Relationships Between Strength Training and Aerobic Exercise and Late Life Mortality
Both strength training and aerobic exercise independently correlate with improved health and reduced mortality in later life. Animal studies demonstrate causation, in that we'd expect both strength training and aerobic activity to produce the result of improved health and reduced mortality. It is reasonable to proceed on the believe that this will hold up in humans. Meanwhile, here is yet another epidemiological study that shows correlation in a human population, noteworthy for assessing the effects of both strength training and aerobic activity separately in the same study.
It is recommended that older adults (aged ≥65 years) participate in balance training, muscle-strengthening activities (MSAs; ≥2 days per week), and moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity (MVPA; ≥150 minutes per week at moderate intensity, ≥75 minutes per week at vigorous intensity, or an equivalent combination). In this cohort study, we assessed self-reported leisure time physical activity and deaths among 1998-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) participants.
Leisure time MSA and MVPA were independently associated with lower all-cause mortality in this cohort study of 115,489 US adults aged 65 years or older. During a mean follow-up of 7.9 years, 44,794 deaths occurred. Adjusting for MVPA, 2 to 3 and 4 to 6 MSA episodes per week (but not 7 to 28 episodes per week) were associated with a lower hazard of all-cause mortality, compared with fewer than 2 episodes. Adjusting for MSA, 10 to 149, 150 to 300, and more than 300 MVPA minutes per week were associated with a lower hazard of all-cause mortality vs less than 10 minutes per week. Combinations of MSA and MVPA had lower hazard estimates.
By using finer age and physical activity categories, a larger sample, and longer follow-up, we build on earlier studies and offer new insights for older adults and their health care professionals. First, the U-shaped dose-response between MSA and mortality, independent of aerobic physical activity, suggests that 2 to 6 episodes per week may be optimal. Second, the age-stratified associations indicate that current physical activity guidelines are important for all older adults, including those aged 85 years or older.
Though I have always believed in the fundamental healthiness, and thus the increased/ stabilizing functionality and robustness, of exercise and 'physical training' over time of the long-lived body, I often contemplate the amount of additional energy that needs to be consumed to facilitate these activities. When considering calorie reduction as a strategy for increasing healthspan, which seems to me more about healthier maintenance than proactive rebuilding or reinforcing of the body, as with exercise, I wonder what consequences and trade-offs occur. Has there ever been a conflict with calorie reduction practices and fully-energized exercise routines? If we presume that most calories are quality, at what point is consumption negative (or less than ideal). I suppose it would be easiest to contemplate a level of calorie intake at 'meeting the basic physical demands' of the lifestyle chosen, whether exercise-filled or not, but is that so?
The muscle strength activity (MSA) portion of the study is so poorly defined it is useless. The aerobic portion groups moderate and strenuous activities together into one pile. And of course everything is self reported. And how do they classify someone that started the study at one end of the spectrum and later transitioned to the other end of the spectrum? The only scientific way to do such a study is with wearable tech, imo.
These exercise longevity benefits really need to be evaluated on cost/benefit.
How many hours are invested in exercise including travel to Gym, shower, etc?
What percent of waking hours per day does this represent?
If someone spends 5% of their waking hours, their lifespan needs to increase by at least 5% to make it worth it.
Really the calculation needs to consider disposable hours since most people have very few hours that are not spent on working, eating, child care, or other non-disposable hours. For most people there are likely 6 hours or less per day that can be used for exercise or other activities. Exercise hours often come at the expense of time with kids, spouses, parents, friends, etc.
Further, are hours spent during the healthy and active prime of your life equal to extra hours at the end of your life? Most people would consider hours at the prime of their life when they are working and raising children much more valuable than hours at the end of their lives.