LifeSpan versus HealthSpanJune 12, 2017LifeSpan Versus Healthspan
References: WEForum 2017
, Compreh Physiology 2012
, Med Sci-Fi Sport Exercise
We are living longer. But are we living better? In the 20th century, we doubled our life expectancy
with the miracle of antibiotics, clean surgical technique, X-rays, immunizations and clean water. Babies being born today
in advanced societies have a 50:50 chance of living to be 100. But living longer isn't necessarily better. There have been some disturbing trends lately. Obesity has managed to reverse
the climb to longer lifespan in some societies, namely the USA.
As we live longer, we have more choices about lifestyle, making research into factors affecting confoundingly complex. It becomes impossible to do "randomized, placebo controlled" studies over decades without limiting free choice and spending more money than could be allocated. This article, from the World Economic Forum this year, offers insight into the laboratory of fitness, namely masters athletes. I have a dozen or so men and women older than 60 in my practice who would qualify as exceptionally fit. And I see their lab results and their vitality. They are aging differently than those of us who are less active.
Sedentary behavior is being increasingly recognized
as the driver of many of our modern conditions. Part of this discernment comes from the recognition that athletes, (high end performers) have a disproportionately share of good health. They don't get in trouble
. They still die, but their time of end-of-life disability is markedly compressed, compared to the majority of the sedentary population. They become a unique research cohort, one that we couldn't duplicate with "randomized research". In effect, what happens with athletes is that they reach their peak in their 30s, like all of us, but then don't show much decline until close to the very end. The rest of us show inexorable, linear decline. "Patch, patch patch, after 40!," we say.
At every age in life, starting exercise of any kind has benefit
. And the risk of complications from exercise is far lower than the risk of remaining sedentary
. The real risk is sitting
. Considering computer games at home, TV, computers at work and cell phones in-between, we are mesmerized by electronic distractions that leave us sedentary. In fact, research in 2009 of 17,000 Canadians of all ages showed a dose relationship of sedentary behavior to all cause mortality, regardless of levels of exercise. That means 30 minutes in the gym does you no good if you are sitting the rest of the day. Bother.
The Author cites four strategies with references on each: 1) Move More (Just get started and move more
), 2) Move Slow, (Aim for 10,000 steps a day
) 3) Move Fast (Add some high intensity something
, even for just 10 minutes) and 4) Move Heavy (Add some weights
). Read those hyperlinks. It's the best of our knowledge.
WWW.What will work for me. Sedentary behavior is the new smoking. If you want to live better, longer, you have to do it. Build it in every day. A day without exercise is as bad as a day of smoking.
||Our grand-kids are likely to live to be 90+. T or F Answer: False if they are sedentary, but true if they get the exercise bug and take care of their diet.
||Our society is becoming more active. T or F Answer: Mixed picture. But as a general rule, false. Bless those who make the answer slightly true.
||30 minutes at the gym has beneficial effects? T or F Answer: Sure, it helps. Its benefit may be completely erased by an 8 hour day of sitting.
||There is a dose relationship between exercise and good health. T or F Bingo
||Getting sweaty isn't necessary. T or F Answer: False, if you want optimal results. Getting sweaty 3-4 times a week is much better for you.