So good to read this! I'm glad there is one more robust study about this. I wish all the evidence would finally reach doctor's wall of denial and stop their obsession on body size.
Would love to know what level of exercise is needed to get to a high CRF that decreases CVD and mortality risk. How can this research be translated to action or recommendations to patients?
This is a complicated question since it's going to be different for everyone because movement does not translate directly to cardiorespiratory fitness.
Patients can have their VO2Max measured (either directly or through the treadmill test as described in the piece above) and then work to increase it to the levels described in the studies, using retests to track progress.
In general, providers can recommend that patients who are interested participate in movement that increases cardiorespiratory fitness. A provider can also use the CDC guidelines (150 minutes of moderate cardiovascular movement, 75 minutes of vigorous, or a combination).
It is good to see the clear conclusion that BMI isn't correlated with CVD. Disappointing that they still included BMI catagories at the end.
The underlying belief here seems to be that every human of a given height will naturally be a specific weight. Any deviation is because the person is doing something wrong. If they were taking care of themselves properly, they'd be the proper size.
Statistics don't work that way. So much medicine and individual doctors use statistics in a proscriptive way. Not descriptive. There's an average, and since there's an average, average is best, and everyone should be the average. Even when looking at a normal (aka bell curve) distribution, everyone should be in the middle.
The long-term studies on exercise are observational and so they can also be interpreted as a reflection of health rather than a casual agent. There are short-term randomized trials that show some reduction in cardiovascular mortality but not in overall mortality - which may just be a statistical artefact (more power with very low or very high percentages). I think exercise is generally good for our overall health and mobility but I think health more often than not determines how much voluntary physical activity one might choose to willingly engage in.
So good to read this! I'm glad there is one more robust study about this. I wish all the evidence would finally reach doctor's wall of denial and stop their obsession on body size.
Would love to know what level of exercise is needed to get to a high CRF that decreases CVD and mortality risk. How can this research be translated to action or recommendations to patients?
This is a complicated question since it's going to be different for everyone because movement does not translate directly to cardiorespiratory fitness.
Patients can have their VO2Max measured (either directly or through the treadmill test as described in the piece above) and then work to increase it to the levels described in the studies, using retests to track progress.
In general, providers can recommend that patients who are interested participate in movement that increases cardiorespiratory fitness. A provider can also use the CDC guidelines (150 minutes of moderate cardiovascular movement, 75 minutes of vigorous, or a combination).
I have more info here about recommending exercise as medicine: https://weightandhealthcare.substack.com/p/if-youre-prescribing-exercise-as
Hope that's helpful!
Yes. What is the least amount of exercise I need to do...Is there a pill I could take instead?
It is good to see the clear conclusion that BMI isn't correlated with CVD. Disappointing that they still included BMI catagories at the end.
The underlying belief here seems to be that every human of a given height will naturally be a specific weight. Any deviation is because the person is doing something wrong. If they were taking care of themselves properly, they'd be the proper size.
Statistics don't work that way. So much medicine and individual doctors use statistics in a proscriptive way. Not descriptive. There's an average, and since there's an average, average is best, and everyone should be the average. Even when looking at a normal (aka bell curve) distribution, everyone should be in the middle.
So glad to see some positive news!
Love this so much!!!! Thank you for your work.
The long-term studies on exercise are observational and so they can also be interpreted as a reflection of health rather than a casual agent. There are short-term randomized trials that show some reduction in cardiovascular mortality but not in overall mortality - which may just be a statistical artefact (more power with very low or very high percentages). I think exercise is generally good for our overall health and mobility but I think health more often than not determines how much voluntary physical activity one might choose to willingly engage in.