participants' lives, such as physical health, mental health, career, relationships, and overall satisfaction.

The secret to good health and happiness in five words​

Robert Waldinger, the study director, whose TED Talk has been viewed nearly 50 million times, said one of the study's most significant findings is that the quality of our relationships has a profound impact on our well-being.

The quality of our relationships.
Waldinger and his research team were amazed to discover that individuals who had the strongest bonds with others tended to lead happier, healthier, and longer lives as they aged. In turn, having good relationships was the most important factor in predicting who would enjoy a fulfilled and healthy life in old age.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Thought this was good. It's not exactly "longevity" but related.

https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/a-harvard-study-reveals-secret-to-health-happiness.html

If you want to lead a long, happy, and fulfilling life marked by good health and vitality, then you should take a close look at the Harvard Study of Adult Development. This is one of the longest-running studies of adult life, having started in 1938. Over the past 85-plus years, the study has followed the lives of more than 700 original participants and over 1,300 of their descendants.

The study's main goal was to identify the key factors contributing to human happiness and well-being. Researchers collected vast amounts of data through interviews, medical exams, questionnaires, and even brain scans, tracking various aspects of the participants' lives, such as physical health, mental health, career, relationships, and overall satisfaction.

The secret to good health and happiness in five words​

Robert Waldinger, the study director, whose TED Talk has been viewed nearly 50 million times, said one of the study's most significant findings is that the quality of our relationships has a profound impact on our well-being.

The quality of our relationships.
Waldinger and his research team were amazed to discover that individuals who had the strongest bonds with others tended to lead happier, healthier, and longer lives as they aged. In turn, having good relationships was the most important factor in predicting who would enjoy a fulfilled and healthy life in old age.

Yep, connectedness/sense of community is a prominent component of all “Blue Zones”.

But what are practical ways to improve the quality of one’s relationships?

Better communication, and prioritizing time with friends and family immediately come to mind. I think ending nonproductive/non-enriching relationships is also important.

Your link details several other strategies to cultivate good relationships. Rather than cut and paste, people should read it, and watch the TED talk. Thanks, Joe.

 

[Northern Voice]

It's interesting to me that they seem to universally agree on the importance of strength training. I've gotten into doing more lately but always figured cardiovascular health had more long term effect with its direct impact on heart / lungs.

I tend to not want to take drugs or supplements but I'm intrigued by the research there. You hear about people taking statins, metformin and I'm sure now ozempic preventatively will that become a more common practice?

I'm thinking about picking up either Attia or Sinclair's book.

 

[notoriousbill]

Rhonda Patrick is also a great source of information. Here is a video on Longetivity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uttq6clVSb0

 

[Joe Bryant]

I know I'm the only person here who doesn't hate Twitter these days, but part of the reason why I like it so much is I continually get value from it.

This was in my "for you" feed this morning.

Detailed thread on Patter Attia and longevity. https://x.com/bensmithlive/status/1787785436338823541

 

[zoobird]

I know I'm the only person here who doesn't hate Twitter these days, but part of the reason why I like it so much is I continually get value from it.

This was in my "for you" feed this morning.

Detailed thread on Patter Attia and longevity. https://x.com/bensmithlive/status/1787785436338823541

The guy in that thread totally missed the point of Attia's "Centenarian Decathlon". The point isn't that everyone should do the same ten things. It's that each individual should think about ten (or more) things that they want to be able to do when they get old and train for those, keeping in mind that your capabilities will inevitably drop as you age, so you want to work towards being able to FAR surpass what's needed when you're younger.

 

[3C's]

So I'll be dead soon. (#7 in that list.)

 

[Joe Bryant]

I know I'm the only person here who doesn't hate Twitter these days, but part of the reason why I like it so much is I continually get value from it.

This was in my "for you" feed this morning.

Detailed thread on Patter Attia and longevity. https://x.com/bensmithlive/status/1787785436338823541

The guy in that thread totally missed the point of Attia's "Centenarian Decathlon". The point isn't that everyone should do the same ten things. It's that each individual should think about ten (or more) things that they want to be able to do when they get old and train for those, keeping in mind that your capabilities will inevitably drop as you age, so you want to work towards being able to FAR surpass what's needed when you're younger.

I don't think he missed it. At least for me. I understood that to be 10 things Attia thought were important. More here if folks are interested. https://peterattiamd.com/how-to-train-for-the-centenarian-decathlon/

Either way, the point seems to be find 10 functional practical things you want to be able to do when you're older and plan for those.

 

[Terminalxylem]

It's interesting to me that they seem to universally agree on the importance of strength training. I've gotten into doing more lately but always figured cardiovascular health had more long term effect with its direct impact on heart / lungs.

I tend to not want to take drugs or supplements but I'm intrigued by the research there. You hear about people taking statins, metformin and I'm sure now ozempic preventatively will that become a more common practice?

I'm thinking about picking up either Attia or Sinclair's book.

There’s a brand of longevity guru that pushes hard promoting strength training, Attia probably being the most well known. I don’t think there’s data to support it though, at least to the degree the bro-scientists suggest.

From everything I’ve read, CV stuff is far more important. That’s not to say strength should be ignored, but it doesn’t take a lot of muscle building exercise to get optimal longevity benefits.

My gestalt is highly functioning old people get that way by consistently keeping active, primarily with daily low-moderate intensity CV exercise. And most of them aren’t gym rats, and they never were.

All that said, I think Attia’s book is the better of the two you mention.

 

[steelerfan1]

I’ve always had a problem understanding how weight training isn’t CV. I do a total body workout 3x per week and would say that close to 30 minutes of that my heart rate is close to 90 % max with the rest of it at 70% or so. To me that’s working my CV system fairly well, no?

 

[DA RAIDERS]

I’ve always had a problem understanding how weight training isn’t CV. I do a total body workout 3x per week and would say that close to 30 minutes of that my heart rate is close to 90 % max with the rest of it at 70% or so. To me that’s working my CV system fairly well, no?

Yep. I do tiny quick step ups in between sets just to keep my heart rate elevated. Just on and off the squat rack platform. Maybe 4 inches

 

[steelerfan1]

I’ve always had a problem understanding how weight training isn’t CV. I do a total body workout 3x per week and would say that close to 30 minutes of that my heart rate is close to 90 % max with the rest of it at 70% or so. To me that’s working my CV system fairly well, no?

Yep. I do tiny quick step ups in between sets just to keep my heart rate elevated. Just on and off the squat rack platform. Maybe 4 inches

I do a little faster than average walk between sets myself.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I’ve always had a problem understanding how weight training isn’t CV. I do a total body workout 3x per week and would say that close to 30 minutes of that my heart rate is close to 90 % max with the rest of it at 70% or so. To me that’s working my CV system fairly well, no?

It can be, but many people who weight train don’t maintain an elevated HR for very long.

And FWIW, the official recommendations call for a lot more CV than strength training.

 

[zoobird]

I’ve always had a problem understanding how weight training isn’t CV. I do a total body workout 3x per week and would say that close to 30 minutes of that my heart rate is close to 90 % max with the rest of it at 70% or so. To me that’s working my CV system fairly well, no?

It can be, but many people who weight train don’t maintain an elevated HR for very long.

But FWIW, the official recommendations are a lot more more CV than strength training.

I don't really do any substantial weight training, but have noticed that when I do lift dumbbells, I may be breathing heavily but my heart rate is still around maybe 80-95 (resting heart rate is in the low 50s). However, when I jog, even if I'm not out of breath at all, my heart rate will get into the 120s (and more like 140s if I'm breathing at all heavily).

I would have thought that heart rate and breathing were fairly highly correlated, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

I’ve always had a problem understanding how weight training isn’t CV. I do a total body workout 3x per week and would say that close to 30 minutes of that my heart rate is close to 90 % max with the rest of it at 70% or so. To me that’s working my CV system fairly well, no?

It can be, but many people who weight train don’t maintain an elevated HR for very long.

But FWIW, the official recommendations are a lot more more CV than strength training.

I don't really do any substantial weight training, but have noticed that when I do lift dumbbells, I may be breathing heavily but my heart rate is still around maybe 80-95 (resting heart rate is in the low 50s). However, when I jog, even if I'm not out of breath at all, my heart rate will get into the 120s (and more like 140s if I'm breathing at all heavily).

I would have thought that heart rate and breathing were fairly highly correlated, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

My average HR in my last 2 trips to the gym was 115 and 124. Both were slightly over an hour. First one had 15 minutes of CV second had 10. HR max of 152 and 169. All supersets. I lift light and there is very little rest between sets.

 

[Hastur]

Just in the past few weeks I've started on my journey following the dietary advice of Dr. Joel Fuhrman(mainly his book 'Reversing Heart Disease'). He calls it a "Nutritarian" diet. Here are the basics:

He espouses the equation Health = Nutrients/Calories.

This eating style focuses on the nutrient-rich foods that unleash the body’s tremendous ability to heal, achieve optimal weight, and slow the aging process.

Eat mostly plants means only eat animal products in small amounts, if any, such as meat, fish, dairy, and eggs

Whole food describes natural foods that are not heavily processed. Basically, the majority of our diet is made up of fresh and clean produce rather than food that comes out of a package.

No S.O.S. When we eat the whole nut over just the processed oil, we are eating the fiber and protective nutrients too!

A Nutritarian diet meets your nutritional needs by focusing on natural, minimally processed plant foods and turning up the G-BOMBS! Nutritional research demonstrates these foods give us the greatest protection against cancer and other diseases.

What are G-BOMBS?

G-BOMBS is an acronym for Greens, Beans, Onions, Mushrooms, Berries and Seeds. These are the most health-promoting, anti-cancer superfoods on the planet. Make sure that you include some or all of them in your diet every day.

Greens: Greater consumption of these vegetables is linked to reduced risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease, and a longer life.

Beans: Beans and legumes are rich in fiber and resistant starch, which help keep blood glucose, blood pressure and LDL cholesterol down, and nourish the microbiome.

Onions: Onions and garlic are linked to a reduction in the risk of several cancers, and their distinctive sulfur-containing phytochemicals have a number of actions that benefit the cardiovascular system.

Mushrooms: Mushroom phytochemicals are unique in their promotion of immune system function with powerful anti-cancer benefits.

Berries: Berry phytochemicals have anti-cancer and blood pressure-lowering effects, and are linked to a reduced risk of heart attack.

Seeds: Eating raw seeds and nuts regularly is associated with longevity, reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, common cancers, and a healthy body weight.

 

[steelerfan1]

I’ve always had a problem understanding how weight training isn’t CV. I do a total body workout 3x per week and would say that close to 30 minutes of that my heart rate is close to 90 % max with the rest of it at 70% or so. To me that’s working my CV system fairly well, no?

It can be, but many people who weight train don’t maintain an elevated HR for very long.

But FWIW, the official recommendations are a lot more more CV than strength training.

I don't really do any substantial weight training, but have noticed that when I do lift dumbbells, I may be breathing heavily but my heart rate is still around maybe 80-95 (resting heart rate is in the low 50s). However, when I jog, even if I'm not out of breath at all, my heart rate will get into the 120s (and more like 140s if I'm breathing at all heavily).

I would have thought that heart rate and breathing were fairly highly correlated, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Yeah, I actually agree with you there. I had a stress test last week and when I let him know I was starting to feel like I was working hard I was at 92% of max heart rate. I could have kept going but I knew I was starting to work, where if I did a set of 15 deadlifts to failure my heart rate might hit low 140s, which is still high 80s for my old butt, but I can barely breath and function. I still prefer resistance training because I can still get my heart rate high enough and have the benefit of retaining muscle.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I’ve always had a problem understanding how weight training isn’t CV. I do a total body workout 3x per week and would say that close to 30 minutes of that my heart rate is close to 90 % max with the rest of it at 70% or so. To me that’s working my CV system fairly well, no?

It can be, but many people who weight train don’t maintain an elevated HR for very long.

But FWIW, the official recommendations are a lot more more CV than strength training.

I don't really do any substantial weight training, but have noticed that when I do lift dumbbells, I may be breathing heavily but my heart rate is still around maybe 80-95 (resting heart rate is in the low 50s). However, when I jog, even if I'm not out of breath at all, my heart rate will get into the 120s (and more like 140s if I'm breathing at all heavily).

I would have thought that heart rate and breathing were fairly highly correlated, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Yeah, I actually agree with you there. I had a stress test last week and when I let him know I was starting to feel like I was working hard I was at 92% of max heart rate. I could have kept going but I knew I was starting to work, where if I did a set of 15 deadlifts to failure my heart rate might hit low 140s, which is still high 80s for my old butt, but I can barely breath and function. I still prefer resistance training because I can still get my heart rate high enough and have the benefit of retaining muscle.

But do you maintain a high heart rate for 300+ minutes a week? That’s the amount needed for maximal mortality benefit.

 

[3C's]

I’ve always had a problem understanding how weight training isn’t CV. I do a total body workout 3x per week and would say that close to 30 minutes of that my heart rate is close to 90 % max with the rest of it at 70% or so. To me that’s working my CV system fairly well, no?

It can be, but many people who weight train don’t maintain an elevated HR for very long.

But FWIW, the official recommendations are a lot more more CV than strength training.

I don't really do any substantial weight training, but have noticed that when I do lift dumbbells, I may be breathing heavily but my heart rate is still around maybe 80-95 (resting heart rate is in the low 50s). However, when I jog, even if I'm not out of breath at all, my heart rate will get into the 120s (and more like 140s if I'm breathing at all heavily).

I would have thought that heart rate and breathing were fairly highly correlated, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Yeah, I actually agree with you there. I had a stress test last week and when I let him know I was starting to feel like I was working hard I was at 92% of max heart rate. I could have kept going but I knew I was starting to work, where if I did a set of 15 deadlifts to failure my heart rate might hit low 140s, which is still high 80s for my old butt, but I can barely breath and function. I still prefer resistance training because I can still get my heart rate high enough and have the benefit of retaining muscle.

But do you maintain a high heart rate for 300+ minutes a week? That’s the amount needed for maximal mortality benefit.

That's 50 minutes 6 days a week. I'd venture to guess very few people are hitting that whether CV or strength training.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I’ve always had a problem understanding how weight training isn’t CV. I do a total body workout 3x per week and would say that close to 30 minutes of that my heart rate is close to 90 % max with the rest of it at 70% or so. To me that’s working my CV system fairly well, no?

It can be, but many people who weight train don’t maintain an elevated HR for very long.

But FWIW, the official recommendations are a lot more more CV than strength training.

I don't really do any substantial weight training, but have noticed that when I do lift dumbbells, I may be breathing heavily but my heart rate is still around maybe 80-95 (resting heart rate is in the low 50s). However, when I jog, even if I'm not out of breath at all, my heart rate will get into the 120s (and more like 140s if I'm breathing at all heavily).

I would have thought that heart rate and breathing were fairly highly correlated, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Yeah, I actually agree with you there. I had a stress test last week and when I let him know I was starting to feel like I was working hard I was at 92% of max heart rate. I could have kept going but I knew I was starting to work, where if I did a set of 15 deadlifts to failure my heart rate might hit low 140s, which is still high 80s for my old butt, but I can barely breath and function. I still prefer resistance training because I can still get my heart rate high enough and have the benefit of retaining muscle.

But do you maintain a high heart rate for 300+ minutes a week? That’s the amount needed for maximal mortality benefit.

That's 50 minutes 6 days a week. I'd venture to guess very few people are hitting that whether CV or strength training.

Sure. But this is a longevity thread, so I thought the amount of CV exercise resulting in the largest reduction in mortality would be of interest.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

I’ve always had a problem understanding how weight training isn’t CV. I do a total body workout 3x per week and would say that close to 30 minutes of that my heart rate is close to 90 % max with the rest of it at 70% or so. To me that’s working my CV system fairly well, no?

It can be, but many people who weight train don’t maintain an elevated HR for very long.

But FWIW, the official recommendations are a lot more more CV than strength training.

I don't really do any substantial weight training, but have noticed that when I do lift dumbbells, I may be breathing heavily but my heart rate is still around maybe 80-95 (resting heart rate is in the low 50s). However, when I jog, even if I'm not out of breath at all, my heart rate will get into the 120s (and more like 140s if I'm breathing at all heavily).

I would have thought that heart rate and breathing were fairly highly correlated, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Yeah, I actually agree with you there. I had a stress test last week and when I let him know I was starting to feel like I was working hard I was at 92% of max heart rate. I could have kept going but I knew I was starting to work, where if I did a set of 15 deadlifts to failure my heart rate might hit low 140s, which is still high 80s for my old butt, but I can barely breath and function. I still prefer resistance training because I can still get my heart rate high enough and have the benefit of retaining muscle.

But do you maintain a high heart rate for 300+ minutes a week? That’s the amount needed for maximal mortality benefit.

That's 50 minutes 6 days a week. I'd venture to guess very few people are hitting that whether CV or strength training.

I’m at 205 so far this week. LAM! . 94 of those minutes are above 124 That’s 3 trips to the gym. I’ll probably hit 300 this week. But thats a lot

 

[steelerfan1]

I’ve always had a problem understanding how weight training isn’t CV. I do a total body workout 3x per week and would say that close to 30 minutes of that my heart rate is close to 90 % max with the rest of it at 70% or so. To me that’s working my CV system fairly well, no?

It can be, but many people who weight train don’t maintain an elevated HR for very long.

But FWIW, the official recommendations are a lot more more CV than strength training.

I don't really do any substantial weight training, but have noticed that when I do lift dumbbells, I may be breathing heavily but my heart rate is still around maybe 80-95 (resting heart rate is in the low 50s). However, when I jog, even if I'm not out of breath at all, my heart rate will get into the 120s (and more like 140s if I'm breathing at all heavily).

I would have thought that heart rate and breathing were fairly highly correlated, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Yeah, I actually agree with you there. I had a stress test last week and when I let him know I was starting to feel like I was working hard I was at 92% of max heart rate. I could have kept going but I knew I was starting to work, where if I did a set of 15 deadlifts to failure my heart rate might hit low 140s, which is still high 80s for my old butt, but I can barely breath and function. I still prefer resistance training because I can still get my heart rate high enough and have the benefit of retaining muscle.

But do you maintain a high heart rate for 300+ minutes a week? That’s the amount needed for maximal mortality benefit.

It depends what we are calling a high heart rate. If we are talking about zone 5, then definitely not. Fitbit shows me at 243 minutes this week, but I’d guess most of it is zone 2 to the 70 % range. that’s with a lot of walking with purpose, some days with a vest.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I’ve always had a problem understanding how weight training isn’t CV. I do a total body workout 3x per week and would say that close to 30 minutes of that my heart rate is close to 90 % max with the rest of it at 70% or so. To me that’s working my CV system fairly well, no?

It can be, but many people who weight train don’t maintain an elevated HR for very long.

But FWIW, the official recommendations are a lot more more CV than strength training.

I don't really do any substantial weight training, but have noticed that when I do lift dumbbells, I may be breathing heavily but my heart rate is still around maybe 80-95 (resting heart rate is in the low 50s). However, when I jog, even if I'm not out of breath at all, my heart rate will get into the 120s (and more like 140s if I'm breathing at all heavily).

I would have thought that heart rate and breathing were fairly highly correlated, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Yeah, I actually agree with you there. I had a stress test last week and when I let him know I was starting to feel like I was working hard I was at 92% of max heart rate. I could have kept going but I knew I was starting to work, where if I did a set of 15 deadlifts to failure my heart rate might hit low 140s, which is still high 80s for my old butt, but I can barely breath and function. I still prefer resistance training because I can still get my heart rate high enough and have the benefit of retaining muscle.

But do you maintain a high heart rate for 300+ minutes a week? That’s the amount needed for maximal mortality benefit.

It depends what we are calling a high heart rate. If we are talking about zone 5, then definitely not. Fitbit shows me at 243 minutes this week, but I’d guess most of it is zone 2 to the 70 % range. that’s with a lot of walking with purpose, some days with a vest.

All it takes is moderate intensity exercise, > 3 METS. I walk on average 90 minutes a day, about 5 1/2 miles, partially uphill. Only 25 minutes of that is Zone 3 or higher, 120+ bpm. The rest in Zone 2.

And I climb 3-4 days a week, a couple hours per session, but probably less than 30 minutes of vigorous activity per work out (~8+ METS). That's mostly Zone 3.

I don't think anyone is advocating spending long periods in Zone 5, though I suppose it would help with ramping up vO2 max.

 

[3C's]

I’ve always had a problem understanding how weight training isn’t CV. I do a total body workout 3x per week and would say that close to 30 minutes of that my heart rate is close to 90 % max with the rest of it at 70% or so. To me that’s working my CV system fairly well, no?

It can be, but many people who weight train don’t maintain an elevated HR for very long.

But FWIW, the official recommendations are a lot more more CV than strength training.

I don't really do any substantial weight training, but have noticed that when I do lift dumbbells, I may be breathing heavily but my heart rate is still around maybe 80-95 (resting heart rate is in the low 50s). However, when I jog, even if I'm not out of breath at all, my heart rate will get into the 120s (and more like 140s if I'm breathing at all heavily).

I would have thought that heart rate and breathing were fairly highly correlated, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Yeah, I actually agree with you there. I had a stress test last week and when I let him know I was starting to feel like I was working hard I was at 92% of max heart rate. I could have kept going but I knew I was starting to work, where if I did a set of 15 deadlifts to failure my heart rate might hit low 140s, which is still high 80s for my old butt, but I can barely breath and function. I still prefer resistance training because I can still get my heart rate high enough and have the benefit of retaining muscle.

But do you maintain a high heart rate for 300+ minutes a week? That’s the amount needed for maximal mortality benefit.

It depends what we are calling a high heart rate. If we are talking about zone 5, then definitely not. Fitbit shows me at 243 minutes this week, but I’d guess most of it is zone 2 to the 70 % range. that’s with a lot of walking with purpose, some days with a vest.

All it takes is moderate intensity exercise, > 3 METS. I walk on average 90 minutes a day, about 5 1/2 miles, partially uphill. Only 25 minutes of that is Zone 3 or higher, 120+ bpm. The rest in Zone 2.

And I climb 3-4 days a week, a couple hours per session, but probably less than 30 minutes of vigorous activity per work out (~8+ METS). That's mostly Zone 3.

I don't think anyone is advocating spending long periods in Zone 5, though I suppose it would help with ramping up vO2 max.

Okay, if you meant 300+ of something more than sitting on your butt or walking to the fridge that's attainable. Your earlier post said high heart rate with the embedded post about 90% of max. 300+ of 90% of max would be tough. 300+ of moderate not too tough.

 

[steelerfan1]

I’ve always had a problem understanding how weight training isn’t CV. I do a total body workout 3x per week and would say that close to 30 minutes of that my heart rate is close to 90 % max with the rest of it at 70% or so. To me that’s working my CV system fairly well, no?

It can be, but many people who weight train don’t maintain an elevated HR for very long.

But FWIW, the official recommendations are a lot more more CV than strength training.

I don't really do any substantial weight training, but have noticed that when I do lift dumbbells, I may be breathing heavily but my heart rate is still around maybe 80-95 (resting heart rate is in the low 50s). However, when I jog, even if I'm not out of breath at all, my heart rate will get into the 120s (and more like 140s if I'm breathing at all heavily).

I would have thought that heart rate and breathing were fairly highly correlated, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Yeah, I actually agree with you there. I had a stress test last week and when I let him know I was starting to feel like I was working hard I was at 92% of max heart rate. I could have kept going but I knew I was starting to work, where if I did a set of 15 deadlifts to failure my heart rate might hit low 140s, which is still high 80s for my old butt, but I can barely breath and function. I still prefer resistance training because I can still get my heart rate high enough and have the benefit of retaining muscle.

But do you maintain a high heart rate for 300+ minutes a week? That’s the amount needed for maximal mortality benefit.

It depends what we are calling a high heart rate. If we are talking about zone 5, then definitely not. Fitbit shows me at 243 minutes this week, but I’d guess most of it is zone 2 to the 70 % range. that’s with a lot of walking with purpose, some days with a vest.

All it takes is moderate intensity exercise, > 3 METS. I walk on average 90 minutes a day, about 5 1/2 miles, partially uphill. Only 25 minutes of that is Zone 3 or higher, 120+ bpm. The rest in Zone 2.

And I climb 3-4 days a week, a couple hours per session, but probably less than 30 minutes of vigorous activity per work out (~8+ METS). That's mostly Zone 3.

I don't think anyone is advocating spending long periods in Zone 5, though I suppose it would help with ramping up vO2 max.

Yeah, if moderate counts, I meet the 300+. I think spending that much time in zone 5 you would be overtraining.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

I’ve always had a problem understanding how weight training isn’t CV. I do a total body workout 3x per week and would say that close to 30 minutes of that my heart rate is close to 90 % max with the rest of it at 70% or so. To me that’s working my CV system fairly well, no?

It can be, but many people who weight train don’t maintain an elevated HR for very long.

But FWIW, the official recommendations are a lot more more CV than strength training.

I don't really do any substantial weight training, but have noticed that when I do lift dumbbells, I may be breathing heavily but my heart rate is still around maybe 80-95 (resting heart rate is in the low 50s). However, when I jog, even if I'm not out of breath at all, my heart rate will get into the 120s (and more like 140s if I'm breathing at all heavily).

I would have thought that heart rate and breathing were fairly highly correlated, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Yeah, I actually agree with you there. I had a stress test last week and when I let him know I was starting to feel like I was working hard I was at 92% of max heart rate. I could have kept going but I knew I was starting to work, where if I did a set of 15 deadlifts to failure my heart rate might hit low 140s, which is still high 80s for my old butt, but I can barely breath and function. I still prefer resistance training because I can still get my heart rate high enough and have the benefit of retaining muscle.

But do you maintain a high heart rate for 300+ minutes a week? That’s the amount needed for maximal mortality benefit.

That's 50 minutes 6 days a week. I'd venture to guess very few people are hitting that whether CV or strength training.

I’m at 205 so far this week. LAM! . 94 of those minutes are above 124 That’s 3 trips to the gym. I’ll probably hit 300 this week. But thats a lot

another hour in the gym. mostly a recovery day. 22 more minutes above 124

 

[DA RAIDERS]

I’ve always had a problem understanding how weight training isn’t CV. I do a total body workout 3x per week and would say that close to 30 minutes of that my heart rate is close to 90 % max with the rest of it at 70% or so. To me that’s working my CV system fairly well, no?

It can be, but many people who weight train don’t maintain an elevated HR for very long.

But FWIW, the official recommendations are a lot more more CV than strength training.

I don't really do any substantial weight training, but have noticed that when I do lift dumbbells, I may be breathing heavily but my heart rate is still around maybe 80-95 (resting heart rate is in the low 50s). However, when I jog, even if I'm not out of breath at all, my heart rate will get into the 120s (and more like 140s if I'm breathing at all heavily).

I would have thought that heart rate and breathing were fairly highly correlated, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Yeah, I actually agree with you there. I had a stress test last week and when I let him know I was starting to feel like I was working hard I was at 92% of max heart rate. I could have kept going but I knew I was starting to work, where if I did a set of 15 deadlifts to failure my heart rate might hit low 140s, which is still high 80s for my old butt, but I can barely breath and function. I still prefer resistance training because I can still get my heart rate high enough and have the benefit of retaining muscle.

But do you maintain a high heart rate for 300+ minutes a week? That’s the amount needed for maximal mortality benefit.

It depends what we are calling a high heart rate. If we are talking about zone 5, then definitely not. Fitbit shows me at 243 minutes this week, but I’d guess most of it is zone 2 to the 70 % range. that’s with a lot of walking with purpose, some days with a vest.

All it takes is moderate intensity exercise, > 3 METS. I walk on average 90 minutes a day, about 5 1/2 miles, partially uphill. Only 25 minutes of that is Zone 3 or higher, 120+ bpm. The rest in Zone 2.

And I climb 3-4 days a week, a couple hours per session, but probably less than 30 minutes of vigorous activity per work out (~8+ METS). That's mostly Zone 3.

I don't think anyone is advocating spending long periods in Zone 5, though I suppose it would help with ramping up vO2 max.

Yeah, if moderate counts, I meet the 300+. I think spending that much time in zone 5 you would be overtraining.

for sure

 

[Terminalxylem]

Okay, if you meant 300+ of something more than sitting on your butt or walking to the fridge that's attainable. Your earlier post said high heart rate with the embedded post about 90% of max. 300+ of 90% of max would be tough. 300+ of moderate not too tough.

Every minute of high intensity exercise counts roughly double a moderate minute, in terms of mortality reduction. So only 150 minutes of vigorous exercise/week attains maximal benefit.

But I’ve never seen anyone recommend that much Zone 5, or any studies on high-volume exercise near max HR. Sounds like a recipe for injury.

My point was really centered on the relative importance of CV versus strength training, as some guys seem to believe it's the other way around. It doesn’t help that many pop science articles fixate on sarcopenia, along with gratuitous protein consumption.

While muscle is certainly important for healthspan, a lot of CV exercise + some strength training seems to be best path to living longer.

 

[Terminalxylem]

It depends what we are calling a high heart rate. If we are talking about zone 5, then definitely not. Fitbit shows me at 243 minutes this week, but I’d guess most of it is zone 2 to the 70 % range. that’s with a lot of walking with purpose, some days with a vest.

I decided to do my daily walk with purpose, to see how my HR responded:

5.25 miles, 889 feet elevation gain, 1 hour 23 minutes.

126 bpm average. 46 minutes in Zone 2, 19 in Zone 5. Only forty seconds in Zone 1.

So 55:45 split between Zone 2 and higher intensity. Short of adding some weight, not sure I can do much better walking.

 

[steelerfan1]

It depends what we are calling a high heart rate. If we are talking about zone 5, then definitely not. Fitbit shows me at 243 minutes this week, but I’d guess most of it is zone 2 to the 70 % range. that’s with a lot of walking with purpose, some days with a vest.

I decided to do my daily walk with purpose, to see how my HR responded:

5.25 miles, 889 feet elevation gain, 1 hour 23 minutes.

126 bpm average. 46 minutes in Zone 2, 19 in Zone 5. Only forty seconds in Zone 1.

So 55:45 split between Zone 2 and higher intensity. Short of adding some weight, not sure I can do much better walking.

Yeah, that’s moving. I don’t hit z5 at all on mine. I hit vigorous, but not that high. I’m guessing it’s the incline and not the speed that gets you there.

 

[steelerfan1]

Okay, if you meant 300+ of something more than sitting on your butt or walking to the fridge that's attainable. Your earlier post said high heart rate with the embedded post about 90% of max. 300+ of 90% of max would be tough. 300+ of moderate not too tough.

Every minute of high intensity exercise counts roughly double a moderate minute, in terms of mortality reduction. So only 150 minutes of vigorous exercise/week attains maximal benefit.

But I’ve never seen anyone recommend that much Zone 5, or any studies on high-volume exercise near max HR. Sounds like a recipe for injury.

My point was really centered on the relative importance of CV versus strength training, as some guys seem to believe it's the other way around. It doesn’t help that many pop science articles fixate on sarcopenia, along with gratuitous protein consumption.

While muscle is certainly important for healthspan, a lot of CV exercise + some strength training seems to be best path to living longer.

Looking further at my own routine, I’d guess that while I value and enjoy weight training, it’s still only 3 days of ,y week, where I do some form of fast walking, elliptical, etc. everyday, so technically I do more CV than resistance. Heck, I just mowed the yard with. Purpose and got 52 minutes of moderate with some vigorous thrown in : -) and I still will do an hour walk with purpose today.

As to the protein thing. We have to get our macros from somewhere and we only have 3 options, well 4 if you count booze, but I think each options have negatives and once I feel my carb and fat needs have been made I’d rather add to the protein ratio than the others.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

What numbers are y’all considering as benchmarks for zones? Here are mine.

Zone 2. 124…134
Zone 3. 135~ 145
Zone 4. 146…157
Zone 5. 158+

Term you hit 19 minutes in zone 5 walking?

 

[Terminalxylem]

It depends what we are calling a high heart rate. If we are talking about zone 5, then definitely not. Fitbit shows me at 243 minutes this week, but I’d guess most of it is zone 2 to the 70 % range. that’s with a lot of walking with purpose, some days with a vest.

I decided to do my daily walk with purpose, to see how my HR responded:

5.25 miles, 889 feet elevation gain, 1 hour 23 minutes.

126 bpm average. 46 minutes in Zone 2, 19 in Zone 5. Only forty seconds in Zone 1.

So 55:45 split between Zone 2 and higher intensity. Short of adding some weight, not sure I can do much better walking.

Yeah, that’s moving. I don’t hit z5 at all on mine. I hit vigorous, but not that high. I’m guessing it’s the incline and not the speed that gets you there.

The first mile is flat. I walked a comically quick sub 13-minute mile, yet barely stayed in z2. (Side note: I have no idea how race walkers clock miles in under 6 minutes - seems harder than running really fast).

Once the hill started, I was 130+, to a max of 171. Even the downhill required enough effort to keep my HR over 110.

Aside from looking stupid walking so fast, I see no reason to ever run. Walking is muuch easier on the joints, and hills can make it a legit work out.

 

[Terminalxylem]

What numbers are y’all considering as benchmarks for zones? Here are mine.

Zone 2. 124…134
Zone 3. 135~ 145
Zone 4. 146…157
Zone 5. 158+

Term you hit 19 minutes in zone 5 walking?

Yeah, there’s controversy how one defines the zones, and even how many there should be. My zone 5 is 153+.

And yes, walking hills can get HR pretty high.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Okay, if you meant 300+ of something more than sitting on your butt or walking to the fridge that's attainable. Your earlier post said high heart rate with the embedded post about 90% of max. 300+ of 90% of max would be tough. 300+ of moderate not too tough.

Every minute of high intensity exercise counts roughly double a moderate minute, in terms of mortality reduction. So only 150 minutes of vigorous exercise/week attains maximal benefit.

But I’ve never seen anyone recommend that much Zone 5, or any studies on high-volume exercise near max HR. Sounds like a recipe for injury.

My point was really centered on the relative importance of CV versus strength training, as some guys seem to believe it's the other way around. It doesn’t help that many pop science articles fixate on sarcopenia, along with gratuitous protein consumption.

While muscle is certainly important for healthspan, a lot of CV exercise + some strength training seems to be best path to living longer.

Looking further at my own routine, I’d guess that while I value and enjoy weight training, it’s still only 3 days of ,y week, where I do some form of fast walking, elliptical, etc. everyday, so technically I do more CV than resistance. Heck, I just mowed the yard with. Purpose and got 52 minutes of moderate with some vigorous thrown in : -) and I still will do an hour walk with purpose today.

As to the protein thing. We have to get our macros from somewhere and we only have 3 options, well 4 if you count booze, but I think each options have negatives and once I feel my carb and fat needs have been made I’d rather add to the protein ratio than the others.

There’s only one macronutrient (I’m not counting alcohol) when eaten in higher quantities, specifically linked to shorter lifespan, albeit mostly animal studies. It’s the same one consumed the least in diets of the Blue Zones: protein.

 

[Sand]

What numbers are y’all considering as benchmarks for zones? Here are mine.

Zone 2. 124…134
Zone 3. 135~ 145
Zone 4. 146…157
Zone 5. 158+

Term you hit 19 minutes in zone 5 walking?

Get a Garmin - it sets mine by tracking HR min and max. It has my zone 5 starting at 169 and lactate threshold at 165.

Hiking up hills is no joke. Mine will get pretty high walking the dogs up some of the hills around here.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

What numbers are y’all considering as benchmarks for zones? Here are mine.

Zone 2. 124…134
Zone 3. 135~ 145
Zone 4. 146…157
Zone 5. 158+

Term you hit 19 minutes in zone 5 walking?

Get a Garmin - it sets mine by tracking HR min and max. It has my zone 5 starting at 169 and lactate threshold at 165.

Hiking up hills is no joke. Mine will get pretty high walking the dogs up some of the hills around here.

I get the hill walking. I love walking hills. Everyone’s different, but I don’t hit zone 5 unless I’m gasping for breath. I’ll have to go out and do some hills. It’s been a little while. The only thing in the gym that gets me into zone 5 is the versa climber or fairly heavy weights using large muscle groups, (legs, back) usually doing compound movements. and I’m not poo pooing anyone or their workout routine or fitness.

 

[Sand]

What numbers are y’all considering as benchmarks for zones? Here are mine.

Zone 2. 124…134
Zone 3. 135~ 145
Zone 4. 146…157
Zone 5. 158+

Term you hit 19 minutes in zone 5 walking?

Get a Garmin - it sets mine by tracking HR min and max. It has my zone 5 starting at 169 and lactate threshold at 165.

Hiking up hills is no joke. Mine will get pretty high walking the dogs up some of the hills around here.

I get the hill walking. I love walking hills. Everyone’s different, but I don’t hit zone 5 unless I’m gasping for breath. I’ll have to go out and do some hills. It’s been a little while. The only thing in the gym that gets me into zone 5 is the versa climber or fairly heavy weights using large muscle groups, (legs, back) usually doing compound movements. and I’m not poo pooing anyone or their workout routine or fitness.

I wasn't trying to imply that you were downing hiking. I was agreeing, GB.

Zone 5 is weird for me. I hit 185 the other day on a ride and it didn't feel like max HR time. Hard but not dying hard. Other times 170 crushes me.

 

[Terminalxylem]

What numbers are y’all considering as benchmarks for zones? Here are mine.

Zone 2. 124…134
Zone 3. 135~ 145
Zone 4. 146…157
Zone 5. 158+

Term you hit 19 minutes in zone 5 walking?

Get a Garmin - it sets mine by tracking HR min and max. It has my zone 5 starting at 169 and lactate threshold at 165.

Hiking up hills is no joke. Mine will get pretty high walking the dogs up some of the hills around here.

I get the hill walking. I love walking hills. Everyone’s different, but I don’t hit zone 5 unless I’m gasping for breath. I’ll have to go out and do some hills. It’s been a little while. The only thing in the gym that gets me into zone 5 is the versa climber or fairly heavy weights using large muscle groups, (legs, back) usually doing compound movements. and I’m not poo pooing anyone or their workout routine or fitness.

I’m breathing hard, for sure.

There’re some great hills in Niseko. I can show you next winter.

 

[steelerfan1]

What numbers are y’all considering as benchmarks for zones? Here are mine.

Zone 2. 124…134
Zone 3. 135~ 145
Zone 4. 146…157
Zone 5. 158+

Term you hit 19 minutes in zone 5 walking?

Yeah, there’s controversy how one defines the zones, and even how many there should be. My zone 5 is 153+.

And yes, walking hills can get HR pretty high.

I’ve seen different % of zones as well, but a lot of them I see z5 as 90%, so I use 220- my age for max and get numbers from that.

 

[steelerfan1]

Okay, if you meant 300+ of something more than sitting on your butt or walking to the fridge that's attainable. Your earlier post said high heart rate with the embedded post about 90% of max. 300+ of 90% of max would be tough. 300+ of moderate not too tough.

Every minute of high intensity exercise counts roughly double a moderate minute, in terms of mortality reduction. So only 150 minutes of vigorous exercise/week attains maximal benefit.

But I’ve never seen anyone recommend that much Zone 5, or any studies on high-volume exercise near max HR. Sounds like a recipe for injury.

My point was really centered on the relative importance of CV versus strength training, as some guys seem to believe it's the other way around. It doesn’t help that many pop science articles fixate on sarcopenia, along with gratuitous protein consumption.

While muscle is certainly important for healthspan, a lot of CV exercise + some strength training seems to be best path to living longer.

Looking further at my own routine, I’d guess that while I value and enjoy weight training, it’s still only 3 days of ,y week, where I do some form of fast walking, elliptical, etc. everyday, so technically I do more CV than resistance. Heck, I just mowed the yard with. Purpose and got 52 minutes of moderate with some vigorous thrown in : -) and I still will do an hour walk with purpose today.

As to the protein thing. We have to get our macros from somewhere and we only have 3 options, well 4 if you count booze, but I think each options have negatives and once I feel my carb and fat needs have been made I’d rather add to the protein ratio than the others.

There’s only one macronutrient (I’m not counting alcohol) when eaten in higher quantities, specifically linked to shorter lifespan, albeit mostly animal studies. It’s the same one consumed the least in diets of the Blue Zones: protein.

I’ve seen arguments that it’s the calorie restrictions in those zones, but arguably that’s coming from the high protein people who I guess can cherry pick to get things pointing their way.

Using me as an example, I need 3000 calories a day to maintain 175 lbs. what % do you yourself call an unreasonable amount of protein?

 

[massraider]

Just in the past few weeks I've started on my journey following the dietary advice of Dr. Joel Fuhrman(mainly his book 'Reversing Heart Disease'). He calls it a "Nutritarian" diet. Here are the basics:

He espouses the equation Health = Nutrients/Calories.

This eating style focuses on the nutrient-rich foods that unleash the body’s tremendous ability to heal, achieve optimal weight, and slow the aging process.

Eat mostly plants means only eat animal products in small amounts, if any, such as meat, fish, dairy, and eggs

Whole food describes natural foods that are not heavily processed. Basically, the majority of our diet is made up of fresh and clean produce rather than food that comes out of a package.

No S.O.S. When we eat the whole nut over just the processed oil, we are eating the fiber and protective nutrients too!

A Nutritarian diet meets your nutritional needs by focusing on natural, minimally processed plant foods and turning up the G-BOMBS! Nutritional research demonstrates these foods give us the greatest protection against cancer and other diseases.

What are G-BOMBS?

G-BOMBS is an acronym for Greens, Beans, Onions, Mushrooms, Berries and Seeds. These are the most health-promoting, anti-cancer superfoods on the planet. Make sure that you include some or all of them in your diet every day.

Greens: Greater consumption of these vegetables is linked to reduced risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease, and a longer life.

Beans: Beans and legumes are rich in fiber and resistant starch, which help keep blood glucose, blood pressure and LDL cholesterol down, and nourish the microbiome.

Onions: Onions and garlic are linked to a reduction in the risk of several cancers, and their distinctive sulfur-containing phytochemicals have a number of actions that benefit the cardiovascular system.

Mushrooms: Mushroom phytochemicals are unique in their promotion of immune system function with powerful anti-cancer benefits.

Berries: Berry phytochemicals have anti-cancer and blood pressure-lowering effects, and are linked to a reduced risk of heart attack.

Seeds: Eating raw seeds and nuts regularly is associated with longevity, reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, common cancers, and a healthy body weight.

All this.

I eat more protein than some of these people recommend, but yeah, all of this.