January 2001, ten weeks of chronic sinusitis turned to pneumonia. This was followed by sleeping 18-20 hours/day for about 3.5 months, plus twice-weekly doctors appointments while they called me crazy for fearing I might die while they ran more tests, stumped as to what was wrong with me.
In May, a sweat chloride test came back positive. The verdict: atypical cystic fibrosis.
I had already stopped being largely bedridden the month before in April. Many years of rehabilitation would follow.
Walking played a very large role in my recovery. At one point, I was homeless and my daily routine involved walking six to eight hours per day for some months.
The lymphatic system is a key part of this.
Lymphatic fluid is basically your blood stripped of red and white blood cells. While in your blood, it gets moved around by your heart.
But it doesn't stay in your blood vessels. Like water in the Earth's ecosystem, it isn't confined to the creeks and rivers of blood vessels. It seeps out into your tissues like groundwater, becoming interstitial fluid.
It carries nutrients with it to nourish your tissues as it flows out. It carries wastes with it as it flows back into your blood stream.
While out in your tissues, it is beyond the reach of your pumping heart. Its return trip is typically sluggish.
Unless you are in motion. Then your skeletal muscles fill in where your heart can't reach.
Interstitial fluid returns to your blood at several times it's normal rate when you are active. When, in a word, you exercise.
Walking helps your body take out the trash, a necessary element of the healing process largely overlooked by our current medical mental models where we think to add inputs in the form of drugs but mostly don't talk about throughputs.
This is very interesting to me. An Aunt of mine is a professional Rolfer, and from what I understand the Rolf system heavily emphasizes the existence of non-blood fluid in the body and the importance of moving/loosening it. Perhaps there’s more to it than I had thought.
The lymphatic system itself can have severe issues. Consider this spiral one of my family got: back hurt, get a chiropractic, no exercise, bed-ridden for weeks, eventually recovered, but obtained lymphatic swelling of feet.
EDIT:
Fact-checked the story above, back pain wasn't the cause. Bad hydration was. After drinking more the symptoms passed (swollen feet).
My personal experience with walking began six years ago. I weighed 270 pounds, felt tired and lethargic all the time, huffed and puffed any time I had to climb stairs etc. I decided to make a change, dropped sugar from my many daily coffees, and started walking two miles every night. I mapped out a route around our house and for the first five years I took our dogs with me. Where we live is hilly and initially each night felt like a struggle and I didn't want to do it much of the time. That sort of perversely made it a point of pride to do it regardless, and we went even on nights when it was drizzling or very cold. Six years later the transformation has been pretty satisfying. Down 60 pounds, so much more energy it's hard to describe the difference. I make the whole walk now in 30 minutes easily maintaining four mph up hills and down, and I could hold a conversation while doing it and not sound out of breath. It is now a well-established habit and on those nights when I can't go I feel like a slug :).
This is the kind of things that makes me believe that part of the potential collapse will yield very good things. Bad diet, low activity .. all these are super detrimental and are double penalty both financially and existentially.
I'm betting a pinky that we'll all be happier doing "more" simple physical things.
I assume by "collapse" you mean economic and social breakdown provoked by climate change and other chaotic forces. In which case most people will die of starvation, and the world will become very nasty indeed.
I agree that modern society is very sick, but I don't think it's productive to look forward to the day when it all falls through. I do not aspire to die of starvation, or (if I survive) to live in feudal society of medieval technology. No matter how much exercise and fresh air I get. We need to think of a way to heal ourselves without losing the social and technological progress we have made.
| I'm betting a pinky that we'll all be happier doing "more" simple physical things.
This factors so heavily into my worldview right now; that our society is broken in some very strange ways. A lot of people will admonish you about "romanticizing the past", but I truly feel that maybe if people had a little more real, hard labor in their lives, everyone would be happier, healthier, and humbler. I'm reminded of the Calvin and Hobbes trope about "building character".
I worry sometimes about the actual effects of exercise on our health, and the legitimacy of these studies. It's impossible to detach these studies from the confounding factors - if your health declines (for any reason), you will stop exercising. I feel like we have to take any studies that use correlations with a grain of salt.
How do you study the effects of exercise when there are such massive confounding variables?
Sure, any conclusions you can draw from this don't have the rigor of those drawn from carefully accumulated scientific observations and controlled experiments...but it's also possible to be such a stingy devotee of scientism that it paralyzes you and divorces you from truths that are otherwise intuitive and simply a part of being human.
If you try to incorporate exercise into your daily routine you'll also have a direct experience of its benefits.
We don't necessarily need science for everything and we also don't need to establish proofs for everything. A clouded, unflagging allegiance to the scientific method is what distinguishes a dogmatic acolyte from a rational thinker (just as it does the religious fanatic and the rational practitioner)--it's just as important to circumscribe the space of the actual utility of science just as much as it is to stand firmly by its methodological principles.
I exercise a lot. But I do it mostly for the intrinsic fun part.
I doubt it has a big impact on our health and longevity. Once a research says regular medium intensity exercise could potentially prolong our lives by 3 to 5 years. But that is it. If you exercise for 50 years, 3 times a week, and 1 hour per session plus 30 minutes preparation, that is actually 12150 hours in total and translates into about 2 years of productive life.
So its ROI from a longevity perspective is really not as high as some of us think.
Rather than thinking purely about lifespan it would be better to think about healthspan. What if exercise means the years you are living are much more enjoyable and pain free.
The ROI argument is one reason why I commute by bike. 7 days a week no problem, no real preparation time. Takes up time I would otherwise be wasting sitting in a car or public transit.
Last week according to my log I rode for 213 minutes. That's a bit more than 30 minutes per day.
The main issue is that I used to spend the commute reading books. So I have basically exchanged "mental" excericse with physical excercise. I feel that listening to an audiobook while cycling is a bit too dangerous for an urban commute like mine.
I really sympathise with this. I changed job about two yeas ago and switched from an hour long train ride to a 30 minute cycyle. The shorter commute is great, and the in built exercise is great, but man I really miss that chance to read, or just relax.
I've been looking for information on risk, overall, by passenger miles travelled, by trips, and by time-in-mode (which adjusts for typical trip length).
Only partially successful, though I find:
30,690 overall auto fatalities.
- 6,067 cycling & edestrial fatalities, combined.
- "More than 90% of pedestrian fatalities occurred when the victims were hit by automobiles and light trucks."
- "A related study on risk factors for on-road cycling commuters indicated that prior to car-bicycle accidents, 89% of cyclists were traveled in a safe and legal manner. In addition, vehicle drivers were at fault in 87% of the events."
The parent didn't mean to say whether cyclists or drivers were more or less at fault, but for every minute/mile spent on a cycle instead of a car, the likelihood of injury is probably higher.
The risk of cycling depends on many different factors and is not simply described as "way more risky than using a car".
Per distance, the average cyclist has more risk than the average driver. However, that's just the base rate, and is not destiny. Combine that with the fact that cyclists tend to travel much shorter distances than drivers. So much shorter that based on distance alone I've seen some cyclists argue, with statistics for average cyclists no less, that they actually face less risk on the road than many drivers. You don't see drivers with long commutes getting warned about the danger, but if people treated driving the same as cycling you would.
There are many things cyclists can do to reduce their risk per mile. As I recall, the majority of cyclist deaths involve riding after midnight or riding when drunk. If you don't do either then your risk is a lot lower. I've been riding for over a decade now and recognize the importance of where you live, infrastructure, defensive cycling, visibility gear (lights, vest, reflectors, etc.), and even a simple air horn.
Also recognize that cycling gets safer every year on average, even in the US. At some point I looked at the data and recognized that the cyclist mortality rate in the US is decreasing roughly linearly. If the linear trend continues then there will be roughly zero cyclist fatalities in 2050. Of course, it's more likely to taper off. But I never see the fact that cycling is becoming safer every year mentioned by its detractors.
With all of this being said, yes, I do believe that cycling is more risky than I'd like. The reason why appears to be that the majority of road users (mostly drivers) do not take safety seriously. In my experience the road users who take safety the most seriously tend to be either cyclists or motorcyclists. No surprise why.
> I doubt it has a big impact on our health and longevity
It definitely has an impact on your quality of life and helps you attain your genetic potential. If you're body is prone to cancer or alzheimer you will still get them, but until then you'll be in top physical condition.
When you're 40 and start packing up weight, can't run nor climb 3 flights of stairs without panting, can't lift your kids, can't help your friends move to a new flat, &c. fast forward 20 years and you can't get out of bed without pain, walking is a chore, stairs are your nemesis, your back pain is a constant reminder of your unwillingness to exercise.
> translates into about 2 years of productive life.
I don't think making a distinction between "productivity time" and "staying in shape time" is a good thing to do. You better shave off time by working part time than shave off time by skipping physical exercise. Life doesn't have to be all about productivity.
I exercise every day for at least an hour. Screw longevity, I do it to help me think. It’s a great way to step away from work and life for a while, focus on something fun, and the ability run a marathon will come handy in the next zombie apocalypse.
Or during any sort of emergency really. Being fit has many practical uses.
I decided to run every day at the beginning of the year. Previously I would go for a lackluster jog every couple of weeks. That was not enough exercise and I went cold-turkey, no excuses. I mostly succeeded aside from a few days where it was not possible due to circumstances. I do not feel that it improved me mentally but physically it's a whole different story. Endurance improved dramatically, I do no longer feel exhausted after physical activity.
At first it was a struggle but now I look forward to the daily run. I do not want the effects to wane and that alone motivates me.
I'm aware that running is hard on the joints. Not sure about my long term plans but I will dedicate at least this year to it.
I guess my point is: no matter if it's running, walking or another activity: just continue doing it and eventually you'll enjoy it.
"Health" is a loosely defined word and there are many goals and metrics. We can definitely study some metrics of "health" and study them with high confidence if the goal is well defined and it can be monitored with fine granularity. For example, if many people exercise and then the blood glucose drops for the next day, we can see its good effect, and probably it's easier to figure out what hormonal mechanism or neural pathway affect them.
If the goal is higher-level health issue, like longevity, it is trickier because of, as you said, many confounding issues. I suspect there would be cyclic causality between exercise and longevity/overall health, and it would be quite difficult to separate the cause and the effect. IMO, maybe the best way is, making educated guess based on the studies with clearer metrics.
People who exercise are different from those who can but don’t, just as those who smoke are different from those who could, but don’t. People who exercise almost certainly have higher energy levels to start with and are less likely to have lingering minor injuries, just as you’d expect smokers and former smokers to exhibit higher levels of addictive behaviour like high coffee or cola consumption than never smokers.
Epidemiology and nutrition have massive problems teasing out causation because people who X are different from people who don’t X in many more ways than in just that difference. The health benefits of wine over beer probably reflect socioeconomic differences in consumption for just one example.
If you think like that you quickly stop looking at studies, it's impossible to control for every variables, even for the most simple phenomenons. We do our best and most of the time it's enough.
I'm not a researcher, but it seems your logic goes the other way, too: if you walk and your health improves, then there seems to be a positive correlation between health and walking.
And, I think we can control for the health decline. I.e., Stopping exercise because you have cancer vs. stopping because you have broken leg. And even then you can control for changing up the type of exercise. My wife broke her foot last year, and shifted from running 20 miles a week to doing "sit and bit fit" exercise. She actually improved her cardio capacity.
Finally, I think the logical conclusion of your argument is: exercise has no impact (or maybe even a negative impact) on health. Studies and every day experience don't seem to bear this out.
For every lifestyle decision, there are always potential risks and potential benefits.
For example, people who run excessively tend to lose fast-twitch/bulk muscle mass and wear their hips, knees and ankles faster than most people. For example, one of the worst things you could do to your body would be to repeatedly run fast, downhill while letting your feet slap the ground.
And, you're never going to be able to measure all of the pluses and minuses intellectually or quantitively, which is why these choices tend to be primarily qualitatively-based with some quantified-self bits on the margins.
For example, one of the worst things you could do to your body would be to repeatedly run fast, downhill while letting your feet slap the ground.
I think falling off a cliff repeatedly would be a slight bit worse. Or taking up a meth hobby. Or other things that seems fairly obvious.
I do a lot of trail running on steep trails (or no trails!) My knees are fine. As mentioned, lots of worse things to do to your body. Here's another one: take up skiing.
You're just asking how do we control for confounding factors in epidemiologic research. There are many ways, included adjusted logistic regression modeling, propensity scores, randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, on and on. I know it may seem like there's too many studies, but you shouldn't worry that there aren't extremely intelligent statisticians and epidemiologists working on these very issues - I collaborate with them daily :)
I hate how hard it is to sort out truth from fiction when it comes to new science regarding health and especially dieting. One study says one thing, another says another. How does anyone sort out fact from fiction on these things if they've never been to medical school?
In his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman says that walking slowly helps with thinking, while walking fast "brings about a sharp deterioration in my ability to think coherently".
I can relate to this. While cycling I think about stuff and the intensity really determines how focused I can be thinking. During really high intensity cycling my thinking is usually reduced to just a looping line from a song or "go go go"
I was considering if a modification to a standing desk to make it a cycling desk would be a good idea but now I think there is just no point because you will be half assing both exercise and focus. Really what you want to do is do some high intensity effort while doing nothing else and then low intensity stuff while working. A walking desk might still be a good idea if you set it to 2-3km/h. I find standing to be a little uncomfortable for long periods but walking is fine.
The issue with a walking desk is that the treadmill only goes one speed, you have to manually adjust it, it doesn't just let you walk naturally. It just wound up being distracting. It's not like the experience of walking and thinking at all.
I also suspect that part of the benefit is the changing environment. The article talks about the internal GPS and how training it via walking trains the brain in general. If you're moving on the spot, I imagine the internal GPS won't get worked nearly as much.
nothing surprising here. this is the same reason you don't see people studying while working out at the gym. when the brain is (either low on O2, or just under high pulmonary load) it's no good for doing cerebral-type tasks.
Couple of suggestions for prospective walkers (or rollers) out there. Successful walking is about fine-tuning yourself to your environment. In order to do so you need couple basics straightened out.
Do yourself a favor and get a flat footwear. Zero-drop shoes will help body realign your lumbar spine and neck (heels push the butt outwards, forcing the spine to compensate). Enthusiastic walking, like running, is a repetitive stress activity so you want your joints in their evolved alignment to avoid fatigue or even damage seeping in. Note, if you choose minimal (or the nowadays called barefoot) footwear- go gradually, allow your foot to build it's strength back up.
Be aurally aware of your environment. Apple earbuds (wired or wireless) are very good in this regard, as these'll let you hear stuff around you. Bone-conducting headphones are also a good option.
> Be aurally aware of your environment. Apple earbuds (wired or wireless) are very good in this regard, as these'll let you hear stuff around you. Bone-conducting headphones are also a good option.
Or, you know, just focus on one thing at a time and don't listen to music/take a call while walking.
Personally I am a lot more productive during + after walking in nature. It saves me a lot of time if I walk through a forest before or during writing code. Better code, less mistakes, less refactoring etc etc. The effect (again personally) is far less if not nature but a city for instance.
Last week I alternated reading programming books and coding with jogging sessions. Every time I hit a mental block or just coding fatigue. I'd leave and run a bit. It wasn't super effective but overall it avoided stress and gave room for free mind wandering and new ideas.
That's why I went from short jobs to long walks; I can pretty much do most my work (70%) while walking (in forests; not in the city; I would get literally hit by a truck). It seems it does not give me the same fatigue is setting and taking pauses in the office.
I have fair skin in New England, use facial spf 35 sunscreen daily from May-September, and use spf 70 whenever I'm outside for longer than 15+ minutes. It's important as skin cancer is just bound to happen if you don't use it, as a fair skinned person. Not doing so would mean pieces of face/ear expensively sliced off when you're older. Both my parents grew up w/o sunscreen and got intensive burns, both of them got skin cancer on their face.
But even before old age and cancer, your skin will be healthier and look younger for much longer if you use sunscreen daily, use a hat, avoid 10am-2pm exposure, etc. The last one is interesting because during midday, the sun is directly overhead, meaning there is much less atmosphere between you and it, so even less UV is blocked.
My mom had skin cancer on her forehead - it was removed, and she's fine. Plus I'm bald. Like shaved-head bald since the age of 18 (mid-thirties now) - I feel like I'm more cognizant of the visible skin damage on older bald people's heads, and wow it looks bad, from both a health and appearance standpoint. Hence UV damage being top of mind for me.
Ever since phones started having pedometers, I've made it a habit to walk around the room while watching TV. During football season, I was often sedentary all day Sunday and am now instead walking for miles. One of the simplest things I've done that has a very positive effect on my health.
That said, when I watch the games in bars on Sunday, people think I'm a bit strange...
Yes I pace with most things now. My friends have gotten used to it but anyone else gets nervous and anxious with my constant pacing. I lost the multi-year habit where I averaged about 120K steps/week until quite recently. Now I’m getting back to closing in on that number. Last few weeks have been 110K steps/week.
In May, a sweat chloride test came back positive. The verdict: atypical cystic fibrosis.
I had already stopped being largely bedridden the month before in April. Many years of rehabilitation would follow.
Walking played a very large role in my recovery. At one point, I was homeless and my daily routine involved walking six to eight hours per day for some months.
The lymphatic system is a key part of this.
Lymphatic fluid is basically your blood stripped of red and white blood cells. While in your blood, it gets moved around by your heart.
But it doesn't stay in your blood vessels. Like water in the Earth's ecosystem, it isn't confined to the creeks and rivers of blood vessels. It seeps out into your tissues like groundwater, becoming interstitial fluid.
It carries nutrients with it to nourish your tissues as it flows out. It carries wastes with it as it flows back into your blood stream.
While out in your tissues, it is beyond the reach of your pumping heart. Its return trip is typically sluggish.
Unless you are in motion. Then your skeletal muscles fill in where your heart can't reach.
Interstitial fluid returns to your blood at several times it's normal rate when you are active. When, in a word, you exercise.
Walking helps your body take out the trash, a necessary element of the healing process largely overlooked by our current medical mental models where we think to add inputs in the form of drugs but mostly don't talk about throughputs.