If you value health and fitness, and then spend 4-6 hours/day exercising, despite the possibility of still gaining the primary benefits of exercise without spending so much time, how is this any different?

Aside from the health benefits, fitness enthusiasts do it for the community, the feeling of accomplishment, the personal satisfaction, and in some cases, literal addiction.

Those four hours/day on a bicycle don't seem inherently more valuable than three hours on a game and one hour on a bicycle. But someone spending four hours on the bicycle will be held above the person spending three hours on a game. Why?

The two activities can be strikingly similar in some ways (aside from the fitness outcome).

- Spending time riding/playing with other cyclists/gamers (community)

- Spending time riding alone (solitude)

- A sense of personal satisfaction at certain achievements (e.g. riding a century, or unlocking a rare achievement)

But aside from the personal fitness gained, spending an three extra hours on a bike doesn't seem intrinsically any more valuable than spending those same three hours on RDR2, if they're bringing the individual a sense of satisfaction.

I do think that this is all about balance, and as others have pointed out, addictions come in many shapes and sizes. I know people who are absolutely fitness addicts.

> building a valuable set of useful skills seems like the precise opposite of toxicity

Values are personal, and usefulness is contextual. I know plenty of people who have successful careers, make good money, and then sink inordinate amounts of time into their hobbies, some of which might not look valuable depending on your perspective. For such individuals, it's unclear why they must necessarily spend time learning more skills, and why that is valuable when the bases are already covered.

Exercising seems like the opposite of toxicity, but anything can become toxic if taken to an extreme.