Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

typodupeerror

The Least Amount of Exercise Needed To Extend Life249

Toe, The writes "Of particular concern to couch potatoes, gamers, and anyone who spends an inordinate amount of time sitting and staring at a screen is how little exercise can I do and still receive a benefit. A new study entitled 'Minimum amount of physical activity for reduced mortality and extended life expectancy: a prospective cohort study' answers this important question. The conclusion: 92 minutes of moderate activity a week can extend your life by three years."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Least Amount of Exercise Needed To Extend Life

• 92? (Score:2, Funny)

Obviously they meant 42.

• So I get three more years... (Score:5, Funny)

on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @04:58PM (#37196526)

...in which I'll have to exercise? Oh, let my sweet death come.

• Re:So I get three more years... (Score:5, Informative)

on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @05:08PM (#37196662)
Actually, it's a net gain. If you work out 92 minutes a week, 52 weeks a year, for 50 years, you have spent 166 days working out and gained over 6-1/2 times that much life. What the summary doesn't inform us is how long before you die you have to start this regimen in order to get the full 3-year benefit, which could easily make that ratio quite a lot higher. Best-case, you only work out a little under 10 days during the extra 3 years.
• Re:So I get three more years... (Score:5, Insightful)

<sh00zNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @05:21PM (#37196812) Journal
It gets better--following their math, 92 minutes a week gives a 14% reduction in mortality from all causes, and every additional 15 minutes gives an additional 4%. there's no point of diminishing returns identified. So, if you exercise 7 hours a week, you become immortal.
• Re:So I get three more years... (Score:5, Funny)

on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @05:31PM (#37196946) Homepage Journal

It gets better--following their math, 92 minutes a week gives a 14% reduction in mortality from all causes, and every additional 15 minutes gives an additional 4%. there's no point of diminishing returns identified. So, if you exercise 7 hours a week, you become immortal.

On average. In reality, some people exercising 7 hours a week will live much longer than that, and some much shorter.

• Re: (Score:3)

if you exercise 7 hours a week, you become immortal

In reality, some people exercising 7 hours a week will live much longer than that

Who are these people and can I have their autograph?

• Re: (Score:2)

Hmm. Since immortal means 'infinite lifespan' or 'living an infinite number of years', then only one person has to do that to make the average also infinite. Everyone else could die tomorrow.

• Re: (Score:2)

It gets better--following their math, 92 minutes a week gives a 14% reduction in mortality from all causes, and every additional 15 minutes gives an additional 4%. there's no point of diminishing returns identified. So, if you exercise 7 hours a week, you become immortal.

I think this is a straw man argument. The authors clearly state that the trend was for comparison between the "inactive" and "low exercise" group. Somebody exercising 7 hours a week would not count towards either group. Indeed the title of the paper makes it clear that they are talking about the benefits of small amount of exercise for those who do little or none.

• immortal? (Score:2)

It gets better--following their math, 92 minutes a week gives a 14% reduction in mortality from all causes, and every additional 15 minutes gives an additional 4%. there's no point of diminishing returns identified. So, if you exercise 7 hours a week, you become immortal.

Not if someone who exercises 8 hours per week takes your head!

• Re: (Score:3)

Actually, it's a net gain.

It never feels like a gain in reality, because you only get more of your last years, which are crappy anyway. Having more of your middle years would be great, but alas, instead of having fun, you're now exercising during those times.

• Re: (Score:2)

This is silly. At the age of 65, my father won a half-marathon. If you ate healthy and worked out regularly, you will be in the peak of your health even when you're older. Both my parents have no diabetes, no heart problems, and are generally quite healthy for their age. The only health issue they seem to have is a mild onset of arthritis.

• Re: (Score:2)

It never feels like a gain in reality, because you only get more of your last years, which are crappy anyway. Having more of your middle years would be great, but alas, instead of having fun, you're now exercising during those times.

But you will get more of them! If exercise results in you living longer due to being healthier, then it stands to reason that your "middle years" -- the ones where you're in good enough shape to enjoy them -- will last longer. It's not like you're in exactly the same condition as a non-exerciser right up to the age of 95, and then squeek out another 3 years because you exercised when you were 20. It means that the time when life starts to get crappy will be pushed out. That's a win.

Plus, you could alway

• Re: (Score:3)

How do you only get more of your last years? You will be healthier in your middle years. I'm 41, I'm certainly not a top athlete, but I can run 20-30 minutes easily, I'm stronger than I have ever been with weight-training, look great and have lots of energy. Compared to my 40 something counter-parts, I look almost 10 years younger. Yes, genetics plays a big part as well, but if I never did any of this, I wouldn't like to imagine how I'd look and feel.

Personally, I think sitting on your ass is a killer,

• Re: (Score:2)

What the summary doesn't inform us is how long before you die you have to start this regimen in order to get the full 3-year benefit

It also doesn't address quality of life. I'd hate to put in all that effort just to be able to spend an extra 3 years bed-ridden...

• Re: (Score:2)

I'd hate to put in all that effort just to be able to spend an extra 3 years bed-ridden...

Depends on who you're riding.

• Re: (Score:2)

What the summary doesn't inform us is how long before you die you have to start this regimen in order to get the full 3-year benefit,

I'm guessing its some considerable time before your 97th birthday...

• Re: (Score:2)

I wonder if it's actually the exercise causing the life extension, or simply the maintaining of a healthier weight. Aka, would caloric restriction likewise extend your life? I lost ~25 kilos and got down to the lower end of the healthy weight range (instead of where I started -- the upper end of "overweight", just under "obese") simply by reducing portion sizes. No change in exercise levels.

• Re: (Score:2)

Caloric restriction does indeed extend life span. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction [wikipedia.org]
• Re: (Score:2)

Caloric restriction does indeed extend life span. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction [wikipedia.org]

Are you a mouse? Or a mushroom?

It's been shown to increase life span in some, but not all animals and fungi. YMMV.

• Re: (Score:2)

there is studies on humans in there. it certainly seems to have some effects. I've seen people on documentaries before that used caloric restriction for many years and they have bodies of much younger people.
• Re: (Score:2)

Caloric restrictions may keep the weight down, but actual exercise has cardiovascular benefits on top of just not adding more cholesterol plaques to the arteries. Also, weight-bearing exercise increases bone mineral density and makes you less likely to break a hip and end up bedridden when you are old.
• Re: (Score:2)

Don't think this is the case. Other studies of exercise and longevity show decreased mortality, "adjusting for other risk factors", and weight is surely one of the other risk factors. However, the fact that exercise tends to also move those risk factors in the right direction, seems to imply (given my imperfect understanding of these things) that to the extent that the bad scores on "other risk factors" might be caused by lack of exercise, that exercise is probably better than its conservatively adjusted

• Love excercise (Score:3, Insightful)

on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @05:02PM (#37196574) Homepage

Good job I love exercise, so I don't have to go around calculating the bare minimum.

• Re:Love excercise (Score:4, Funny)

on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @05:04PM (#37196604)
Bad nerd, get back in the basement and stop talking nonsense.
• Re: (Score:2)

Hehe, though seriously, going from a sedentary lifestyle to an active one involves a certain pain barrier.
Perhaps as long as 2-3 weeks where you get all pain and no benefit. It's plain sailing, and all benefits after that.

OT: Troll mod? Not sure if the allocation algorithm changed, but the general quality of /. moderation is in the toilet these days. Make me want to not post.

• Re: (Score:2)

Just remember:

You don't extend the life of a car by driving it.
• Re: (Score:2)

Nor do you unduly wear out your body if you exercise correctly.

Being mechanical, the car analogy is useless.
Consider instead a shark, which must keep moving continuously all it's life, simply to breath.

• Re: (Score:2)

Just remember: You don't extend the life of a car by driving it.

Ummm...yeah, to some extent you do. Engine cylinders, pistons, connecting rods, bearings, etc. rust if the engine isn't periodically run. Water builds up in the oil sump due to condensation, causing even more rust, if the engine isn't run long enough to come up to operating temperature. Hoses and gaskets dry out, crack and fall apart much more quickly in cars that just sit. Electromechanical contacts corrode when they aren't used. The list goes on and on and on. Unless you have taken the time to

• Re: (Score:2)

Just remember:

You don't extend the life of a car by driving it.

Hm. I think we need to invent a bio-mechanical car that responds to casual wear and tear by rebuilding itself more robustly, and then revisit this.

• Re: (Score:2)

Just remember:

You don't extend the life of a car by driving it.

Hm. I think we need to invent a bio-mechanical car that responds to casual wear and tear by rebuilding itself more robustly, and then revisit this.

Like this [wikipedia.org].

• Re: (Score:2)

"I believe that every human has a finite amount of heartbeats. I don't intend to waste any of mine running around doing exercises."
— Neil Armstrong
• Re: (Score:2)

Honestly Doc, I never exerted or pushed by body. Not once I tell ya! Why is everything breaking down? It should be like brand new!

• What this means (Score:2)

When you do nothing, really nothing you die three years earlier than the couch potato next to you who exercises 92 minutes a week. This can easily be achieved by walking fast to the pizza place 10 minutes away instead of calling for delivery. ;-)

• Re: (Score:2)

The nearest food or any other purchase is probably an hours walk along heavily traveled roads with no accommodation for pedestrians. I like cities but I don't live in one. Also, it has been in the 90s for 3 months now. Its hard to turn down that 20 second hike to the car.

• So what we want to know is.... (Score:4, Insightful)

on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @05:05PM (#37196626)

... does masturbation count? Because I'm going to live forever at this point.

• Re: (Score:3)

How long before we can submit escort services as medical expenses?
• Let me get this right (Score:3)

on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @05:06PM (#37196630) Journal

If I exercise for 92 min a week for the next 38 years I get to live an extra 3 years.

So if I total it up, I am doing 3.32 days of exercise a year to gain 25 days of life expectancy. Ok, so it seems like a deal.

Though I could just spend those 3.3 days playing the latest game, much more enjoyable and loosing 3 years is not that big of a deal.

• immediate pleasure of exercise more important (Score:2)

It makes me feel good doing it. It makes me look better. It reduces colds and headaches. And its fun at times. Increased longevity is a bonus, but not a deal-maker.
• Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

You young whippersnappers will soon learn that one reason so many of us older folks get exercise is that it reduces the amount of pain in old bones. I won't go to the gym to save my life, but I will work in the yard, garden some, mow the law, haul water in a 5 gallon bucket, wheel barrel stuff off, etc. Nothing too dramatic, but enough that it reduces the pain and inflammation in the joints and you really do feel better. The least amount is around 30 minutes a day of just moving around doing light work t

• Re: (Score:2)

...Though I could just spend those 3.3 days playing the latest game, much more enjoyable and loosing 3 years is not that big of a deal.

Ahhh, spoken like [insert anyone under the age of 35 here].

Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you, but your opinion about how valuable time is will likely change drastically from the oh-so-popular "meh, fuck it, I won't even make it past 30" attitude that many younger people have.

Time. It's the one thing that no matter how rich you are, you can never buy more of, and once it's lost, it's gone forever.

• Re: (Score:2)

Though... there are other factors. What if that only averages 6 more months of good health? 3 extra years worth it, if you spend 2.5 of it in pain or in a hospital bed?

Not saying I expect to find that, but depending on your choice of exercice and other factors...who knows. What about increased risk of injury? Your chooice of exercise may increase the odds of getting an injury that may have other complications.

encouraging but...yes we do need more than just "you get to be even older"

• Re:Let me get this right (Score:4, Interesting)

on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @05:39PM (#37197090) Journal

As someone who works out on a regular basis (an hour or two on most days), I will let you in on a little secret: working out is fun.

Sure, when you first get started, it feels tedious. Pointless, even. But once you start seeing the changes in your body, it becomes addictive.

For instance, most days, I can't wait to get done with work and hit the gym. Ever heard of the runner's high? Working out makes you feel great when you're done with it -- you feel euphoria when you're working out, and a feeling of accomplishment when you're done with it. But the trick is to keep at it.

In the short term, you'll feel more awake, sleep better (deeper REM sleep), and eat better (seriously, once I started working out regularly, I just started craving a wider variety of food than I'd usually eat -- more vegetables and protein, less carbs).

After a few months, you will see serious physical changes in your body that, if not anything else, helps with your vanity. :-) Plus, there's nothing quite like having a girl check you out -- it's a great feeling. As my wife is wont to say, there's nothing that women like more than a buff geek. Beauty and the brains -- can't beat that.

You can do it for any number of reasons, but you will eventually get to a point when you'll be doing it because it is fun. Once you get there, you'll look back and wonder why you didn't do it all these years. Trust me, it's worth it.

• Re: (Score:2)

You know, I went to the gym for like a year and it was great, I felt better than I do know. The catch is that I used to go with a friend. At this point in my life I don't really have a friend that could adapt to my schedule and I tried working out on my own: it was awfully boring, incredibly boring.

So now I'm not excercising at all because I *know* it will be boring. Any piece of advice to share?
• Re: (Score:3)

Can you find an activity or a sport you could participate in? A softball league or an ultimate frisbee league? Or a pick up game of soccer? Otherwise, there's always Craigslist! :-)

As someone who is always on the road, I often have this problem, but it's usually easier to find people to do activities with when you're playing a sport (no matter how bad you are at it).

The other thing is to take up an interesting and new hobby (e.g. I've been thinking of doing boxing for fun, just every Saturday for an hour).

• Re: (Score:2)

Listen to audiobooks or podcasts while you work out. Suddenly, it's not nearly so dull.

• Re: (Score:2)

Actually, I'd recommend good workout music. While it's a question of personal preference, I've found certain genres of music to be more uplifting for working out than others (e.g. hip hop with good rhythm and beats is great).

It would also depend on what you're doing. A significant part of working your muscle groups involves concentrating more on using certain muscles over others. For example, when doing your lower back, it is easy to lose concentration and work your core or your legs, but it takes focus to

• Re: (Score:2)

I've never felt good when exercising. I do it, and do it regularly, solely because I like to be sexually desirable. But there is no way it can be called fun. It's something you grit your teeth a force yourself through because it feels better later, when you're not exercising, and some girl is actually checking you out.

On Saturday (my big workout day) I often stay I bed long after I've already woken up, long after I've gotten bored out of my mind just laying there, because I'm filled with dread at the fact
• Re: (Score:2)

Then you're doing the wrong thing. Try another activity.

• Re: (Score:2)

What the hell people. "Exercise" can be just as fun as computer games. You just need to find an activity that you enjoy.

I love playing the Assassin's Creed games, but doing Parkour for real is more fun, not to mention free, with a much larger potential play area. As a side bonus, you get very functionally fit (and much more confident in your body's capabilities), unlike those guys pumping weights just for the aesthetic results.

Besides, I don't want to be one of those old people that can barely walk because

• Re: (Score:2)

Well, I tried blurring the lines by playing real life Leisure Suit Larry, and well, long story short, I now have a police record in addition to a pudgy body.
• Re: (Score:2)

Though I could just spend those 3.3 days playing the latest game, much more enjoyable and loosing 3 years is not that big of a deal.

You assume that physical activity is necessarily unenjoyable. Find and take up something you enjoy, whether it be racquetball, basketball, biking, bowling, skating, golf, etc, and it will never feel like work.

• calling BS (Score:2)

How can one call himself a scientist and make statements like this?

"The conclusion: 92 minutes of moderate activity a week can extend your life by three years.""

It's obvious that it could only be result of very indirect studies.

• Re: (Score:2)

Right. If I read the abstract correctly, the data is from peoples' self reporting of how much they exercise

So, the data doesn't show whether exercising makes you live longer, or whether people who are healthier also are more likely to exercise.

• Re: (Score:2)

I would think that (a) people overestimate how much they exercise and (b) exercise is still good for you. There was a Danish study of mortality rates and physical activity, and various forms of (self-reported) exercise looked good, but riding a bicycle to work looked really good. I don't think that biking is any better than any other form of aerobic exercise, but if you bike to work, you do it, or you don't. And you don't quit halfway to work. Which is to say, that the self-reporting of biking to work,

• Calculation suggests this is worth it (Score:2)

One obvious question to ask for this sort of thing is if it is worth it. If the time increase to lifespan was less than the time necessary to spend exercising then this would be worth it. Assume a normal life span of 80 years. And assume that the exercise takes 120 minutes (showering off, changing clothes etc. pushes one above 92 minutes. I'm assuming 120 here because that makes it exactly two hours which makes the arithmetic easier). Then with 52 weeks a year, one gets that this takes up a total of 80*52*2
• Remember, nay sayers, (Score:3)

on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @05:16PM (#37196740) Journal

...That's 3 more years in which you can defend your high score.

• On the other hand... (Score:2)

...you could ignore the whole issue and gamble that a pill that has the same effect will be invented soon.

• Re: (Score:2)

They have that pill already, but chronic necronic necrosis is one of the potential side effects...

• Depends... (Score:2)

Depends on what kind of animal is chasing you...

• Full paper (Score:2)

The full pdf paper is slightly more informative. While the summary would seem to indicate that chances of mortality decreases linearly with increasing exercise, from Figure 2 of the chart it seems like after 100 minutes a day the benefits taper off. So it seems like 15 minutes a day is good,150 is overdoing it. http://www.natap.org/2011/HIV/PIIS0140673611607496.pdf [natap.org]
They also note that ex-smokers exercised more than the norm, so that might be contributing to the decrease in cancer rates (correlation, not c
• Exercise is good (Score:2)

I know we are geeks here and "supposed" to hate exercise, but exercise is great. It helps cognitive health(http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/exercise.html, http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/0216exercise.html [illinois.edu]) and emotional health (http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/0216exercise.html). Increasing your agility and endurance can save your life in a dangerous situation.

It doesn't have to be boring either. You can practice martial arts or swordsmanship (and what helps you get into a Song of Fire and Ice better than

• Re: (Score:2)

You can grab a bunch of like minded friends, and invent games yourself.

And with luck, you can use the tips from the fitness magazine with your group of friends.

• Re: (Score:2)

Hahahaha. WIN. I'm off to find and join an orgy club, and if one doesn't exist, create one.
• Re: (Score:2)

For health's sake, of course.
• Re: (Score:2)

Sex counts too, you can get pretty creative in the bedroom. You can grab a bunch of like minded friends, and invent games yourself. But I repeat myself.

There. FIFY

• 20 miles equivalent of cardio (Score:4, Insightful)

on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @05:25PM (#37196866)
I've heard this expressed in terms of weekly calories expended in heart-raising exercise, i.e 2000. Walking, running, biking (3x miles), etc. doesnt matter so much as long that many calories are burned. Neither whether its compressed into a couple of long sessions or divided into many ten-minute mini-sessions. In fact it recommended to choose the most pleasant form of cardio to you so can you can continue to do to for 50 or 70 more years.

This data comes from the "grandfather" of the exercise boom Dr. Kenneth Cooper. He wrote a book called Aerobics in 1968 promoting endurance exercise over the then-popular calesthetics. He ignited the running boom by putting the on top of his 60-point-week exercise classification system. Running gets you there in the shortest time.

Above 2000 exercise calories a week the situation gets murkier. You get additional, but diminishing longevity results up to about 5000 calories (50 miles walking/running). After that the main effect is improve sports performance, not longevity. Dr. Ken even claims that too much exercise may create more oxidative waste than the body can eliminate and then decrease longevity. But this is a minority opinion and irritates the ultra people.
• Only exercise 92 min/wk ... (Score:3)

on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @05:28PM (#37196902)

... unless you're enjoying the exercise, or are rich enough to retire. Here's why: Assume you spend 8+ hours per day sleeping, eating, and bathing, and work 40 hours a week (plus travel to/from work). There are 8760 hours per year, of that at least 2,920 hours are sleeping, eating & bathing. Working 40hr/s & 50 weeks (2 weeks vacation) = 2,000 hours. So, at best, you net 3,840 hours/yr, and realistically, closer to 2,500-3,000. Then you spend time shopping, doing housework, being sick, etc.

• 92 minutes per week gives you an average of an extra 3 years of life. That's ~80 hrs per year for ~75 years = ~ 6,000 hours exercising. In return, you get 3 years extra life. So, 3 yrs will give you 7500 - 11,500 hours of additional free time. That gains you something, but it's not huge.
• Spending an extra hour a week exercising to get to 150min/week, means spending an extra 52 hrs/yr * 79yrs (75 + 4 extra) means you'll spend 4,180 extra hours exercising to gain just one additional year, which I've already established nets you at most 3,840 hrs (less in reality), which is a net loss of free time.

So, if you're enjoying the extra exercise, or you can afford to retire, then that extra hour per week might be worth it, but if not, put in your 92 minutes and call it good. Remember, you read it hear first.

• Re: (Score:2)

Two typos in my post "4180" should be "4108" and "hear" should be "here". Preview is nice, but is /. ever going to get an edit option?
• Re: (Score:2)

Or ride a bike to work. If it only takes you twice as long by bike as by car (not always true, but often true), then the net time you spend exercising is only 46 minutes per week (or half of whatever time you spend). Bonus if you can arrange to ride your bike on the days that there are usually traffic jams, because you can do better than (less than) twice as long, plus the schadenfreude of passing stopped traffic on your bicycle.

• Two words: (Score:2)

Standing desk.

• You don't become less active when you get old... (Score:4, Insightful)

on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @05:58PM (#37197402)

...you get old when you become less active.

Statements like that quoted in the summary are pure silliness. On average, exercise will tend to extend life expectancy, but that is certainly not the whole story. Plenty of exercise, proper nutrition, and stimulating thought will improve quality of life for many years leading up to death. Those years are the time to enjoy the life you have.

• Not the minimum (Score:2)

What if I only want to extend my life by 2 years? Why is 3 years the quantum, here?
• Not enough information. (Score:2)

Did they factor in how much of that extra 3 years is due to the time dilation of moving closer to the speed of light than a sedentary person?

I just can't take this study seriously if they're going to gloss over obvious issues like this one.

• Bicycling! (Score:2)

The *only* benefit I have gained by moving where I have has been that I can now bicycle to and from work. While I have considered that it may somehow extend my life in some way, I am often more concerned about how it might shorten it. ;)

Seriously, people. I have ridden a roller-coaster of experiments on myself mixing diet and exercise and there is little to be gained through exercise. Sure, you need to keep your heart healthy and your circulatory system working well, but as far as I am concerned, that is

• Re: (Score:2)

I ride almost every day to work. It is far more pleasant than driving.

The key to exercise is finding something that you enjoy.

• Re: (Score:2)

This is totally in line with my experience as well. However, as a recently diagnosed Type2 diabetic frequently monitoring my blood sugar, I can also attest to another clear benefit of moderate exercise: it keeps your blood sugar in much better control than if you stay sedentary. And at least for me, the blood sugar benefit seems to appear with as little as 20-30 minutes of walking, and doesn't seem to help much more with longer or more vigorous exercise.

But as much as I've ever tried, and I've tried pr

• Re: (Score:2)

And after reading both of Gary Taubes' books, there seems to be good reason for that...it is very difficult to engage in extended vigorous exercise without "working up an appetite", which tends to defeat any caloric deficit from the activity.

Your exercise was not vigorous enough. Really intense exercise reduces appetite. Try, for example, an interval training regime consisting of eight one-minute sprints seperated by one minute of brisk (100 steps/min) walking. The sprints should be run all-out, so th

• Re: (Score:2)

There's a LOT to be gained from exercise, as long as you aren't expecting miraculous reduction in weight. About 5 years ago I ramped up to 50 miles/week on my bike. I rapidly lost 20 pounds -- but not a pound since then. However, I have not gained any weight, either.

On the plus side, my achy joints (knees, back) don't ache so much, and in the winter I can shovel snow till my arms are noodles and my hands feel like a ran a truck over them. And all my blood numbers moved to the good side.

• I can do the math also (Score:2)

Tonight, I'm going to exercise for 92 minutes. In 2.9 years, I'll again exercise for 92 minutes. Just do it.
• It could be 1 minute a week and it wouldn't matter (Score:2)

I have come to the conclusion that by large and far the average person's goal in life is to spend ZERO minutes per week doing anything even remotely resembling work they don't have to do, and by "don't have to do" I mean "that they're not getting paid cash money to do". There is absolutely nothing you can do to externally motivate people to exercise. Even pointing a gun at them and making it clear you'll use it on them is only temporary, and even then I'm sure some people would rather take the bullet. Motiv
• Speaking of Beer (Score:2)

Do 16oz curls and monkey wrestling count?

• Extra 3 years? Who cares. What about life quality? (Score:2)

Quality of life is more important to me. I don't exercise for the extra three years, that's just a bonus.

• Re: (Score:2)

Young, aren't you?

• Yes, but is it *worth it* (Score:2)

After approximately 19.2 yrs of 15-mins-a-day (everyday) you will have successfully *spent* those "extra three years" doing exercise.

The real questions needing to be answered are
• after 15 mins a day does your quality of life improve or are you just likely to live slightly longer
• 15-mins-a-day for a couple of months, or for the rest of my life
• and if I live more than 20 yrs, do I get more than just three years (because it rapidly becomes a loss not a gain)

Related LinksTop of the: day, week, month.

"There is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." -- Mark Twain

Working...