selby at lenti.med.umn.edu (Scott Selby (Med-Hem)) wrote:
>>H.O.van.den.Berg at Inter.NL.net wrote:
> You have ignored numerous human studies where sedentary lifestyles
> coincide with increased risk for heart disease, stroke, etc. etc. and a
> study done on rowers in the late 70's that showed that these athletes
> (many of whom continued their sport after college) outlived there
> classmates by 10-12 years.
>
And so it should be, if moderate exercise results in healthier
lifestyle choices. But what about a healthy lifestyle with
a minimum of exercise, just enough to keep things functioning well ?
> This physiobabble is the same thing sighted by trash newspapers every so
> often about the deleterious effects of exercise. What you fail to
> recognize is that in evolutionary terms, our vigorous types are probably
> very sedentary compared to the gathering/hunting lifestyle of prehistoric
> peoples.
>I hardly think they were jogging all day. Not used to it anyway.
(Remember what happened to the messenger at Marathon ?)
But you sure have a point that some fysical activity is normal
for human kind.
> Drawing parallels between fruit flys and human behaviour is ludicrous.
> Paralysis in humans (the ultimate in non-activity) results in a decrease
> in life-span of 5-20 years depending on the extend of injury. While this
> is complicated by the other health issues involved in spinal cord injury,
> the 200% figure you sight in fruit flies should outweigh the deleterious
> effects of spinal cord injury.
Yes, I had wondered about that. Does anyone know how people in
a coma age ?
While my reasoning in this argument is
> ridiculous, at best, it shows the danger of taking wildly disperate
> species studies and drawing conclusions about supposed health benefits or
> deleterious effects.
>> I'll continue my fitness and diet.... (rest snipped)
Oops, sorry. I didn't know I was touching a sensitive
spot there. Just trying to get discussion going.
Still;
Cheers,
Harrie