News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:If You're Not Active, You're Sick – You Just Don't Know I... by pinkmuffinere on Sunday November 09, 2025 @07:41PM (#45870844)
+1. I surf occasionally, and go rock climbing a couple times a week. Compared to the "average American" I suspect I'm pretty active. Compared to other rock climbers and surfers, I'm probably relatively inactive. If I'm not concerned about improving at these hobbies, and just want 80% of the health benefit of being active, am I achieving it? Or am I still below?

Edit: From the linked paper:

'''

2.1 Subject Recruitment Nineteen male subjects ((41.9 ± 13.8 years; 82.6 ± 13.9 kg)) participated in this study and were assigned a research arm based upon meeting one of the following criteria related to physical activity:

- Sedentary (SED): n= 10. Does not perform exercise regularly or elevate heart rate outside of daily tasks

- Active (AC): n=10. Performs aerobic exercise for at least 150 minutes per week, and has at least a six-month history of doing so

'''

I bet that "Performs aerobic exercise for at least 150 minutes per week" is related to some standard advice (but I'm too lazy to confirm that. I guess that provides an easy measuring stick to decide if we're being 'active enough'

Re:If You're Not Active, You're Sick – You Just Don't Know I... by Insanity on Sunday November 09, 2025 @09:01PM (#45871443)
I am in a similar boat as you. I go bouldering twice a week for about 2h per session, I swim once a week for 45 minutes, and I walk an hour each day during my commute.

But I would be interested to know how much this contributes to keeping me healthy.

Re:If You're Not Active, You're Sick – You Just Don't Know I... by justinator on Sunday November 09, 2025 @09:53PM (#45871836)
Health is not the same as performance. You can have the former (sounds like you do to me), without the latter (but you're working on it -- what's the rush, going to the Olympics any time soon?).

The extreme of "performance" is rarely healthy.