The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 James Thompson ArchiveBlogview
Will Exercise Save Your Wits?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

old person pushups

My attitude to exercise was best summed up by cartoonist Paul Terry:

When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away.

However, I am not deaf to the cacophony of advisers recommending that people should keep active, particularly the over 50s. The notion seems to be that the elderly serve some undefined but useful purpose which could be prolonged by physical exertion. I find this proposition doubtful on all grounds.

Nonetheless, even morning radio programs which normally deal with high matters of State have propagated the latest finding, that the over 50s should do at least 150 minutes of exercise per week, because a recent study, a meta-analysis no less, has shown that cognitive function was better preserved in those who took exercise.

At this stage we must make a detour. Health and longevity can be predicted by the 11+ IQ test, so ideally participants in these sorts of studies should be restricted to those on whom we have early life assessments of intelligence. Of course, this is impracticable, and if the papers are on properly randomized samples, they can still detect the effects of extra exercise. However, when control is made for early life assessments of intelligence and health there is little evidence that variations in self-reported exercise have any influence on mental status in the elderly. There is certainly plentiful evidence that lower ability (as tested at 11) is associated with greater hazard ratios. That is, brighter people live longer (right hand figure), and psychologically calm persons live longer than worriers (left hand figure). It would be good if more researchers paid attention to these findings, and included even brief measures of ability and personality in their assessments.

Intelligence and neuroticism and hazards of life

http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/8895401/intelligence_and_personality_as_predictors.pdf

However, we cannot ignore a good quality meta-analysis implying that exercise can mitigate the impact of ageing on cognitive function. Additionally, I warm to this paper because they have not been prissily prescriptive about what constitutes exercise. Good on them. Any stirring of the body parts is worthy of commendation.

Joseph Michael Northey, Nicolas Cherbuin, Kate Louise Pumpa, Disa Jane Smee, Ben Rattray. Exercise interventions for cognitive function in adults older than 50: a systematic review with meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, BMJ.

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2017/03/30/bjsports-2016-096587

Here are their methods:

The search returned 12 820 records, of which 39 studies were included in the systematic review. Analysis of 333 dependent effect sizes from 36 studies showed that physical exercise improved cognitive function (0.29; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.41; p<0.01). Interventions of aerobic exercise, resistance training, multicomponent training and tai chi, all had significant point estimates. When exercise prescription was examined, a duration of 45–60 min per session and at least moderate intensity, were associated with benefits to cognition. The results of the meta-analysis were consistent and independent of the cognitive domain tested or the cognitive status of the participants.

The effect size is respectable, equivalent to 4.4 IQ points. However, they haven’t measured intelligence, and don’t actually find that overall cognition (measured by the mini mental state assessment) is preserved by such exertions. They do pick up some very promising effects for executive functions and memory. I cannot find which tests were used, nor the length of the follow-ups in the supplementary materials.

Neuropsychological tests were classified according to the domain of cognition being assessed, similar to previous reviews. The domains considered were global cognition (eg, The Mini-Mental State Examination), attention (sustained alertness, including the ability to process information rapidly), executive function (a set of cognitive processes responsible for the initiation and monitoring of goal-orientated behaviours), memory (storage and retrieval of information) and working memory (short-term manipulation of encountered information).

[]

The effect of exercise on cognition was statistically significant for all domains, except global cognition. As prior reviews have indicated the effects of exercise on cognition may vary depending on the mode of exercise and cognitive domain, we included both these moderators as an interaction term in a separate model. Studies of resistance training had significant interaction effects on executive function (SMD=0.49, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.78; p<0.01), memory (SMD=0.54, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.85; p<0.01) and working memory (SMD=0.49, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.82; p<0.01). There was also a significant tai chi x working memory interaction (SMD=−0.70, 95% CI −1.21 to −0.19; p=0.01). All other interaction terms were non-significant.

Here are the main results on cognition after exercise:

exercise age and cognition table 1

Tai Chi seems to do well, though the number of studies is smaller than other forms of exercise. The frequency of taking exercise shows a dose-response relationship, but less for intensity and duration and length, which is a little surprising. Moving about a bit every day seems the best policy. More socially active control groups seem almost as good as exercise, as does the sham exercise of stretching, so this is somewhat of a worry for the “exercise saves your wits” hypothesis.

The type of control group was associated with differences in the statistical significance of the effect size estimated. When the control group involved either no contact (eg, waiting list, usual care; p<0.01) or education (eg, computer course, health lectures; p=0.01) the estimate was statistically significant. Where the control condition was exposed to an active control (eg, stretching; p=0.17) or social group (p=0.62), the effect size was still positive but no longer statistically significant.

This is a quibble, but when the authors say “the effect size was still positive but no longer statistically significant” what they in fact mean is “there was no effect”.

This is a very useful meta-analysis of intervention studies. Although we do not have prior measures of ability and personality, we can hope that random allocation to experimental groups should have balanced out those factors, though volunteers in such studies tend to be brighter than average. We do not know how long the follow-ups were, nor much about the previous health and nothing about the intellectual levels of the participants. However, those without mild cognitive impairment have done better than those already mildly cognitively impaired. I would like to see which executive function and memory tests were used, but all of them are moderately correlated with general ability. Reaction times, grip strength and a process measure like digit-symbol would be very welcome additions.

In sum, an interesting paper, which might provoke some people to walk about a bit, which is no problem so long as they do not clog up the traffic.

 

Disclosure of competing interests: 650 metres swim each weekday morning, since you may be wondering. Pointless.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Exercise 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Of course exercise protects against cognitive degeneration.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/14/exercise-longetivity-and-cognitive-ability/

    Everyone should exercise, whether it be strength training or cardio. If you don’t exercise, you better start. Grip strength tests are also very important and show racial differences. Blacks have weaker grip even when they have more muscle mass. It’s due to muscle fiber typing. After controlling for confounds blacks have a weaker grip than Whites. Whites also live longer as well. This study is very interesting.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/15/racial-differences-in-grip-strength/

    If you don’t strength train or do cardio, you better start if you like living.

    Read More
    • Replies: @uslabor
    It's just great to be white. White, white, white, white. We have a stronger grip (and black men have a better 100 meter sprint).

    And yet, according to The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention:

    White males accounted for 7 of 10 suicides in 2015.

    The rate of suicide is highest in middle age — white men in particular.

    The whiteness of this site is just sickening.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jthompson/will-exercise-save-your-wits/#comment-1855512
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. reiner Tor says: • Website

    Lifting free weights makes me feel better in my skin, makes me look more muscular, makes me more self-confident (probably a result of increased T-levels), makes me also more disciplined (it takes some discipline to do all those workouts day in and day out, and somehow it transfers to things like my work in the office), makes me feel more energetic, and also more attractive to the ladies (I’m quite sure they smile at me more when I’m in better shape, for whichever reason), also increases libido, and of course it could all be lost if an injury holds me back (since September, so I lost muscle mass, self-confidence, discipline, etc., and the ladies seem to smile less, too). Oh, things like back pain (which I had before I started, and now is slowly creeping back) can also go and come, depending on whether I exercise or not. I cannot imagine that it didn’t have these effects on others.

    The problem with modern medicine is that it will keep you alive even if you didn’t exercise (and sans modern medicine you’d die even if you were fit), so you’ll become a vegetable by age 70. I hope to avoid at least some of that. But that’s just me.

    Read More
  3. jim jones says:

    Longevity is inherited, you will die at the same age as your father

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Diet be dammed?
    , @Tom Welsh
    "Longevity is inherited, you will die at the same age as your father".

    If that were true, how did average longevity rise so much? If everyone died at the same age as their fathers, lifespan would never change at all.
    , @Truth
    Even if your father smokes a pack and drinks a fifth a day, and you don't?
    , @mobi

    Longevity is inherited, you will die at the same age as your father
     
    From lung cancer, at 61, due to non-smoking?

    Damn!

    (I think more accurately, the average of your 4 grandparents)
    , @JGarbo
    Rather too simplistic. Admittedly, nonagenerian Bertrand Russell explained his longevity as "a careful choice of parents", but life style modifies the outcome.
  4. @jim jones
    Longevity is inherited, you will die at the same age as your father

    Diet be dammed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jim jones
    The UK has a male life expectancy of 80 years, just about the same as Japan but with a vastly different diet.
  5. If you think “old people” have little purpose now, wait until there’s a widespread realization that the cupboard is really bare, and that the panoply of future cash flows promised to “retirees” (from Social Security & Medicare to pensions and tax breaks) is completely unsustainable.

    Who in his right mind thinks Gen X, Millennials and younger will politically support their being crushed between their own debts and new taxes to sustain the codger down the street?

    Exercise to maintain cognition? A trend near its end.
    Encouragement for euthanasia? A fad awaiting its time of popularity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    "Encouragement for euthanasia? A fad awaiting its time of popularity."

    In the UK the BBC/Guardian axis of evil have been banging the drum on this subject for a long time. The former liberal MP Dr Death and his friends are still very much around.

    Exercise is good even for those who work with their heads - it's amazing how often a possible approach or solution to a problem floats, unbidden, into the head during 30 minutes on the treadmill, when one's only conscious thought is "how long before I can stop?". That swim is good for the brain!

  6. And then again, exercise probably improves sleep duration and quality. Control for sleep and not much may be left for exercise. That said, 20 minutes plus of aerobic pushes my blood glucose down for hours.

    I like the buzz of testosterone. Functional Fitness routines mean that I can bend over, get up off the floor, twist and turn with ease in daily situations. So it is not all cognitive improvement and longevity thank the Lord.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    I like the buzz of testosterone. Functional Fitness routines mean that I can bend over, get up off the floor, twist and turn with ease in daily situations. So it is not all cognitive improvement and longevity thank the Lord.
     
    Yes, the real benefit is more comfort in everyday situations like playing with a toddler or moving furniture, and the increased testosterone and libido and better looks. If it also improves longevity or cognitive skills then it's a nice bonus.
  7. Cognitive functioning may or may not be helped by exercise (although I think the variable is not how much one exercises so much as how willing one is to spend extended hours without exercising – the more hours, the more miserable one feels) but there are three other systems that seem to degenerate quickly when we are overly slothful and lazy – the digestive system (our digestive system likes activity), the joint and muscle system (our joint and muscle system likes activity), and the perception system (inactivity headaches – we all know them from having napped too long on a beautiful summer afternoon – are what I am thinking of with respect to the non-exerciser’s problems with perception of thought), and I believe there are similar impacts with respect to our perceptions of sight, hearing, touch (or, otherwise put, our ability to block out our awareness of background pain, to look at this in the negative way), taste, and smell. Not to mention general levels of energy.

    Read More
  8. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @Philip Owen
    And then again, exercise probably improves sleep duration and quality. Control for sleep and not much may be left for exercise. That said, 20 minutes plus of aerobic pushes my blood glucose down for hours.

    I like the buzz of testosterone. Functional Fitness routines mean that I can bend over, get up off the floor, twist and turn with ease in daily situations. So it is not all cognitive improvement and longevity thank the Lord.

    I like the buzz of testosterone. Functional Fitness routines mean that I can bend over, get up off the floor, twist and turn with ease in daily situations. So it is not all cognitive improvement and longevity thank the Lord.

    Yes, the real benefit is more comfort in everyday situations like playing with a toddler or moving furniture, and the increased testosterone and libido and better looks. If it also improves longevity or cognitive skills then it’s a nice bonus.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    The testosterone buzz from exercise is probably rubbish. Exercise only has a very modest impact on testosterone levels. That exercise buzz will be from endorphins and feel good neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin.

    Circulating dopamine tends to be higher in boys, tomboys, masculine men and relatively masculine women, and declines as we age. It tends to drop more sharply than testosterone and is probably implicated in the so-called mid-life crisis.

  9. dearieme says:

    Puritans are so heart-set on bullying me into exercising that I am becoming sceptical of the whole thing. These are probably the same sort of people who have tried to bully me out of eating red meat and fats, or into believing in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Crooks and thugs. They might be right this time but I wouldn’t bet on it.

    Read More
  10. I was going to start an exercise regime, but I can’t quite recall why, nor can I grasp the importance of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Be of good cheer: at least you can still recall what it was you wished to start.
  11. @The Alarmist
    I was going to start an exercise regime, but I can't quite recall why, nor can I grasp the importance of it.

    Be of good cheer: at least you can still recall what it was you wished to start.

    Read More
  12. Some traits are metamorphic in some people because it’s less fixed or intrinsic on them but still available to be developed, maybe…

    So, in some individuals it’s possible there is a causality between healthy lifestyle and organic improvement, analogous to stature, some people are genotypically designed to be taller when they grow [whatever environment they are] while other people seems, are more dependent on environmental quality to reach the same trait-fullness.

    Or ñ…

    Some families have a mixed bag of genes, maybe, some them only fully express via environmental intervention while in others, no have the neccessity because this genes are fixed at least for them.

    We have recessive, dominant, but i think there is genes that are in the middle of this spectrum.

    Read More
  13. HBD Guy says:

    I am more convinced that playing first person shooter games will improve cognitive functioning than exercise. Take a look at this James!

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201502/cognitive-benefits-playing-video-games

    Read More
  14. Hello Dr. Thompson,

    For the purposes of some genomic data analysis (UK Biobank), may I ask you to please rate the below 4 bins in order of weightiness?

    college degree
    completed A levels
    completed O levels (GCSE)
    none of the above

    In particular, do you agree that college should outweigh A level, when both are completed in the 1960′s?

    Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    If completed in 1960s, it would be safe for college to outweigh A levels, in and in turn for A levels to outweigh O levels. A proper bin sequence can be assumed from 4 down to 1.

    After that, depending on what data you have available to you, it get more complicated.

    If you are trying to judge a person's intellectual ability, and you can get hold of their GCSE scores, then there is a case for putting them top of the list, since there is a core curriculum, and most children will have to take the same basic subjects, so you have a national basis for comparison. You could take best 8 as a benchmark. A levels would be a substitute, though there is a big intellectual difference between Maths and Art, both of which get A levels, so you must take total points, as per university admissions.
    College degree grade is the least meaningful nowadays, since the quality varies so much. You would have to stratify college by Oxbridge, Russell Group, Plate Glass and The Rest.
  15. @AnonymousCoward
    Hello Dr. Thompson,

    For the purposes of some genomic data analysis (UK Biobank), may I ask you to please rate the below 4 bins in order of weightiness?

    college degree
    completed A levels
    completed O levels (GCSE)
    none of the above

    In particular, do you agree that college should outweigh A level, when both are completed in the 1960's?

    Thanks.

    If completed in 1960s, it would be safe for college to outweigh A levels, in and in turn for A levels to outweigh O levels. A proper bin sequence can be assumed from 4 down to 1.

    After that, depending on what data you have available to you, it get more complicated.

    If you are trying to judge a person’s intellectual ability, and you can get hold of their GCSE scores, then there is a case for putting them top of the list, since there is a core curriculum, and most children will have to take the same basic subjects, so you have a national basis for comparison. You could take best 8 as a benchmark. A levels would be a substitute, though there is a big intellectual difference between Maths and Art, both of which get A levels, so you must take total points, as per university admissions.
    College degree grade is the least meaningful nowadays, since the quality varies so much. You would have to stratify college by Oxbridge, Russell Group, Plate Glass and The Rest.

    Read More
  16. uslabor says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Of course exercise protects against cognitive degeneration.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/14/exercise-longetivity-and-cognitive-ability/

    Everyone should exercise, whether it be strength training or cardio. If you don't exercise, you better start. Grip strength tests are also very important and show racial differences. Blacks have weaker grip even when they have more muscle mass. It's due to muscle fiber typing. After controlling for confounds blacks have a weaker grip than Whites. Whites also live longer as well. This study is very interesting.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/15/racial-differences-in-grip-strength/

    If you don't strength train or do cardio, you better start if you like living.

    It’s just great to be white. White, white, white, white. We have a stronger grip (and black men have a better 100 meter sprint).

    And yet, according to The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention:

    White males accounted for 7 of 10 suicides in 2015.

    The rate of suicide is highest in middle age — white men in particular.

    The whiteness of this site is just sickening.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    White males accounted for 7 of 10 suicides in 2015.
     
    This is in absolute terms, but in relative*
    , @Wally
    Fact:

    In official US stats what constitutes 'whites' includes N. Africans & Middle Easterners.

    Better try again.
  17. @dc.sunsets
    If you think "old people" have little purpose now, wait until there's a widespread realization that the cupboard is really bare, and that the panoply of future cash flows promised to "retirees" (from Social Security & Medicare to pensions and tax breaks) is completely unsustainable.

    Who in his right mind thinks Gen X, Millennials and younger will politically support their being crushed between their own debts and new taxes to sustain the codger down the street?

    Exercise to maintain cognition? A trend near its end.
    Encouragement for euthanasia? A fad awaiting its time of popularity.

    “Encouragement for euthanasia? A fad awaiting its time of popularity.”

    In the UK the BBC/Guardian axis of evil have been banging the drum on this subject for a long time. The former liberal MP Dr Death and his friends are still very much around.

    Exercise is good even for those who work with their heads – it’s amazing how often a possible approach or solution to a problem floats, unbidden, into the head during 30 minutes on the treadmill, when one’s only conscious thought is “how long before I can stop?”. That swim is good for the brain!

    Read More
  18. @uslabor
    It's just great to be white. White, white, white, white. We have a stronger grip (and black men have a better 100 meter sprint).

    And yet, according to The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention:

    White males accounted for 7 of 10 suicides in 2015.

    The rate of suicide is highest in middle age — white men in particular.

    The whiteness of this site is just sickening.

    White males accounted for 7 of 10 suicides in 2015.

    This is in absolute terms, but in relative*

    Read More
  19. Pat Boyle says:

    I don’t mean to be tedious but this is another indication of the limitations of a biological body. If you accept the preferability of a robot body . There is no conflict.

    All this exercise advice assumes that you are a biological entity. If you have moved on to a more durable body these issues simply don’t arise.

    Choose to have a body composed of metals, semi-conductors and such and these questions simply don’t arise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    If you have moved on to a more durable body these issues simply don’t arise.
     
    It will no longer be a "you" if you "move on" to another body.
    , @Truth

    All this exercise advice assumes that you are a biological entity. If you have moved on to a more durable body these issues simply don’t arise.
     
    Yeah, but all those Broads you brag about banging in your 20's would flatly rejected you if you looked like C3PO.

    (Alright, I admit, white broads might give him a little extra cachet).
  20. Langley says:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/research-confirms-a-link-between-intelligence-and-life-expectancy/

    “The results were striking: a 15-point IQ advantage translated into a 21% greater chance of survival. For example, a person with an IQ of 115 was 21% more likely to be alive at age 76 than a person with an IQ of 100 (the average for the general population).”

    Is the effect attenuated at two or more SD above the mean?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Don't think so. The general relationship between intelligence and longevity breaks down in late 70s, when chance effects begin to be more prominent.
  21. @reiner Tor

    I like the buzz of testosterone. Functional Fitness routines mean that I can bend over, get up off the floor, twist and turn with ease in daily situations. So it is not all cognitive improvement and longevity thank the Lord.
     
    Yes, the real benefit is more comfort in everyday situations like playing with a toddler or moving furniture, and the increased testosterone and libido and better looks. If it also improves longevity or cognitive skills then it's a nice bonus.

    The testosterone buzz from exercise is probably rubbish. Exercise only has a very modest impact on testosterone levels. That exercise buzz will be from endorphins and feel good neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin.

    Circulating dopamine tends to be higher in boys, tomboys, masculine men and relatively masculine women, and declines as we age. It tends to drop more sharply than testosterone and is probably implicated in the so-called mid-life crisis.

    Read More
  22. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    The Starting Strength coaches have a science committee that reviews these sorts of studies every year. They’re main argument for strength training for older people is what one of them, an emergency physician by trade, calls the “compression of morbidity”.

    Read More
  23. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @Pat Boyle
    I don't mean to be tedious but this is another indication of the limitations of a biological body. If you accept the preferability of a robot body . There is no conflict.

    All this exercise advice assumes that you are a biological entity. If you have moved on to a more durable body these issues simply don't arise.

    Choose to have a body composed of metals, semi-conductors and such and these questions simply don't arise.

    If you have moved on to a more durable body these issues simply don’t arise.

    It will no longer be a “you” if you “move on” to another body.

    Read More
    • Agree: Bill, Philip Owen
    • Disagree: mobi
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    That's a possibility I suppose. But I expect that this would be one of the first issue to be addressed. The question as to if you are still you will be a question for those who enjoy philosophical musings. But most people will just accept that are a continuation of themselves if they 'feel' like their former self.
  24. jim jones says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Diet be dammed?

    The UK has a male life expectancy of 80 years, just about the same as Japan but with a vastly different diet.

    Read More
  25. Hiromi says:

    There is a lot of confounding factors.

    A higher IQ translates into a lot of things :
    Higher Income
    Increased accessibility to medical care and nutrition at higher standards; this can mean reduced rates of infection, reduced rates of bad operations, etc – especially comparing private vs public treatment in some areas of the world; it can mean avoiding PCBs or laden-heavy saturated diets of globules of LDL, unsanitary water, etc – unlikeliness to taking labourous jobs, factory jobs, etc
    Making better usage of information to avoid risks
    Taking advantage of information to improve one’s conditions
    Better time-discounting ratio payoffs for activities in the long-term
    Reduced susceptibility to false claims and increased ability to navigate around obstacles or ”fads”
    Increased opportunities to increase cardiovascular health
    Increased opportunities to afford sunscreen and healthcare products
    Decreased likeliness of conformity.. less willingness to take cigarettes, or do ‘dares’

    While exercise might not increase cognitive ability directly, it certainly has pertinent effects such as increasing VO2 Max, blood-oxygenation levels, flow of blood to the brain, glucose reserves, the nature of triglycerides and many other multi-variate factors that likely diminish the chance of anatomical structural damage and hence acceleration of disintegration of the body throuh destructive behaviours like banging one’s head on the wall through dementia

    If I recall, there was a patent somewhere long ago for predicting IQ from neuroanatomical structure and absolute fitness of the structural properties of the brain seems to enable one’s intellectual capacities

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    As always there are exceptions, if it is case...

    So how explain that people who score lower in IQ tests but live more? Maybe in Sardinia and some Japanese regions people score higher in IQ test's at "genius levels" ;)

    Centenarians to the Mensa
  26. dux.ie says:

    From the 2015 OECD PISA average of the three scores against pct of students who exercise before or after school,

    PISA3 = -2.40*PctExercise +645.18; n=57; Rsq=0.1377; p=0.004481

    Negative correlation :)

    The lowest pct is Korea at 46.3%, Singapore and Japan are not that far ahead.

    Read More
  27. Tom Welsh says:
    @jim jones
    Longevity is inherited, you will die at the same age as your father

    “Longevity is inherited, you will die at the same age as your father”.

    If that were true, how did average longevity rise so much? If everyone died at the same age as their fathers, lifespan would never change at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill

    If that were true, how did average longevity rise so much? If everyone died at the same age as their fathers, lifespan would never change at all.
     
    Unqualified like this, you've just denied the Theory of Evolution, a key point of which is that phenotype frequencies can change over time even if they are perfectly heritable. That's a mistake, since it gives the spergs a reason to dismiss you.

    What you mean to say is that longevity has changed too quickly over recent centuries for genetics to be a plausible explanation for the change. Of course, this argument works for a lot of the things the spergs think are entirely genetic. Not intelligence, but other things.
  28. @Langley
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/research-confirms-a-link-between-intelligence-and-life-expectancy/

    "The results were striking: a 15-point IQ advantage translated into a 21% greater chance of survival. For example, a person with an IQ of 115 was 21% more likely to be alive at age 76 than a person with an IQ of 100 (the average for the general population)."

    Is the effect attenuated at two or more SD above the mean?

    Don’t think so. The general relationship between intelligence and longevity breaks down in late 70s, when chance effects begin to be more prominent.

    Read More
  29. markflag says:

    Exercise will preserve your wits. Unless you develop Alzheimer’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, have a stroke, have a long-term history of diabetes (exercise may help prevent the underlying diabetic process) or any of a number of brain diseases. Any study that looks at cognitive functioning over a period of less than ten years is useless. Any study that is retrospective rather than prospective and controlled, is similarly useless.

    The blaring headlines ala, “MEDITATION PREVENTS ALZHEIMER’S” are criminal malpractice. Read the study. Twelve patients followed over six months. Six meditated and six didn’t. Those who meditated could remember more words on a list they memorized than those who didn’t. Means zip.

    Cognitive slippage is a function of age. Severe cognitive slippage and dementia is a function of disease (including repeated head trauma). No exercise regimen is going to prevent Alzheimer’s, a disease that, with certain forms of testing, can be detected twenty or more years before it manifests with the first symptoms.

    Read More
  30. james c says:

    There are a different themes to this amusing topic.

    First, not far from the surface is American puritanism. Our friends from the US have a deep ambivalence to pleasure (supposedly the pursuit of it is their main purpose in life) and are much happier if it comes only as the result of hard work.

    Hence, the idea of suffering on a treadmill is deeply appealing to them.

    Second, Americans are competitive, in certain, socially acceptable areas, and enjoy the one-upmanship that comes from gym activity.

    Third, there is capitalist motive at play – exercise is big business as of course was the lazy lifestyle that makes it necessary.

    Fourth, as with all things American, is the bogus science peddled by interested parties.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Francis G.
    "Hence, the idea of suffering on a treadmill is deeply appealing to [Americans]."

    Curious, this notion that exercise equals suffering. Perhaps I'm a physiological freak of nature, but I've always enjoyed exercising, particularly strength training and cardio, and don't find it painful or grueling. If you're in agony every time you exercise, you're probably doing it wrong.

  31. @Hiromi
    There is a lot of confounding factors.

    A higher IQ translates into a lot of things :
    Higher Income
    Increased accessibility to medical care and nutrition at higher standards; this can mean reduced rates of infection, reduced rates of bad operations, etc - especially comparing private vs public treatment in some areas of the world; it can mean avoiding PCBs or laden-heavy saturated diets of globules of LDL, unsanitary water, etc - unlikeliness to taking labourous jobs, factory jobs, etc
    Making better usage of information to avoid risks
    Taking advantage of information to improve one's conditions
    Better time-discounting ratio payoffs for activities in the long-term
    Reduced susceptibility to false claims and increased ability to navigate around obstacles or ''fads''
    Increased opportunities to increase cardiovascular health
    Increased opportunities to afford sunscreen and healthcare products
    Decreased likeliness of conformity.. less willingness to take cigarettes, or do 'dares'

    While exercise might not increase cognitive ability directly, it certainly has pertinent effects such as increasing VO2 Max, blood-oxygenation levels, flow of blood to the brain, glucose reserves, the nature of triglycerides and many other multi-variate factors that likely diminish the chance of anatomical structural damage and hence acceleration of disintegration of the body throuh destructive behaviours like banging one's head on the wall through dementia

    If I recall, there was a patent somewhere long ago for predicting IQ from neuroanatomical structure and absolute fitness of the structural properties of the brain seems to enable one's intellectual capacities

    As always there are exceptions, if it is case…

    So how explain that people who score lower in IQ tests but live more? Maybe in Sardinia and some Japanese regions people score higher in IQ test’s at “genius levels” ;)

    Centenarians to the Mensa

    Read More
  32. BB753 says:

    Mental, rather than just physical exercise is more likely to save your wits. Keep reading, learn new skills and subjects, and take up a new foreign language. Keep in touch with your extended family and socialize with younger people. Divorce and marry a much younger wife (just half-kidding here). The company of old codgers is not good for you.
    A daily 30 minutes walk and a weekly swim will suffice to take care of your physical fitness when you’re over sixty years old.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    However, such activities made no apparent difference in the very long term follow ups conducted by Ian Deary and his team. However, that was based on self-report, as I recall, but that usually inflates correlations, rather than diminishes them in this field.
  33. Joe Hide says:

    You lost me with your introductory comment, “My attitude toward exercise can best be summed up…” followed by a derogatory comment on exercise. Thats your intro. Again, that’s your intro. All your meta-analysis, quoted studies, and pretend partial acceptance of the value of exercise, is undone. That said, I do like many of your other articles. Also, perhaps you have done a great service to those of us who are older, exercise intelligently, and experience in reality the enormous cognitive, physical, and emotional benefits of exercise. We become immune to intellectual articles that run counter to everyday reocurring evidence. Keep it up!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    Thats your intro. Again, that’s your intro. All your meta-analysis, quoted studies, and pretend partial acceptance of the value of exercise, is undone.
     
    Come on...
  34. @BB753
    Mental, rather than just physical exercise is more likely to save your wits. Keep reading, learn new skills and subjects, and take up a new foreign language. Keep in touch with your extended family and socialize with younger people. Divorce and marry a much younger wife (just half-kidding here). The company of old codgers is not good for you.
    A daily 30 minutes walk and a weekly swim will suffice to take care of your physical fitness when you're over sixty years old.

    However, such activities made no apparent difference in the very long term follow ups conducted by Ian Deary and his team. However, that was based on self-report, as I recall, but that usually inflates correlations, rather than diminishes them in this field.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    If no matter what mental or physical exercise you do make no difference, then it's all genetic.
    I also mentioned socializing with younger folk. Does it help?
  35. BB753 says:
    @James Thompson
    However, such activities made no apparent difference in the very long term follow ups conducted by Ian Deary and his team. However, that was based on self-report, as I recall, but that usually inflates correlations, rather than diminishes them in this field.

    If no matter what mental or physical exercise you do make no difference, then it’s all genetic.
    I also mentioned socializing with younger folk. Does it help?

    Read More
  36. Entertaining, but no evidence it slows the pace of ageing, though it sometimes feels like it does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Not sure about the empirical question of does it slow the pace (measurably statistically significant, say), but I think it is extremely helpful in terms of keeping perspective regarding one's own physical deterioration. This can help indirectly IMHO by encouraging more care about things like diet. It also helps with finding people to share both physically and intellectually stimulating activities.
    , @Truth

    Entertaining, but no evidence it slows the pace of ageing, though it sometimes feels like it does.
     
    Kinda like this post, Jimbo. I mean, it was only 1,200 words, but reading it made me feel like 7 hours had passed.
  37. Bill says:
    @Tom Welsh
    "Longevity is inherited, you will die at the same age as your father".

    If that were true, how did average longevity rise so much? If everyone died at the same age as their fathers, lifespan would never change at all.

    If that were true, how did average longevity rise so much? If everyone died at the same age as their fathers, lifespan would never change at all.

    Unqualified like this, you’ve just denied the Theory of Evolution, a key point of which is that phenotype frequencies can change over time even if they are perfectly heritable. That’s a mistake, since it gives the spergs a reason to dismiss you.

    What you mean to say is that longevity has changed too quickly over recent centuries for genetics to be a plausible explanation for the change. Of course, this argument works for a lot of the things the spergs think are entirely genetic. Not intelligence, but other things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    What I mean is what I wrote, not what you mistakenly thought I meant. The only thing I asserted was that "If everyone died at the same age as their fathers, lifespan would never change at all". That is impossible to deny - it's a very simple mathematical proposition.

    If X=Y and Y=Z, X=Z. If my father died at the same age as his father, and I die at the same age as my father, I die at the same age as my grandfather - and, by induction, at the same age as my male ancestors all the way back.

    If you read what I wrote, you will see that I said nothing about genetics or evolution or explanations. I did not "deny the Theory of Evolution", because my only statement was a conditional one - "IF this, then logically THAT".

    , @res
    I think a key point is that within cohort differences (e.g. heritability studies) are great for showing the importance of genetics. While between cohort differences (not much evolution in a single generation, absent epidemics or other catastrophes) are much better for showing the importance of environment. The difficult thing to assess for the Flynn Effect, height, longevity, etc. is how far along the curve of diminishing returns for environmental improvements we are. Sadly, I think that is what is most important in the genetics/environment debate.

    The interesting environmental questions are typically of the form "how much can we improve from the current baseline?" I don't think there is much dispute that negative environments can be harmful (the issues there are more how negative and how much).

    , @Truth


    Unqualified like this, you’ve just denied the Theory of Evolution,
     
    I guess that's why they call it the "theory" of evolution, not the "fact" of evolution.
  38. Tom Welsh says:
    @Bill

    If that were true, how did average longevity rise so much? If everyone died at the same age as their fathers, lifespan would never change at all.
     
    Unqualified like this, you've just denied the Theory of Evolution, a key point of which is that phenotype frequencies can change over time even if they are perfectly heritable. That's a mistake, since it gives the spergs a reason to dismiss you.

    What you mean to say is that longevity has changed too quickly over recent centuries for genetics to be a plausible explanation for the change. Of course, this argument works for a lot of the things the spergs think are entirely genetic. Not intelligence, but other things.

    What I mean is what I wrote, not what you mistakenly thought I meant. The only thing I asserted was that “If everyone died at the same age as their fathers, lifespan would never change at all”. That is impossible to deny – it’s a very simple mathematical proposition.

    If X=Y and Y=Z, X=Z. If my father died at the same age as his father, and I die at the same age as my father, I die at the same age as my grandfather – and, by induction, at the same age as my male ancestors all the way back.

    If you read what I wrote, you will see that I said nothing about genetics or evolution or explanations. I did not “deny the Theory of Evolution”, because my only statement was a conditional one – “IF this, then logically THAT”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @james c
    The reference to evolution, I suspect, is that the mix of long-lived and shorter lived in a population can change over time.

    In other words, the average life-span would increase if the long-lived had more children.
    , @Bill

    What I mean is what I wrote, not what you mistakenly thought I meant. The only thing I asserted was that “If everyone died at the same age as their fathers, lifespan would never change at all”. That is impossible to deny – it’s a very simple
     
    Oh. OK. Then what you said is idiotic or profoundly ignorant. Maybe read that Beagle book.
  39. res says:
    @James Thompson
    Entertaining, but no evidence it slows the pace of ageing, though it sometimes feels like it does.

    Not sure about the empirical question of does it slow the pace (measurably statistically significant, say), but I think it is extremely helpful in terms of keeping perspective regarding one’s own physical deterioration. This can help indirectly IMHO by encouraging more care about things like diet. It also helps with finding people to share both physically and intellectually stimulating activities.

    Read More
  40. res says:
    @Bill

    If that were true, how did average longevity rise so much? If everyone died at the same age as their fathers, lifespan would never change at all.
     
    Unqualified like this, you've just denied the Theory of Evolution, a key point of which is that phenotype frequencies can change over time even if they are perfectly heritable. That's a mistake, since it gives the spergs a reason to dismiss you.

    What you mean to say is that longevity has changed too quickly over recent centuries for genetics to be a plausible explanation for the change. Of course, this argument works for a lot of the things the spergs think are entirely genetic. Not intelligence, but other things.

    I think a key point is that within cohort differences (e.g. heritability studies) are great for showing the importance of genetics. While between cohort differences (not much evolution in a single generation, absent epidemics or other catastrophes) are much better for showing the importance of environment. The difficult thing to assess for the Flynn Effect, height, longevity, etc. is how far along the curve of diminishing returns for environmental improvements we are. Sadly, I think that is what is most important in the genetics/environment debate.

    The interesting environmental questions are typically of the form “how much can we improve from the current baseline?” I don’t think there is much dispute that negative environments can be harmful (the issues there are more how negative and how much).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill

    I think a key point is that within cohort differences (e.g. heritability studies) are great for showing the importance of genetics.
     
    Conditional on the environment in place during the study period. The best example is twins studies. Because twins were born on the same day, twins studies can, in principle, reveal nothing about the importance of time-varying environment. Because the two twins trace out the same path through time. Until one dies. But, then you lose your control for the other one. Twins studies are about the relative importance of genes and cross-sectional variation in environment.

    You can see the same point in the famous eyeglasses example. When eyeglasses are invented, vision stops being particularly influenced by genes (at least in an absolute sense). Well, unless you insist that we study uncorrected vision. Which is the point. To recover the interpretation you want, you demand that we control for environment.

    So, I disagree overall with your point. If you show me a twins study which says smiling for pictures (or just smiling in general) has a large genetic component, I will laugh at you. Or at least smile. Nobody smiled for pictures before about WWII. It's obviously entirely social and environmental. Same for obesity. Same for longevity. Same for lots of stuff. Where did all the heart attack deaths go? Did genes change?
  41. As a statistician I will testify that what I write here is totally anecdotal.

    I have done aerobic exercise daily (well, I try) since Dr. Kenneth Cooper’s book with that title came out in 1968. At age 74 I am still simulating 15km (9 miles) at 30km/h (18 mph) on an exercise bike.

    At this age I notice my acquaintances dropping off more an more frequently – to be expected. The ones to go appear to be the ones who didn’t exercise. I notice more and more of them tend to be fuddled and to repeat themselves. There again, there seems to be a correlation with physical exercise. Most of my friends are pretty smart – I don’t think there is selection by IQ.

    I am counting on good health for a fair while to come – my wife is expecting. May be wrong, but I credit my staying power to lifelong exercise. Thank you again, Dr. Kenneth Cooper.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinPNW
    What did the late comedian George Burns say he wanted for his 80th birthday? "A paternity suit!"
    , @Clyde
    I walk fast for an hour every morning. I know how many minutes it takes for me to cover a mile. About 17.5. Is this roughly equivalent to what you do on the exercise bike? I agree that regular non-intense aerobics like we do can delay the Grim Reaper.
    I am looking into easy to understand|learn Chinese qigong called Zhan Zhuang. You maintain a standing posture for 30 minutes onward. This is not easy. You begin to sweat. Westerners only think in terms of external exercise. Chinese go for internal exercise for older people. Lam's book is the best on standing qigong. Inexpensive at Amazon used.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwlGisBCGA8
  42. Truth says:
    @jim jones
    Longevity is inherited, you will die at the same age as your father

    Even if your father smokes a pack and drinks a fifth a day, and you don’t?

    Read More
  43. Truth says:
    @Pat Boyle
    I don't mean to be tedious but this is another indication of the limitations of a biological body. If you accept the preferability of a robot body . There is no conflict.

    All this exercise advice assumes that you are a biological entity. If you have moved on to a more durable body these issues simply don't arise.

    Choose to have a body composed of metals, semi-conductors and such and these questions simply don't arise.

    All this exercise advice assumes that you are a biological entity. If you have moved on to a more durable body these issues simply don’t arise.

    Yeah, but all those Broads you brag about banging in your 20′s would flatly rejected you if you looked like C3PO.

    (Alright, I admit, white broads might give him a little extra cachet).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    It is already obvious that one of the first robot bodies that will soon be available will be a kind of sex robot. I assume that many people will want to be robots if only for all the great sex.
  44. Truth says:
    @Bill

    If that were true, how did average longevity rise so much? If everyone died at the same age as their fathers, lifespan would never change at all.
     
    Unqualified like this, you've just denied the Theory of Evolution, a key point of which is that phenotype frequencies can change over time even if they are perfectly heritable. That's a mistake, since it gives the spergs a reason to dismiss you.

    What you mean to say is that longevity has changed too quickly over recent centuries for genetics to be a plausible explanation for the change. Of course, this argument works for a lot of the things the spergs think are entirely genetic. Not intelligence, but other things.

    Unqualified like this, you’ve just denied the Theory of Evolution,

    I guess that’s why they call it the “theory” of evolution, not the “fact” of evolution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "I guess that’s why they call it the “theory” of evolution, not the “fact” of evolution."

    Is this a troll post? Am I seeing this on Unz Review?

    Theory---a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

    Evolution is a fact. The theory is explaining how it happens..

    Species change over time. That is evolution. Do you deny this?

    , @Bill
    Why don't you go test your meta-theory by jumping off a building? After all, the Theory of Gravity is just a theory.
  45. Truth says:
    @James Thompson
    Entertaining, but no evidence it slows the pace of ageing, though it sometimes feels like it does.

    Entertaining, but no evidence it slows the pace of ageing, though it sometimes feels like it does.

    Kinda like this post, Jimbo. I mean, it was only 1,200 words, but reading it made me feel like 7 hours had passed.

    Read More
  46. Agent76 says:

    Apr 19, 2017 Saving Lives Through Education

    Recently Dr. Bergman spoke at a conference for chiropractors on the importance of education. The more we educate those around us about the body’s ability to heal, the more lives we can save!

    Read More
    • Replies: @gwynedd1
    It would be more effective if we could keep this information away from people in the food and drug industry who are trying to kill us.
  47. mobi says:
    @jim jones
    Longevity is inherited, you will die at the same age as your father

    Longevity is inherited, you will die at the same age as your father

    From lung cancer, at 61, due to non-smoking?

    Damn!

    (I think more accurately, the average of your 4 grandparents)

    Read More
  48. gwynedd1 says:
    @Agent76
    Apr 19, 2017 Saving Lives Through Education

    Recently Dr. Bergman spoke at a conference for chiropractors on the importance of education. The more we educate those around us about the body's ability to heal, the more lives we can save!

    https://youtu.be/LT57bpajo14

    It would be more effective if we could keep this information away from people in the food and drug industry who are trying to kill us.

    Read More
  49. MarkinPNW says:
    @Graham Seibert
    As a statistician I will testify that what I write here is totally anecdotal.

    I have done aerobic exercise daily (well, I try) since Dr. Kenneth Cooper's book with that title came out in 1968. At age 74 I am still simulating 15km (9 miles) at 30km/h (18 mph) on an exercise bike.

    At this age I notice my acquaintances dropping off more an more frequently - to be expected. The ones to go appear to be the ones who didn't exercise. I notice more and more of them tend to be fuddled and to repeat themselves. There again, there seems to be a correlation with physical exercise. Most of my friends are pretty smart - I don't think there is selection by IQ.

    I am counting on good health for a fair while to come - my wife is expecting. May be wrong, but I credit my staying power to lifelong exercise. Thank you again, Dr. Kenneth Cooper.

    What did the late comedian George Burns say he wanted for his 80th birthday? “A paternity suit!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Graham Seibert
    Paternity is the easy part. I'll be raising a teenage daughter in my 90s. But -- my wife is a strong partner, and what is more important in life than family?
  50. Pat Boyle says:
    @reiner Tor

    If you have moved on to a more durable body these issues simply don’t arise.
     
    It will no longer be a "you" if you "move on" to another body.

    That’s a possibility I suppose. But I expect that this would be one of the first issue to be addressed. The question as to if you are still you will be a question for those who enjoy philosophical musings. But most people will just accept that are a continuation of themselves if they ‘feel’ like their former self.

    Read More
  51. Pat Boyle says:
    @Truth

    All this exercise advice assumes that you are a biological entity. If you have moved on to a more durable body these issues simply don’t arise.
     
    Yeah, but all those Broads you brag about banging in your 20's would flatly rejected you if you looked like C3PO.

    (Alright, I admit, white broads might give him a little extra cachet).

    It is already obvious that one of the first robot bodies that will soon be available will be a kind of sex robot. I assume that many people will want to be robots if only for all the great sex.

    Read More
  52. keypusher says:

    Are there any longevity studies that examine the effect of sniping on the internet?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    I don't even understand what that means. could you explain sniping on the internet?
  53. anon says: • Disclaimer

    I think exercise is probably negatively correlated with IQ when young but reversed when older.

    I also think diet is correlated with IQ which is critically important as the sugar industry has been poisoning us since the late 1970s.

    So maybe a cross-correlation (if that’s the correct label).

    Although i can see some possible direct benefits from some kinds of exercise
    - any kind of gentle exercise: walking, tai chi, yoga etc effecting balance thus fewer falls and broken hips
    - weight training is said to increase growth hormone which i assume is used in body repair, which might effect the brain also?
    - in theory more exercise would burn off more of the poison in the food except my guess is the higher IQ people eat healthier food anyway (again my guess is young exercisers may eat crap but older exercisers probably don’t)

    so imo
    - partly correlation with IQ (aka generally healthy genes)
    - partly correlation with IQ’s correlation with (older person) exercise and less poisonous diet
    - partly actual benefit from exercise if the growth hormone from weights thing is true and if growth hormone effects brain repairs also)

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "I think exercise is probably negatively correlated with IQ when young but reversed when older."

    Citation needed.

    "I also think diet is correlated with IQ which is critically important as the sugar industry has been poisoning us since the late 1970s."

    Correct.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/01/21/fatty-acids-and-pisa-math-performance/

    "any kind of gentle exercise: walking, tai chi, yoga etc effecting balance thus fewer falls and broken hips"

    Yes.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170503102934.htm

    "weight training is said to increase growth hormone which i assume is used in body repair, which might effect the brain also?"

    Yes. A hormone called BDNF gets released when exercising.

    "in theory more exercise would burn off more of the poison in the food except my guess is the higher IQ people eat healthier food anyway (again my guess is young exercisers may eat crap but older exercisers probably don’t)"

    http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

    Exercise doesn't induce weight loss.

    "partly correlation with IQ (aka generally healthy genes)"

    Jayman believes the effect is larger, someone correct me if I'm wrong. That's hilarious. Exercise and diet can mitigate a lot of effects of age.

    "partly correlation with IQ’s correlation with (older person) exercise and less poisonous diet"

    Correct.

    "partly actual benefit from exercise if the growth hormone from weights thing is true and if growth hormone effects brain repairs also)"

    I covered this here.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/14/exercise-longetivity-and-cognitive-ability/

    Diet is king. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
  54. @keypusher
    Are there any longevity studies that examine the effect of sniping on the internet?

    I don’t even understand what that means. could you explain sniping on the internet?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    explain sniping on the internet?
     
    flaming, trolling, fighting for fun etc

    the internet is like Fight Club for nerds and other obsessives

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/dc/0b/1d/dc0b1dec1072277bc8a4e6eec12c2fb2.jpg

  55. JT – you may wish to consider, or toss into conversation with your peers a measure of the pace of ageing which is exercise related. I refer to sports with handicapping systems.

    Most people’s minds would turn straight to golf. My father had two heart attacks in his early forties and a severed tendon in one arm but got back to a scratch handicap at 50 and dropped dead at 59 after doing a round of 72 on a par 71 course. Although that indicates the importance of mental as well as physical factors I would prefer the handicapping system of the game of Real (in the US “Court”) Tennis which can be vigorous and testing of speed and stamina like squash but also provides almost endless scope for cunning and tactics to make up for youthful power. That is so despite its demands on eye-hand co-ordination (“an eye for a ball”) being much greater than the modern lawn tennis with big rackets, soft balls which take little cut and no walls. (The handicapping system allows cunning to be used so untalented players can adjust to their limitations e.g. by not trying for perfect length,direction and side- and under- cut all at the same time like a champion player). My suggestion comes from an 80 year old friend who likes to say his rate of ageing is not speeding up: it’s still just one point of handicap each year since he was 50. In fact for a sport involving great activity of body and mind one might start with the assumption that at 50 a generally healthy active person might have taken responsible steps to get his act together, whether for the sake of his family or because he hss begun to take notice of the huge amount of health and fitness news we are deluged with, and that he can establish some sort of baseline about that age. Even the professional athlete who retires at 35 and lets himself go might find that 50 was about the consolidation sge).

    BTW aren’t you threatening to emulate the great Hans Eysenck heretical streak? In his case doubting the causal connection between smoking and lung cancer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    emulate the great Hans Eysenck heretical streak? In his case doubting the causal connection between smoking and lung cancer.
     
    I think "exercise" is used a bit like "environment" in sociology. If there's a benefit (or benefits) there will be specific biological reasons for each one so for me people saying "exercise" is both annoying and boring. I want to know what particular kind of exercise has a particular benefit and *why*.
    , @James Thompson
    Handicap systems are kind, and preserve the essence of a game played together with participants of different ability, unlike tennis. However, we are in the business of a clear-eyed, cold assessment of decay, no holds barred.
  56. Clyde says:
    @Graham Seibert
    As a statistician I will testify that what I write here is totally anecdotal.

    I have done aerobic exercise daily (well, I try) since Dr. Kenneth Cooper's book with that title came out in 1968. At age 74 I am still simulating 15km (9 miles) at 30km/h (18 mph) on an exercise bike.

    At this age I notice my acquaintances dropping off more an more frequently - to be expected. The ones to go appear to be the ones who didn't exercise. I notice more and more of them tend to be fuddled and to repeat themselves. There again, there seems to be a correlation with physical exercise. Most of my friends are pretty smart - I don't think there is selection by IQ.

    I am counting on good health for a fair while to come - my wife is expecting. May be wrong, but I credit my staying power to lifelong exercise. Thank you again, Dr. Kenneth Cooper.

    I walk fast for an hour every morning. I know how many minutes it takes for me to cover a mile. About 17.5. Is this roughly equivalent to what you do on the exercise bike? I agree that regular non-intense aerobics like we do can delay the Grim Reaper.
    I am looking into easy to understand|learn Chinese qigong called Zhan Zhuang. You maintain a standing posture for 30 minutes onward. This is not easy. You begin to sweat. Westerners only think in terms of external exercise. Chinese go for internal exercise for older people. Lam’s book is the best on standing qigong. Inexpensive at Amazon used.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Graham Seibert
    @Clyde - Cooper's website gives a PDF comparing running, swimming and cycling. As a rule of thumb, cycling is about 3x more efficient than running. My 9 miles of cycling in a half hour is about equal to 3 miles of running.

    I never got into Zhan Zhuang, Tai Chi and the other Oriental disciplines. My very western mind always wanted to get with the exercise, leave a puddle of sweat, shower and get on with the day. Now that I am long retired I could change my ways, but what I am doing still works. Time will come when it will not, and I'll try something else.
    , @anon

    I am looking into easy to understand|learn Chinese qigong called Zhan Zhuang. You maintain a standing posture for 30 minutes onward.
     
    Interesting. I've been trying to get my older relatives (70+) into Tai Chi etc as an experiment (so i can see if it's worth doing for myself and siblings etc later).

    Apart from the balance / fall prevention aspect it seems to me like it's basically very gentle weight training using your own limbs as the weights so if the weight training / growth hormone / body repair thing is true then i can see how it could be beneficial.
  57. @MarkinPNW
    What did the late comedian George Burns say he wanted for his 80th birthday? "A paternity suit!"

    Paternity is the easy part. I’ll be raising a teenage daughter in my 90s. But — my wife is a strong partner, and what is more important in life than family?

    Read More
  58. @Clyde
    I walk fast for an hour every morning. I know how many minutes it takes for me to cover a mile. About 17.5. Is this roughly equivalent to what you do on the exercise bike? I agree that regular non-intense aerobics like we do can delay the Grim Reaper.
    I am looking into easy to understand|learn Chinese qigong called Zhan Zhuang. You maintain a standing posture for 30 minutes onward. This is not easy. You begin to sweat. Westerners only think in terms of external exercise. Chinese go for internal exercise for older people. Lam's book is the best on standing qigong. Inexpensive at Amazon used.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwlGisBCGA8

    – Cooper’s website gives a PDF comparing running, swimming and cycling. As a rule of thumb, cycling is about 3x more efficient than running. My 9 miles of cycling in a half hour is about equal to 3 miles of running.

    I never got into Zhan Zhuang, Tai Chi and the other Oriental disciplines. My very western mind always wanted to get with the exercise, leave a puddle of sweat, shower and get on with the day. Now that I am long retired I could change my ways, but what I am doing still works. Time will come when it will not, and I’ll try something else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Thanks much! And keep on with it. I ran into the great man Dr Cooper years ago/exchanged a few words/ but unfortunately I only realized this afterwards. He was so humble and unassuming I did not know it was him.
  59. james c says:
    @Tom Welsh
    What I mean is what I wrote, not what you mistakenly thought I meant. The only thing I asserted was that "If everyone died at the same age as their fathers, lifespan would never change at all". That is impossible to deny - it's a very simple mathematical proposition.

    If X=Y and Y=Z, X=Z. If my father died at the same age as his father, and I die at the same age as my father, I die at the same age as my grandfather - and, by induction, at the same age as my male ancestors all the way back.

    If you read what I wrote, you will see that I said nothing about genetics or evolution or explanations. I did not "deny the Theory of Evolution", because my only statement was a conditional one - "IF this, then logically THAT".

    The reference to evolution, I suspect, is that the mix of long-lived and shorter lived in a population can change over time.

    In other words, the average life-span would increase if the long-lived had more children.

    Read More
  60. @anon
    I think exercise is probably negatively correlated with IQ when young but reversed when older.

    I also think diet is correlated with IQ which is critically important as the sugar industry has been poisoning us since the late 1970s.

    So maybe a cross-correlation (if that's the correct label).

    Although i can see some possible direct benefits from some kinds of exercise
    - any kind of gentle exercise: walking, tai chi, yoga etc effecting balance thus fewer falls and broken hips
    - weight training is said to increase growth hormone which i assume is used in body repair, which might effect the brain also?
    - in theory more exercise would burn off more of the poison in the food except my guess is the higher IQ people eat healthier food anyway (again my guess is young exercisers may eat crap but older exercisers probably don't)

    so imo
    - partly correlation with IQ (aka generally healthy genes)
    - partly correlation with IQ's correlation with (older person) exercise and less poisonous diet
    - partly actual benefit from exercise if the growth hormone from weights thing is true and if growth hormone effects brain repairs also)

    “I think exercise is probably negatively correlated with IQ when young but reversed when older.”

    Citation needed.

    “I also think diet is correlated with IQ which is critically important as the sugar industry has been poisoning us since the late 1970s.”

    Correct.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/01/21/fatty-acids-and-pisa-math-performance/

    “any kind of gentle exercise: walking, tai chi, yoga etc effecting balance thus fewer falls and broken hips”

    Yes.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170503102934.htm

    “weight training is said to increase growth hormone which i assume is used in body repair, which might effect the brain also?”

    Yes. A hormone called BDNF gets released when exercising.

    “in theory more exercise would burn off more of the poison in the food except my guess is the higher IQ people eat healthier food anyway (again my guess is young exercisers may eat crap but older exercisers probably don’t)”

    http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

    Exercise doesn’t induce weight loss.

    “partly correlation with IQ (aka generally healthy genes)”

    Jayman believes the effect is larger, someone correct me if I’m wrong. That’s hilarious. Exercise and diet can mitigate a lot of effects of age.

    “partly correlation with IQ’s correlation with (older person) exercise and less poisonous diet”

    Correct.

    “partly actual benefit from exercise if the growth hormone from weights thing is true and if growth hormone effects brain repairs also)”

    I covered this here.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/14/exercise-longetivity-and-cognitive-ability/

    Diet is king. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    “I think exercise is probably negatively correlated with IQ when young but reversed when older.”

    Citation needed.
     
    Purely anecdotal. The more blue collar people i know disproportionately played team sports like soccer until their early 40s or so and became more sedentary as they got older whereas the more academic people I know disproportionately did other things when they were younger but got into some kind of exercise for health later in life.

    “in theory more exercise would burn off more of the poison in the food except my guess is the higher IQ people eat healthier food anyway (again my guess is young exercisers may eat crap but older exercisers probably don’t)”

    http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

    Exercise doesn’t induce weight loss.
     
    yeah i'm talking sugar here - if high blood sugar for too long leads to insulin resistance then if you're burning the sugar off with heavy exercise then you may avoid insulin resistance.

    i agree that *after* you have the insulin resistance then exercise possibly/probably won't help (except temporarily) - need to fix the insulin resistance first.

    e.g. me in my 30s had a very high carb/sugar diet but did a lot of weight training - didn't get fat. stopped weights but kept diet - got fat. tried to use exercise to lose weight *after* i got fat - didn't work.
  61. @Truth


    Unqualified like this, you’ve just denied the Theory of Evolution,
     
    I guess that's why they call it the "theory" of evolution, not the "fact" of evolution.

    “I guess that’s why they call it the “theory” of evolution, not the “fact” of evolution.”

    Is this a troll post? Am I seeing this on Unz Review?

    Theory—a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

    Evolution is a fact. The theory is explaining how it happens..

    Species change over time. That is evolution. Do you deny this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    Species change over time. That is evolution. Do you deny this?
     
    There is NO evidence of anything evolving in nature, only DEvolving. If you can find an example that contradicts this, please post it.

    Again, it is called the THEORY of evolution. You have never heard of the THEORY of water flowing downhill, have you?

    No, because it is a FACT.

    Evolution is silly, generational, freemasonic deception, like the so-called space program, communism, the spinning ball earth, the cold war, and Hitler, nothing more.

  62. Exercise and with desirable results is good for self-esteem and subsequently to reduce rates of neuroticism, specially in older ages, when any drop of real happiness is required to fight against typical melancholy that usually become the rule in that age.

    Read More
  63. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @RaceRealist88
    "I think exercise is probably negatively correlated with IQ when young but reversed when older."

    Citation needed.

    "I also think diet is correlated with IQ which is critically important as the sugar industry has been poisoning us since the late 1970s."

    Correct.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/01/21/fatty-acids-and-pisa-math-performance/

    "any kind of gentle exercise: walking, tai chi, yoga etc effecting balance thus fewer falls and broken hips"

    Yes.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170503102934.htm

    "weight training is said to increase growth hormone which i assume is used in body repair, which might effect the brain also?"

    Yes. A hormone called BDNF gets released when exercising.

    "in theory more exercise would burn off more of the poison in the food except my guess is the higher IQ people eat healthier food anyway (again my guess is young exercisers may eat crap but older exercisers probably don’t)"

    http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

    Exercise doesn't induce weight loss.

    "partly correlation with IQ (aka generally healthy genes)"

    Jayman believes the effect is larger, someone correct me if I'm wrong. That's hilarious. Exercise and diet can mitigate a lot of effects of age.

    "partly correlation with IQ’s correlation with (older person) exercise and less poisonous diet"

    Correct.

    "partly actual benefit from exercise if the growth hormone from weights thing is true and if growth hormone effects brain repairs also)"

    I covered this here.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/14/exercise-longetivity-and-cognitive-ability/

    Diet is king. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

    “I think exercise is probably negatively correlated with IQ when young but reversed when older.”

    Citation needed.

    Purely anecdotal. The more blue collar people i know disproportionately played team sports like soccer until their early 40s or so and became more sedentary as they got older whereas the more academic people I know disproportionately did other things when they were younger but got into some kind of exercise for health later in life.

    “in theory more exercise would burn off more of the poison in the food except my guess is the higher IQ people eat healthier food anyway (again my guess is young exercisers may eat crap but older exercisers probably don’t)”

    http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

    Exercise doesn’t induce weight loss.

    yeah i’m talking sugar here – if high blood sugar for too long leads to insulin resistance then if you’re burning the sugar off with heavy exercise then you may avoid insulin resistance.

    i agree that *after* you have the insulin resistance then exercise possibly/probably won’t help (except temporarily) – need to fix the insulin resistance first.

    e.g. me in my 30s had a very high carb/sugar diet but did a lot of weight training – didn’t get fat. stopped weights but kept diet – got fat. tried to use exercise to lose weight *after* i got fat – didn’t work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    For each "IQ range" there are cultural subgroups with different personality/temperaments and cognitive styles. I remember Sisyphean "the mad contrarian" telling it, not exactly in this words, that "intelligence evolution don't necessarily will implies in higher rationality/intellectual kindness or reciprocity".

    I read recently that extroversion is correlated with exercise practices while neuroticism is reversely correlated.

    People tend to exercises to others, to become appreciable for other eyes while very introspective tend to be more prone to engage in mental activities in contrast to physical ones.
  64. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Astuteobservor II
    I don't even understand what that means. could you explain sniping on the internet?

    explain sniping on the internet?

    flaming, trolling, fighting for fun etc

    the internet is like Fight Club for nerds and other obsessives

    Read More
  65. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wizard of Oz
    JT - you may wish to consider, or toss into conversation with your peers a measure of the pace of ageing which is exercise related. I refer to sports with handicapping systems.

    Most people's minds would turn straight to golf. My father had two heart attacks in his early forties and a severed tendon in one arm but got back to a scratch handicap at 50 and dropped dead at 59 after doing a round of 72 on a par 71 course. Although that indicates the importance of mental as well as physical factors I would prefer the handicapping system of the game of Real (in the US "Court") Tennis which can be vigorous and testing of speed and stamina like squash but also provides almost endless scope for cunning and tactics to make up for youthful power. That is so despite its demands on eye-hand co-ordination ("an eye for a ball") being much greater than the modern lawn tennis with big rackets, soft balls which take little cut and no walls. (The handicapping system allows cunning to be used so untalented players can adjust to their limitations e.g. by not trying for perfect length,direction and side- and under- cut all at the same time like a champion player). My suggestion comes from an 80 year old friend who likes to say his rate of ageing is not speeding up: it's still just one point of handicap each year since he was 50. In fact for a sport involving great activity of body and mind one might start with the assumption that at 50 a generally healthy active person might have taken responsible steps to get his act together, whether for the sake of his family or because he hss begun to take notice of the huge amount of health and fitness news we are deluged with, and that he can establish some sort of baseline about that age. Even the professional athlete who retires at 35 and lets himself go might find that 50 was about the consolidation sge).

    BTW aren't you threatening to emulate the great Hans Eysenck heretical streak? In his case doubting the causal connection between smoking and lung cancer.

    emulate the great Hans Eysenck heretical streak? In his case doubting the causal connection between smoking and lung cancer.

    I think “exercise” is used a bit like “environment” in sociology. If there’s a benefit (or benefits) there will be specific biological reasons for each one so for me people saying “exercise” is both annoying and boring. I want to know what particular kind of exercise has a particular benefit and *why*.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I have the same (useful and rational) nitpicking tendency!

    Interesting that you attach your comment to my remark about Eysenck. In view of the precision of your thinking about exercise I am guessing that you recall his nitpicking objection that, when he wrote, the precise causal mechanism by which burning tobacco caused lung cancer hadn't been demonstrated. (All from distant memory).

    I am in favour of exercise fads for the simple reason that over the last 50 years most people have ceased to move their bodies enough in any way so every little faddish enthusiasm should do more good than harm. That is not to disagree with you.
  66. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Clyde
    I walk fast for an hour every morning. I know how many minutes it takes for me to cover a mile. About 17.5. Is this roughly equivalent to what you do on the exercise bike? I agree that regular non-intense aerobics like we do can delay the Grim Reaper.
    I am looking into easy to understand|learn Chinese qigong called Zhan Zhuang. You maintain a standing posture for 30 minutes onward. This is not easy. You begin to sweat. Westerners only think in terms of external exercise. Chinese go for internal exercise for older people. Lam's book is the best on standing qigong. Inexpensive at Amazon used.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwlGisBCGA8

    I am looking into easy to understand|learn Chinese qigong called Zhan Zhuang. You maintain a standing posture for 30 minutes onward.

    Interesting. I’ve been trying to get my older relatives (70+) into Tai Chi etc as an experiment (so i can see if it’s worth doing for myself and siblings etc later).

    Apart from the balance / fall prevention aspect it seems to me like it’s basically very gentle weight training using your own limbs as the weights so if the weight training / growth hormone / body repair thing is true then i can see how it could be beneficial.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    http://www.eso-garden.com/specials/the_way_of_energy.pdf Here is pdf of Lam's book which I have in paperback. Standing on Stake Qigong aka Zhan Zhuang. Open up in Chrome and-or download. Tons of youtube Zhan Zhuang videos

    Skip the intros and >> Try holding the balloon on page 35 for 30 minutes even if you only get it half right. You will find it difficult.
    , @Clyde
    http://internalarts.typepad.com/ken_gullettes_internal_ma/2014/08/how-standing-stake-zhan-zhuang-can-improve-your-tai-chi.html
  67. Wally says:
    @uslabor
    It's just great to be white. White, white, white, white. We have a stronger grip (and black men have a better 100 meter sprint).

    And yet, according to The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention:

    White males accounted for 7 of 10 suicides in 2015.

    The rate of suicide is highest in middle age — white men in particular.

    The whiteness of this site is just sickening.

    Fact:

    In official US stats what constitutes ‘whites’ includes N. Africans & Middle Easterners.

    Better try again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    So deduct 3 million or so North Africans and Middle Easterners. I'd imagine the overall number wouldn't change much.
  68. @anon

    explain sniping on the internet?
     
    flaming, trolling, fighting for fun etc

    the internet is like Fight Club for nerds and other obsessives

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/dc/0b/1d/dc0b1dec1072277bc8a4e6eec12c2fb2.jpg

    ahh. thank you.

    Read More
  69. Truth says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "I guess that’s why they call it the “theory” of evolution, not the “fact” of evolution."

    Is this a troll post? Am I seeing this on Unz Review?

    Theory---a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

    Evolution is a fact. The theory is explaining how it happens..

    Species change over time. That is evolution. Do you deny this?

    Species change over time. That is evolution. Do you deny this?

    There is NO evidence of anything evolving in nature, only DEvolving. If you can find an example that contradicts this, please post it.

    Again, it is called the THEORY of evolution. You have never heard of the THEORY of water flowing downhill, have you?

    No, because it is a FACT.

    Evolution is silly, generational, freemasonic deception, like the so-called space program, communism, the spinning ball earth, the cold war, and Hitler, nothing more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    There is NO evidence of anything evolving in nature
     
    Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
    , @Santoculto
    Maybe you also believe that there is a nazi base/area below Antarctic continent...
    (99% of probability to be inefactual).
    , @Santoculto
    So
    How explain humans??? How human beings appeared in the scene of life/light??
    , @RaceRealist88
    "There is NO evidence of anything evolving in nature, only DEvolving"

    Source?

    "If you can find an example that contradicts this, please post it."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

    We've literally watched E.coli evolve in the lab. Evolution is true. What the 'theory' of evolution attempts to explain is by what processes evolution happens. There is no debate in the scientific community in regards to whether or not if evolution happens, but by what mechanisms and processes that do.

    "Again, it is called the THEORY of evolution. You have never heard of the THEORY of water flowing downhill, have you?"

    Maybe you misses this:

    Theory—a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

    Is this hard to understand?

    Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don't live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eye-witness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time. (Dawkins, 2009)

    The theory of water flowing down a hill would be EXPLAINING HOW water flows down hill. No one would DENY that water FLOWS DOWN THE HILL. Do you understand this?

    You have the lay interpretation of 'theory' meaning 'just a guess'. However, the word in a scientific context holds a completely different meaning. It's system of beliefs and facts intended to explain something. Things change over time. This is a fact.

    "Evolution is silly, generational, freemasonic deception, like the so-called space program, communism, the spinning ball earth, the cold war, and Hitler, nothing more."

    So you're a walking parody.

    I don't care about anything else you've said (maybe we'll get to that later). I care about your implicit denial of the truth of evolution. Evolution is a fact.

    Now, provide evidence for creationism.
  70. Clyde says:
    @anon

    I am looking into easy to understand|learn Chinese qigong called Zhan Zhuang. You maintain a standing posture for 30 minutes onward.
     
    Interesting. I've been trying to get my older relatives (70+) into Tai Chi etc as an experiment (so i can see if it's worth doing for myself and siblings etc later).

    Apart from the balance / fall prevention aspect it seems to me like it's basically very gentle weight training using your own limbs as the weights so if the weight training / growth hormone / body repair thing is true then i can see how it could be beneficial.

    http://www.eso-garden.com/specials/the_way_of_energy.pdf Here is pdf of Lam’s book which I have in paperback. Standing on Stake Qigong aka Zhan Zhuang. Open up in Chrome and-or download. Tons of youtube Zhan Zhuang videos

    Skip the intros and >> Try holding the balloon on page 35 for 30 minutes even if you only get it half right. You will find it difficult.

    Read More
  71. Clyde says:
    @Graham Seibert
    @Clyde - Cooper's website gives a PDF comparing running, swimming and cycling. As a rule of thumb, cycling is about 3x more efficient than running. My 9 miles of cycling in a half hour is about equal to 3 miles of running.

    I never got into Zhan Zhuang, Tai Chi and the other Oriental disciplines. My very western mind always wanted to get with the exercise, leave a puddle of sweat, shower and get on with the day. Now that I am long retired I could change my ways, but what I am doing still works. Time will come when it will not, and I'll try something else.

    Thanks much! And keep on with it. I ran into the great man Dr Cooper years ago/exchanged a few words/ but unfortunately I only realized this afterwards. He was so humble and unassuming I did not know it was him.

    Read More
  72. Clyde says:
    @anon

    I am looking into easy to understand|learn Chinese qigong called Zhan Zhuang. You maintain a standing posture for 30 minutes onward.
     
    Interesting. I've been trying to get my older relatives (70+) into Tai Chi etc as an experiment (so i can see if it's worth doing for myself and siblings etc later).

    Apart from the balance / fall prevention aspect it seems to me like it's basically very gentle weight training using your own limbs as the weights so if the weight training / growth hormone / body repair thing is true then i can see how it could be beneficial.
    Read More
  73. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Fact:

    In official US stats what constitutes 'whites' includes N. Africans & Middle Easterners.

    Better try again.

    So deduct 3 million or so North Africans and Middle Easterners. I’d imagine the overall number wouldn’t change much.

    Read More
  74. res says:
    @Truth

    Species change over time. That is evolution. Do you deny this?
     
    There is NO evidence of anything evolving in nature, only DEvolving. If you can find an example that contradicts this, please post it.

    Again, it is called the THEORY of evolution. You have never heard of the THEORY of water flowing downhill, have you?

    No, because it is a FACT.

    Evolution is silly, generational, freemasonic deception, like the so-called space program, communism, the spinning ball earth, the cold war, and Hitler, nothing more.

    There is NO evidence of anything evolving in nature

    Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Classical example of butterflies in polluted English forests. Before they had color that emulates trunk trees (good to be save from predators) and with the advent of the industrial revolution trunk trees become darker so butterflies with darker colors start to survive more than those with lighter pigmentation and become the majority. But I don't know exactly how this observations were done.
  75. @anon

    “I think exercise is probably negatively correlated with IQ when young but reversed when older.”

    Citation needed.
     
    Purely anecdotal. The more blue collar people i know disproportionately played team sports like soccer until their early 40s or so and became more sedentary as they got older whereas the more academic people I know disproportionately did other things when they were younger but got into some kind of exercise for health later in life.

    “in theory more exercise would burn off more of the poison in the food except my guess is the higher IQ people eat healthier food anyway (again my guess is young exercisers may eat crap but older exercisers probably don’t)”

    http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

    Exercise doesn’t induce weight loss.
     
    yeah i'm talking sugar here - if high blood sugar for too long leads to insulin resistance then if you're burning the sugar off with heavy exercise then you may avoid insulin resistance.

    i agree that *after* you have the insulin resistance then exercise possibly/probably won't help (except temporarily) - need to fix the insulin resistance first.

    e.g. me in my 30s had a very high carb/sugar diet but did a lot of weight training - didn't get fat. stopped weights but kept diet - got fat. tried to use exercise to lose weight *after* i got fat - didn't work.

    For each “IQ range” there are cultural subgroups with different personality/temperaments and cognitive styles. I remember Sisyphean “the mad contrarian” telling it, not exactly in this words, that “intelligence evolution don’t necessarily will implies in higher rationality/intellectual kindness or reciprocity”.

    I read recently that extroversion is correlated with exercise practices while neuroticism is reversely correlated.

    People tend to exercises to others, to become appreciable for other eyes while very introspective tend to be more prone to engage in mental activities in contrast to physical ones.

    Read More
  76. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    If there is any connection between physical activity and mental decline, would it not be in large part because mental decline reduces the incentive to do anything, physical or otherwise. Certainly, I find, with age, that the opportunity to sit quietly in the sun and doze, is every more appealing.

    Read More
  77. @res

    There is NO evidence of anything evolving in nature
     
    Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

    Classical example of butterflies in polluted English forests. Before they had color that emulates trunk trees (good to be save from predators) and with the advent of the industrial revolution trunk trees become darker so butterflies with darker colors start to survive more than those with lighter pigmentation and become the majority. But I don’t know exactly how this observations were done.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    That's another good example. There is more detail on the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
    I hadn't been aware of the controversy. It is interesting to see cycles of skepticism and belief in various ideas.
  78. @Truth

    Species change over time. That is evolution. Do you deny this?
     
    There is NO evidence of anything evolving in nature, only DEvolving. If you can find an example that contradicts this, please post it.

    Again, it is called the THEORY of evolution. You have never heard of the THEORY of water flowing downhill, have you?

    No, because it is a FACT.

    Evolution is silly, generational, freemasonic deception, like the so-called space program, communism, the spinning ball earth, the cold war, and Hitler, nothing more.

    Maybe you also believe that there is a nazi base/area below Antarctic continent…
    (99% of probability to be inefactual).

    Read More
  79. @Truth

    Species change over time. That is evolution. Do you deny this?
     
    There is NO evidence of anything evolving in nature, only DEvolving. If you can find an example that contradicts this, please post it.

    Again, it is called the THEORY of evolution. You have never heard of the THEORY of water flowing downhill, have you?

    No, because it is a FACT.

    Evolution is silly, generational, freemasonic deception, like the so-called space program, communism, the spinning ball earth, the cold war, and Hitler, nothing more.

    So
    How explain humans??? How human beings appeared in the scene of life/light??

    Read More
  80. res says:
    @Santoculto
    Classical example of butterflies in polluted English forests. Before they had color that emulates trunk trees (good to be save from predators) and with the advent of the industrial revolution trunk trees become darker so butterflies with darker colors start to survive more than those with lighter pigmentation and become the majority. But I don't know exactly how this observations were done.

    That’s another good example. There is more detail on the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
    I hadn’t been aware of the controversy. It is interesting to see cycles of skepticism and belief in various ideas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Interesting how stupidity waves is so ressonant, so stubborn, what evolution is, stubborn...
  81. @res
    That's another good example. There is more detail on the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
    I hadn't been aware of the controversy. It is interesting to see cycles of skepticism and belief in various ideas.

    Interesting how stupidity waves is so ressonant, so stubborn, what evolution is, stubborn…

    Read More
  82. @Truth

    Species change over time. That is evolution. Do you deny this?
     
    There is NO evidence of anything evolving in nature, only DEvolving. If you can find an example that contradicts this, please post it.

    Again, it is called the THEORY of evolution. You have never heard of the THEORY of water flowing downhill, have you?

    No, because it is a FACT.

    Evolution is silly, generational, freemasonic deception, like the so-called space program, communism, the spinning ball earth, the cold war, and Hitler, nothing more.

    “There is NO evidence of anything evolving in nature, only DEvolving”

    Source?

    “If you can find an example that contradicts this, please post it.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

    We’ve literally watched E.coli evolve in the lab. Evolution is true. What the ‘theory’ of evolution attempts to explain is by what processes evolution happens. There is no debate in the scientific community in regards to whether or not if evolution happens, but by what mechanisms and processes that do.

    “Again, it is called the THEORY of evolution. You have never heard of the THEORY of water flowing downhill, have you?”

    Maybe you misses this:

    Theory—a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

    Is this hard to understand?

    Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eye-witness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time. (Dawkins, 2009)

    The theory of water flowing down a hill would be EXPLAINING HOW water flows down hill. No one would DENY that water FLOWS DOWN THE HILL. Do you understand this?

    You have the lay interpretation of ‘theory’ meaning ‘just a guess’. However, the word in a scientific context holds a completely different meaning. It’s system of beliefs and facts intended to explain something. Things change over time. This is a fact.

    “Evolution is silly, generational, freemasonic deception, like the so-called space program, communism, the spinning ball earth, the cold war, and Hitler, nothing more.”

    So you’re a walking parody.

    I don’t care about anything else you’ve said (maybe we’ll get to that later). I care about your implicit denial of the truth of evolution. Evolution is a fact.

    Now, provide evidence for creationism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hyperbola
    Perhaps "epigenetic adaptations" should be considered in the evolutionary experiments you cite. Then we might begin to discuss whether these are really "evolution". Perhaps we could start with the "reverse" interpretation that genetic mutations are the fixing in a permanent form of changes that have already proven useful in the context of epigenetic adaptation.
    , @BB753
    Trust me, you won't be able to convince our friend Truth. A man who believes Jessica Alba is a man, and that everyone else in Hollywood is transgendered, due to a secret Illuminati conspiracy. No surprise he's also a creationist. LOL!
  83. @anon

    emulate the great Hans Eysenck heretical streak? In his case doubting the causal connection between smoking and lung cancer.
     
    I think "exercise" is used a bit like "environment" in sociology. If there's a benefit (or benefits) there will be specific biological reasons for each one so for me people saying "exercise" is both annoying and boring. I want to know what particular kind of exercise has a particular benefit and *why*.

    I have the same (useful and rational) nitpicking tendency!

    Interesting that you attach your comment to my remark about Eysenck. In view of the precision of your thinking about exercise I am guessing that you recall his nitpicking objection that, when he wrote, the precise causal mechanism by which burning tobacco caused lung cancer hadn’t been demonstrated. (All from distant memory).

    I am in favour of exercise fads for the simple reason that over the last 50 years most people have ceased to move their bodies enough in any way so every little faddish enthusiasm should do more good than harm. That is not to disagree with you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    yeah, no argument really. i agree association is enough to at least consider changing activities.

    i have a mental trigger at the word "exercise" as it's so non-specific, especially as i'm currently nagging elderly relatives in that direction and the range of "exercise" they can do is limited so it would be good to know what specifically works.
  84. @james c
    There are a different themes to this amusing topic.

    First, not far from the surface is American puritanism. Our friends from the US have a deep ambivalence to pleasure (supposedly the pursuit of it is their main purpose in life) and are much happier if it comes only as the result of hard work.

    Hence, the idea of suffering on a treadmill is deeply appealing to them.

    Second, Americans are competitive, in certain, socially acceptable areas, and enjoy the one-upmanship that comes from gym activity.

    Third, there is capitalist motive at play - exercise is big business as of course was the lazy lifestyle that makes it necessary.

    Fourth, as with all things American, is the bogus science peddled by interested parties.

    “Hence, the idea of suffering on a treadmill is deeply appealing to [Americans].”

    Curious, this notion that exercise equals suffering. Perhaps I’m a physiological freak of nature, but I’ve always enjoyed exercising, particularly strength training and cardio, and don’t find it painful or grueling. If you’re in agony every time you exercise, you’re probably doing it wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I have a distant bùt happy memory of training for a marathon to prove that a sprinter's sprinter like me, whose father had suffered two heart attacks in his eraly 40s, could do it (I did). After about half an our the endorphins would give me the "runner's high". A bit like a satisfyingly vigorous hour's tennis singles
  85. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wizard of Oz
    I have the same (useful and rational) nitpicking tendency!

    Interesting that you attach your comment to my remark about Eysenck. In view of the precision of your thinking about exercise I am guessing that you recall his nitpicking objection that, when he wrote, the precise causal mechanism by which burning tobacco caused lung cancer hadn't been demonstrated. (All from distant memory).

    I am in favour of exercise fads for the simple reason that over the last 50 years most people have ceased to move their bodies enough in any way so every little faddish enthusiasm should do more good than harm. That is not to disagree with you.

    yeah, no argument really. i agree association is enough to at least consider changing activities.

    i have a mental trigger at the word “exercise” as it’s so non-specific, especially as i’m currently nagging elderly relatives in that direction and the range of “exercise” they can do is limited so it would be good to know what specifically works.

    Read More
  86. […] going to recommend James Thompson’s blog if you want more details but feel that reading the original paper is too challenging for you. He […]

    Read More
  87. hyperbola says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "There is NO evidence of anything evolving in nature, only DEvolving"

    Source?

    "If you can find an example that contradicts this, please post it."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

    We've literally watched E.coli evolve in the lab. Evolution is true. What the 'theory' of evolution attempts to explain is by what processes evolution happens. There is no debate in the scientific community in regards to whether or not if evolution happens, but by what mechanisms and processes that do.

    "Again, it is called the THEORY of evolution. You have never heard of the THEORY of water flowing downhill, have you?"

    Maybe you misses this:

    Theory—a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

    Is this hard to understand?

    Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don't live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eye-witness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time. (Dawkins, 2009)

    The theory of water flowing down a hill would be EXPLAINING HOW water flows down hill. No one would DENY that water FLOWS DOWN THE HILL. Do you understand this?

    You have the lay interpretation of 'theory' meaning 'just a guess'. However, the word in a scientific context holds a completely different meaning. It's system of beliefs and facts intended to explain something. Things change over time. This is a fact.

    "Evolution is silly, generational, freemasonic deception, like the so-called space program, communism, the spinning ball earth, the cold war, and Hitler, nothing more."

    So you're a walking parody.

    I don't care about anything else you've said (maybe we'll get to that later). I care about your implicit denial of the truth of evolution. Evolution is a fact.

    Now, provide evidence for creationism.

    Perhaps “epigenetic adaptations” should be considered in the evolutionary experiments you cite. Then we might begin to discuss whether these are really “evolution”. Perhaps we could start with the “reverse” interpretation that genetic mutations are the fixing in a permanent form of changes that have already proven useful in the context of epigenetic adaptation.

    Read More
  88. BB753 says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "There is NO evidence of anything evolving in nature, only DEvolving"

    Source?

    "If you can find an example that contradicts this, please post it."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

    We've literally watched E.coli evolve in the lab. Evolution is true. What the 'theory' of evolution attempts to explain is by what processes evolution happens. There is no debate in the scientific community in regards to whether or not if evolution happens, but by what mechanisms and processes that do.

    "Again, it is called the THEORY of evolution. You have never heard of the THEORY of water flowing downhill, have you?"

    Maybe you misses this:

    Theory—a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

    Is this hard to understand?

    Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don't live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eye-witness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time. (Dawkins, 2009)

    The theory of water flowing down a hill would be EXPLAINING HOW water flows down hill. No one would DENY that water FLOWS DOWN THE HILL. Do you understand this?

    You have the lay interpretation of 'theory' meaning 'just a guess'. However, the word in a scientific context holds a completely different meaning. It's system of beliefs and facts intended to explain something. Things change over time. This is a fact.

    "Evolution is silly, generational, freemasonic deception, like the so-called space program, communism, the spinning ball earth, the cold war, and Hitler, nothing more."

    So you're a walking parody.

    I don't care about anything else you've said (maybe we'll get to that later). I care about your implicit denial of the truth of evolution. Evolution is a fact.

    Now, provide evidence for creationism.

    Trust me, you won’t be able to convince our friend Truth. A man who believes Jessica Alba is a man, and that everyone else in Hollywood is transgendered, due to a secret Illuminati conspiracy. No surprise he’s also a creationist. LOL!

    Read More
  89. @Francis G.
    "Hence, the idea of suffering on a treadmill is deeply appealing to [Americans]."

    Curious, this notion that exercise equals suffering. Perhaps I'm a physiological freak of nature, but I've always enjoyed exercising, particularly strength training and cardio, and don't find it painful or grueling. If you're in agony every time you exercise, you're probably doing it wrong.

    I have a distant bùt happy memory of training for a marathon to prove that a sprinter’s sprinter like me, whose father had suffered two heart attacks in his eraly 40s, could do it (I did). After about half an our the endorphins would give me the “runner’s high”. A bit like a satisfyingly vigorous hour’s tennis singles

    Read More
  90. @Wizard of Oz
    JT - you may wish to consider, or toss into conversation with your peers a measure of the pace of ageing which is exercise related. I refer to sports with handicapping systems.

    Most people's minds would turn straight to golf. My father had two heart attacks in his early forties and a severed tendon in one arm but got back to a scratch handicap at 50 and dropped dead at 59 after doing a round of 72 on a par 71 course. Although that indicates the importance of mental as well as physical factors I would prefer the handicapping system of the game of Real (in the US "Court") Tennis which can be vigorous and testing of speed and stamina like squash but also provides almost endless scope for cunning and tactics to make up for youthful power. That is so despite its demands on eye-hand co-ordination ("an eye for a ball") being much greater than the modern lawn tennis with big rackets, soft balls which take little cut and no walls. (The handicapping system allows cunning to be used so untalented players can adjust to their limitations e.g. by not trying for perfect length,direction and side- and under- cut all at the same time like a champion player). My suggestion comes from an 80 year old friend who likes to say his rate of ageing is not speeding up: it's still just one point of handicap each year since he was 50. In fact for a sport involving great activity of body and mind one might start with the assumption that at 50 a generally healthy active person might have taken responsible steps to get his act together, whether for the sake of his family or because he hss begun to take notice of the huge amount of health and fitness news we are deluged with, and that he can establish some sort of baseline about that age. Even the professional athlete who retires at 35 and lets himself go might find that 50 was about the consolidation sge).

    BTW aren't you threatening to emulate the great Hans Eysenck heretical streak? In his case doubting the causal connection between smoking and lung cancer.

    Handicap systems are kind, and preserve the essence of a game played together with participants of different ability, unlike tennis. However, we are in the business of a clear-eyed, cold assessment of decay, no holds barred.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    we are in the business of a clear-eyed, cold assessment of decay
     
    Handicap systems seem like a good way to track that as long as changes are easily measurable (e.g. golf's numerical scale). Not as good as direct measurement (e.g. running speed, visual acuity, strength, mental tasks), but still useful IMHO. Even more so if statistical data is available for handicap status by age.
  91. res says:
    @James Thompson
    Handicap systems are kind, and preserve the essence of a game played together with participants of different ability, unlike tennis. However, we are in the business of a clear-eyed, cold assessment of decay, no holds barred.

    we are in the business of a clear-eyed, cold assessment of decay

    Handicap systems seem like a good way to track that as long as changes are easily measurable (e.g. golf’s numerical scale). Not as good as direct measurement (e.g. running speed, visual acuity, strength, mental tasks), but still useful IMHO. Even more so if statistical data is available for handicap status by age.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    If you do a search for description of the Real (aka Court) Tennis handicapping system as it has been internationally for about 40 years (before which it was a bit eccentric and ad hoc - like "bar side wall", "bar all openimgs" just to mention two possible handicap features which are no longer used) you will see how precise it is and how a general slow slide from age 40 or so can't be disguised. (The last World Champion was expecting to lose to his repeat challenger aged 26 when he was 46 but pulled off yet another crushing victory before being crushed by the 28 year old two years later. He had actually lost a lot of the national Opens and Professional championships to the challenger over the previous 4 years. It is a game in which the mind plays a big part but can only slow the inevitable. The old champs reign was 22 years!).
  92. Late in the day, I realize I should have added a link to diet, so that the post was not entirely about exercise.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/diet-is-iq-test/

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    agree that diet is key

    from the article

    In shorter words, eat less.

    That advice should be clear to all levels of intellect.
     
    eat less of what though?

    we were all told to eat less fat and more carbs and it had the opposite effect - what if the expert advice is wrong?

    for example diabetic legs vs scurvy legs

    https://diabeteslegs.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/swelling-leg.jpg

    http://media.clinicaladvisor.com/images/2011/01/21/scurvy_141367.jpg

    maybe wrong but they kinda look the same but how can people be having a vitamin C deficiency when they're chugging so much sugary sweet orange juice to get their vit C?
    , @RaceRealist88
    Dr. Thompson,

    "Late in the day, I realize I should have added a link to diet, so that the post was not entirely about exercise."

    I thought I was going to cringe extremely hard reading your article on dieting, but I was pleasantly surprised.

    Dieting doesn't work.

    http://janetto.bol.ucla.edu/index_files/Mannetal2007AP.pdf

    Exercise doesn't make us thinner.

    http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

    "They stress that wanting to go on a diet and being told to go on a diet doesn’t usually result in the sustained maintenance of the diet. Fine, but we are talking about obesity. They note that “energy reduction is the ultimate dietary intervention” and that nothing else works unless “accompanied by an overall reduction in energy intake”. The English for that is: “Eat less”. Pity they put it as Fact 2, and buried it somewhat as an implication. Get that fact in your mind and you will have no need for surgeons. The way the authors handle it, that crucial fact has little impact. I cooled to them at the end. They started well, and then petered out."

    Obesity is a hormonal, not caloric, disorder.

    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/insulin-causes-weight-gain-hormonal-obesity-iv/

    Diets fail 99 percent of the time. It's because of the garbage advice we are given. Look at the AHA recommendations. 55 percent carbs on a weight-loss diet?

    "Eating less" and "moving more" doesn't lead to weight loss.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/08/11/the-calories-incalories-out-myth/

    "So, although these correct and worthy researchers want controlled studies, they are not going to get them. Liberty will triumph over the food police."

    The only way to see the effects of diet on mortality is a controlled metabolic ward study. Too much liberty and not controlling scum corporations only out for a quick buck is a problem as well. Being exposed to advertisement makes kids eat more.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2743554/

    People like Oprah push lies like "Weight Watchers works", celebrating her 40 pound loss. ...How many times has Oprah lose that same 40 pounds again and again? That should tell you something.

    Weight Watchers doesnt work. Oprah is a liar and a shill for Big Food.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/24/oprah-weight-watchers-and-big-food-shilling/

    We need to look at obesity from an evolutionary perspective if we are to beat this disease:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/19/an-evolutionary-look-at-obesity/

    And it's largely due to evolutionary mismatches:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/01/15/agriculture-and-diseases-of-civilization/

    So if we change our environments from obesogenic to ancestral, we will begin to reverse this disease of civilization (and a lot more with it!).

    Also see this study by O'Dea (1984), which showed that 10 Australian Aborigines who returned to an ancestral diet for 7 weeks showing improved lipid and CHO metabolism, almost completely reversing their diabetes:

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMjMzNy9kaWFiLjMzLjYuNTk2/10.2337%40diab.33.6.596.pdf

    Amd if you want to talk about certain aspects of diet on intelligence, look no further than the n3-n6 ratio:

    In this context the only dietary factors related to cognitive performance were n−3 and n−6 fatty acids. Dietary n−3 fatty acids were positively related to cognitive test scores in male and female children, while n−6 showed the reverse relationship, significantly so in females. In female children the positive effects of n−3 intake were twice as strong as in males and exceeded the negative effects of lead exposure. This suggests that increasing dietary intake of n−3 and decreasing n−6 fatty acids may have cognitive benefits in children, especially in females.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3206402/

    Our ancestors had closer to a 1:1 ratio:

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/1/179S.full?ijkey=5c7af875f3dc71a303f7df78c52145e8b7c31643

    While the typical American diet contains 14 to 25 more n6 than n3:

    http://www.umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/supplement/omega6-fatty-acids

    Also, people with a lower SES are more likely to be food insecure. There is an inverse relationship with energy density and energy cost, sweets and fats are more palatable and scientists are always working in food labs to make foods more palatable so we eat more of it; and lower SES is associated with lower fruit and vegetable intake, lower nutrient intake and, overall, a lower quality diet. Lower SES people are more likely to be obese:

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/1/6.full

    But it also does come down to intelligence as well:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/19/obesity-and-intelligence/

    But see above for some dietary factors also seen to affect intelligence.

    So, clean up diet, exercise more, stay away from processed garbage and attempt to eat a bit closer to how our ancestors did, since our genomes evolved for our past environment, not any possible future one. If we keep that in mind, we'd be OK and we wouldn't have obesity and all of the problems that are related to it. Is it any surprise that obesity comes along with so many other deadly diseases? It's because of the diets we eat and how much we eat of it. Once processed carbs were introduced into the West, obesity, diabetes and rates of other diseases exploded. Processed food is one of the main causes of the obesity epidemic.

    It's a pretty vicious cycle overall, and to beat it we need to change our obesogenic environments.

    (Note: Under Doctor supervision only)

    , @Wizard of Oz
    I can provide my own personal experience in favour of my tbeory and practice. I keep fit enough to play in tennis tournaments (singles and doubles) without fear of disaster while trying to win without getting worked up about the result. My BMI over a two or three years is likely to vary between about 23.5 and 25.85 although I may have stabilised it under 25 now that I only eat during a 6 to 8 hour period each day with few exceptions when not travelling.

    My theory was that a big, especially high carb breakfast would leave my stomach by lunchtime crying out to be filled again so I took to trying a high protein breakfast which would be digested slowly and not soon leading to an empty feeling. Although not tempted to try the Atkins diet I understood that it probably worked because fat, like protein, was digested slowly. By often having breakfast of smoked salmon on dry grainy toast I gave effect to my theorising and it did seem to be consistent with not needing much to eat for lunch.

    Now I have added elements of Michael Mosley's and others' intermittent fasting régime and I rarely eat outside a 6-8 hour period each day. Typically I have coffee and low cal water based drinks when I wake then have my first meal between 1230 and 1430. I eat quite a lot of high quality cheese and probably too much ice cream so it will be interesting to see if my blood lipids are still at the excellent levels my latest prescribed statin drug seems to have produced when I was tested not long after I started taking it.

    I think my 14 to 18 hour fasting fits plausibly into the theory that our hunter gatherer ancestors so often went a long time without food that their bodies moved into cell repair or disposal mode after it had used up its glucose and glycogen. I hope so, but the sense of virtue and discipline, however slight, is a benefit which is independent of scientific reality :-)

  93. JGarbo says:
    @jim jones
    Longevity is inherited, you will die at the same age as your father

    Rather too simplistic. Admittedly, nonagenerian Bertrand Russell explained his longevity as “a careful choice of parents”, but life style modifies the outcome.

    Read More
  94. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @James Thompson
    Late in the day, I realize I should have added a link to diet, so that the post was not entirely about exercise.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/diet-is-iq-test/

    agree that diet is key

    from the article

    In shorter words, eat less.

    That advice should be clear to all levels of intellect.

    eat less of what though?

    we were all told to eat less fat and more carbs and it had the opposite effect – what if the expert advice is wrong?

    for example diabetic legs vs scurvy legs

    maybe wrong but they kinda look the same but how can people be having a vitamin C deficiency when they’re chugging so much sugary sweet orange juice to get their vit C?

    Read More
  95. Bill says:
    @Tom Welsh
    What I mean is what I wrote, not what you mistakenly thought I meant. The only thing I asserted was that "If everyone died at the same age as their fathers, lifespan would never change at all". That is impossible to deny - it's a very simple mathematical proposition.

    If X=Y and Y=Z, X=Z. If my father died at the same age as his father, and I die at the same age as my father, I die at the same age as my grandfather - and, by induction, at the same age as my male ancestors all the way back.

    If you read what I wrote, you will see that I said nothing about genetics or evolution or explanations. I did not "deny the Theory of Evolution", because my only statement was a conditional one - "IF this, then logically THAT".

    What I mean is what I wrote, not what you mistakenly thought I meant. The only thing I asserted was that “If everyone died at the same age as their fathers, lifespan would never change at all”. That is impossible to deny – it’s a very simple

    Oh. OK. Then what you said is idiotic or profoundly ignorant. Maybe read that Beagle book.

    Read More
  96. Bill says:
    @Truth


    Unqualified like this, you’ve just denied the Theory of Evolution,
     
    I guess that's why they call it the "theory" of evolution, not the "fact" of evolution.

    Why don’t you go test your meta-theory by jumping off a building? After all, the Theory of Gravity is just a theory.

    Read More
  97. Bill says:
    @res
    I think a key point is that within cohort differences (e.g. heritability studies) are great for showing the importance of genetics. While between cohort differences (not much evolution in a single generation, absent epidemics or other catastrophes) are much better for showing the importance of environment. The difficult thing to assess for the Flynn Effect, height, longevity, etc. is how far along the curve of diminishing returns for environmental improvements we are. Sadly, I think that is what is most important in the genetics/environment debate.

    The interesting environmental questions are typically of the form "how much can we improve from the current baseline?" I don't think there is much dispute that negative environments can be harmful (the issues there are more how negative and how much).

    I think a key point is that within cohort differences (e.g. heritability studies) are great for showing the importance of genetics.

    Conditional on the environment in place during the study period. The best example is twins studies. Because twins were born on the same day, twins studies can, in principle, reveal nothing about the importance of time-varying environment. Because the two twins trace out the same path through time. Until one dies. But, then you lose your control for the other one. Twins studies are about the relative importance of genes and cross-sectional variation in environment.

    You can see the same point in the famous eyeglasses example. When eyeglasses are invented, vision stops being particularly influenced by genes (at least in an absolute sense). Well, unless you insist that we study uncorrected vision. Which is the point. To recover the interpretation you want, you demand that we control for environment.

    So, I disagree overall with your point. If you show me a twins study which says smiling for pictures (or just smiling in general) has a large genetic component, I will laugh at you. Or at least smile. Nobody smiled for pictures before about WWII. It’s obviously entirely social and environmental. Same for obesity. Same for longevity. Same for lots of stuff. Where did all the heart attack deaths go? Did genes change?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    If you show me a twins study which says smiling for pictures (or just smiling in general) has a large genetic component, I will laugh at you. Or at least smile. Nobody smiled for pictures before about WWII.
     
    To be precise, the only thing you can really conclude from a study is that there is a genetic effect (large or small) for the prevailing environment in that group. I agree extrapolating study results beyond their true area of applicability can be a problem.

    It’s obviously entirely social and environmental. Same for obesity. Same for longevity. Same for lots of stuff. Where did all the heart attack deaths go? Did genes change?
     
    Simply no for your first three sentences (emphasis mine). Your last two sentences are simply a restatement of my between cohorts point (which you neglected to quote). My original comment 42 talked about both genetic and environmental effects. Don't pull just one of those out and act like you are addressing what I said.

    I get that many (most?) people can only think about completely genetic or completely environmental extreme positions/strawmen. Please don't confuse my position with either of those.

    Also, one thing that should not be ignored is the ability of genes to influence one's (choice of) environment. This is likely why IQ heritability increases with age.

    As I have said before (and will likely say again), the interesting question is: what changes are possible to achieve environmentally? Hence why Dr. Thompson's post is of interest. Where things become even more interesting is when one can use genetic information to fine tune environmental interventions (e.g. choice of diet, exercise, etc.).
  98. @James Thompson
    Late in the day, I realize I should have added a link to diet, so that the post was not entirely about exercise.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/diet-is-iq-test/

    Dr. Thompson,

    “Late in the day, I realize I should have added a link to diet, so that the post was not entirely about exercise.”

    I thought I was going to cringe extremely hard reading your article on dieting, but I was pleasantly surprised.

    Dieting doesn’t work.

    http://janetto.bol.ucla.edu/index_files/Mannetal2007AP.pdf

    Exercise doesn’t make us thinner.

    http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

    “They stress that wanting to go on a diet and being told to go on a diet doesn’t usually result in the sustained maintenance of the diet. Fine, but we are talking about obesity. They note that “energy reduction is the ultimate dietary intervention” and that nothing else works unless “accompanied by an overall reduction in energy intake”. The English for that is: “Eat less”. Pity they put it as Fact 2, and buried it somewhat as an implication. Get that fact in your mind and you will have no need for surgeons. The way the authors handle it, that crucial fact has little impact. I cooled to them at the end. They started well, and then petered out.”

    Obesity is a hormonal, not caloric, disorder.

    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/insulin-causes-weight-gain-hormonal-obesity-iv/

    Diets fail 99 percent of the time. It’s because of the garbage advice we are given. Look at the AHA recommendations. 55 percent carbs on a weight-loss diet?

    “Eating less” and “moving more” doesn’t lead to weight loss.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/08/11/the-calories-incalories-out-myth/

    “So, although these correct and worthy researchers want controlled studies, they are not going to get them. Liberty will triumph over the food police.”

    The only way to see the effects of diet on mortality is a controlled metabolic ward study. Too much liberty and not controlling scum corporations only out for a quick buck is a problem as well. Being exposed to advertisement makes kids eat more.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2743554/

    People like Oprah push lies like “Weight Watchers works”, celebrating her 40 pound loss. …How many times has Oprah lose that same 40 pounds again and again? That should tell you something.

    Weight Watchers doesnt work. Oprah is a liar and a shill for Big Food.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/24/oprah-weight-watchers-and-big-food-shilling/

    We need to look at obesity from an evolutionary perspective if we are to beat this disease:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/19/an-evolutionary-look-at-obesity/

    And it’s largely due to evolutionary mismatches:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/01/15/agriculture-and-diseases-of-civilization/

    So if we change our environments from obesogenic to ancestral, we will begin to reverse this disease of civilization (and a lot more with it!).

    Also see this study by O’Dea (1984), which showed that 10 Australian Aborigines who returned to an ancestral diet for 7 weeks showing improved lipid and CHO metabolism, almost completely reversing their diabetes:

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMjMzNy9kaWFiLjMzLjYuNTk2/10.2337%40diab.33.6.596.pdf

    Amd if you want to talk about certain aspects of diet on intelligence, look no further than the n3-n6 ratio:

    In this context the only dietary factors related to cognitive performance were n−3 and n−6 fatty acids. Dietary n−3 fatty acids were positively related to cognitive test scores in male and female children, while n−6 showed the reverse relationship, significantly so in females. In female children the positive effects of n−3 intake were twice as strong as in males and exceeded the negative effects of lead exposure. This suggests that increasing dietary intake of n−3 and decreasing n−6 fatty acids may have cognitive benefits in children, especially in females.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3206402/

    Our ancestors had closer to a 1:1 ratio:

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/1/179S.full?ijkey=5c7af875f3dc71a303f7df78c52145e8b7c31643

    While the typical American diet contains 14 to 25 more n6 than n3:

    http://www.umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/supplement/omega6-fatty-acids

    Also, people with a lower SES are more likely to be food insecure. There is an inverse relationship with energy density and energy cost, sweets and fats are more palatable and scientists are always working in food labs to make foods more palatable so we eat more of it; and lower SES is associated with lower fruit and vegetable intake, lower nutrient intake and, overall, a lower quality diet. Lower SES people are more likely to be obese:

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/1/6.full

    But it also does come down to intelligence as well:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/19/obesity-and-intelligence/

    But see above for some dietary factors also seen to affect intelligence.

    So, clean up diet, exercise more, stay away from processed garbage and attempt to eat a bit closer to how our ancestors did, since our genomes evolved for our past environment, not any possible future one. If we keep that in mind, we’d be OK and we wouldn’t have obesity and all of the problems that are related to it. Is it any surprise that obesity comes along with so many other deadly diseases? It’s because of the diets we eat and how much we eat of it. Once processed carbs were introduced into the West, obesity, diabetes and rates of other diseases exploded. Processed food is one of the main causes of the obesity epidemic.

    It’s a pretty vicious cycle overall, and to beat it we need to change our obesogenic environments.

    (Note: Under Doctor supervision only)

    Read More
    • Replies: @dux.ie
    Now we have primary school student selection based on obesity level.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/08/top-china-schools-test-parents-iq-ancestors-grades-obesity-enrollment/
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I haven't read and absorbed all your links but I can't believe they would support your dictum that the cause of obesity is hormonal not calorific. No doubt hormonal effects on appetite and on metabolic rate are or can be significant but how does that negate the importance of the number of calories your food and drink provide you with?
  99. res says:
    @Bill

    I think a key point is that within cohort differences (e.g. heritability studies) are great for showing the importance of genetics.
     
    Conditional on the environment in place during the study period. The best example is twins studies. Because twins were born on the same day, twins studies can, in principle, reveal nothing about the importance of time-varying environment. Because the two twins trace out the same path through time. Until one dies. But, then you lose your control for the other one. Twins studies are about the relative importance of genes and cross-sectional variation in environment.

    You can see the same point in the famous eyeglasses example. When eyeglasses are invented, vision stops being particularly influenced by genes (at least in an absolute sense). Well, unless you insist that we study uncorrected vision. Which is the point. To recover the interpretation you want, you demand that we control for environment.

    So, I disagree overall with your point. If you show me a twins study which says smiling for pictures (or just smiling in general) has a large genetic component, I will laugh at you. Or at least smile. Nobody smiled for pictures before about WWII. It's obviously entirely social and environmental. Same for obesity. Same for longevity. Same for lots of stuff. Where did all the heart attack deaths go? Did genes change?

    If you show me a twins study which says smiling for pictures (or just smiling in general) has a large genetic component, I will laugh at you. Or at least smile. Nobody smiled for pictures before about WWII.

    To be precise, the only thing you can really conclude from a study is that there is a genetic effect (large or small) for the prevailing environment in that group. I agree extrapolating study results beyond their true area of applicability can be a problem.

    It’s obviously entirely social and environmental. Same for obesity. Same for longevity. Same for lots of stuff. Where did all the heart attack deaths go? Did genes change?

    Simply no for your first three sentences (emphasis mine). Your last two sentences are simply a restatement of my between cohorts point (which you neglected to quote). My original comment 42 talked about both genetic and environmental effects. Don’t pull just one of those out and act like you are addressing what I said.

    I get that many (most?) people can only think about completely genetic or completely environmental extreme positions/strawmen. Please don’t confuse my position with either of those.

    Also, one thing that should not be ignored is the ability of genes to influence one’s (choice of) environment. This is likely why IQ heritability increases with age.

    As I have said before (and will likely say again), the interesting question is: what changes are possible to achieve environmentally? Hence why Dr. Thompson’s post is of interest. Where things become even more interesting is when one can use genetic information to fine tune environmental interventions (e.g. choice of diet, exercise, etc.).

    Read More
    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Bill

    Simply no for your first three sentences (emphasis mine).
     
    I don't believe you.

    Your last two sentences are simply a restatement of my between cohorts point (which you neglected to quote). My original comment 42 talked about both genetic and environmental effects. Don’t pull just one of those out and act like you are addressing what I said.
     
    Uh, I was agreeing with you. The tip-off was when I did what you describe as restating your between cohorts point.

    To be precise, the only thing you can really conclude from a study is that there is a genetic effect (large or small) for the prevailing environment in that group.
     
    Which is exactly what I said (and you neglected to quote) in my comment #99, "for the prevailing environment" being one of them perfect synonym thingies for "Conditional on the environment in place during the study period."
  100. dux.ie says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Dr. Thompson,

    "Late in the day, I realize I should have added a link to diet, so that the post was not entirely about exercise."

    I thought I was going to cringe extremely hard reading your article on dieting, but I was pleasantly surprised.

    Dieting doesn't work.

    http://janetto.bol.ucla.edu/index_files/Mannetal2007AP.pdf

    Exercise doesn't make us thinner.

    http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

    "They stress that wanting to go on a diet and being told to go on a diet doesn’t usually result in the sustained maintenance of the diet. Fine, but we are talking about obesity. They note that “energy reduction is the ultimate dietary intervention” and that nothing else works unless “accompanied by an overall reduction in energy intake”. The English for that is: “Eat less”. Pity they put it as Fact 2, and buried it somewhat as an implication. Get that fact in your mind and you will have no need for surgeons. The way the authors handle it, that crucial fact has little impact. I cooled to them at the end. They started well, and then petered out."

    Obesity is a hormonal, not caloric, disorder.

    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/insulin-causes-weight-gain-hormonal-obesity-iv/

    Diets fail 99 percent of the time. It's because of the garbage advice we are given. Look at the AHA recommendations. 55 percent carbs on a weight-loss diet?

    "Eating less" and "moving more" doesn't lead to weight loss.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/08/11/the-calories-incalories-out-myth/

    "So, although these correct and worthy researchers want controlled studies, they are not going to get them. Liberty will triumph over the food police."

    The only way to see the effects of diet on mortality is a controlled metabolic ward study. Too much liberty and not controlling scum corporations only out for a quick buck is a problem as well. Being exposed to advertisement makes kids eat more.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2743554/

    People like Oprah push lies like "Weight Watchers works", celebrating her 40 pound loss. ...How many times has Oprah lose that same 40 pounds again and again? That should tell you something.

    Weight Watchers doesnt work. Oprah is a liar and a shill for Big Food.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/24/oprah-weight-watchers-and-big-food-shilling/

    We need to look at obesity from an evolutionary perspective if we are to beat this disease:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/19/an-evolutionary-look-at-obesity/

    And it's largely due to evolutionary mismatches:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/01/15/agriculture-and-diseases-of-civilization/

    So if we change our environments from obesogenic to ancestral, we will begin to reverse this disease of civilization (and a lot more with it!).

    Also see this study by O'Dea (1984), which showed that 10 Australian Aborigines who returned to an ancestral diet for 7 weeks showing improved lipid and CHO metabolism, almost completely reversing their diabetes:

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMjMzNy9kaWFiLjMzLjYuNTk2/10.2337%40diab.33.6.596.pdf

    Amd if you want to talk about certain aspects of diet on intelligence, look no further than the n3-n6 ratio:

    In this context the only dietary factors related to cognitive performance were n−3 and n−6 fatty acids. Dietary n−3 fatty acids were positively related to cognitive test scores in male and female children, while n−6 showed the reverse relationship, significantly so in females. In female children the positive effects of n−3 intake were twice as strong as in males and exceeded the negative effects of lead exposure. This suggests that increasing dietary intake of n−3 and decreasing n−6 fatty acids may have cognitive benefits in children, especially in females.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3206402/

    Our ancestors had closer to a 1:1 ratio:

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/1/179S.full?ijkey=5c7af875f3dc71a303f7df78c52145e8b7c31643

    While the typical American diet contains 14 to 25 more n6 than n3:

    http://www.umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/supplement/omega6-fatty-acids

    Also, people with a lower SES are more likely to be food insecure. There is an inverse relationship with energy density and energy cost, sweets and fats are more palatable and scientists are always working in food labs to make foods more palatable so we eat more of it; and lower SES is associated with lower fruit and vegetable intake, lower nutrient intake and, overall, a lower quality diet. Lower SES people are more likely to be obese:

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/1/6.full

    But it also does come down to intelligence as well:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/19/obesity-and-intelligence/

    But see above for some dietary factors also seen to affect intelligence.

    So, clean up diet, exercise more, stay away from processed garbage and attempt to eat a bit closer to how our ancestors did, since our genomes evolved for our past environment, not any possible future one. If we keep that in mind, we'd be OK and we wouldn't have obesity and all of the problems that are related to it. Is it any surprise that obesity comes along with so many other deadly diseases? It's because of the diets we eat and how much we eat of it. Once processed carbs were introduced into the West, obesity, diabetes and rates of other diseases exploded. Processed food is one of the main causes of the obesity epidemic.

    It's a pretty vicious cycle overall, and to beat it we need to change our obesogenic environments.

    (Note: Under Doctor supervision only)

    Read More
  101. @RaceRealist88
    Dr. Thompson,

    "Late in the day, I realize I should have added a link to diet, so that the post was not entirely about exercise."

    I thought I was going to cringe extremely hard reading your article on dieting, but I was pleasantly surprised.

    Dieting doesn't work.

    http://janetto.bol.ucla.edu/index_files/Mannetal2007AP.pdf

    Exercise doesn't make us thinner.

    http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

    "They stress that wanting to go on a diet and being told to go on a diet doesn’t usually result in the sustained maintenance of the diet. Fine, but we are talking about obesity. They note that “energy reduction is the ultimate dietary intervention” and that nothing else works unless “accompanied by an overall reduction in energy intake”. The English for that is: “Eat less”. Pity they put it as Fact 2, and buried it somewhat as an implication. Get that fact in your mind and you will have no need for surgeons. The way the authors handle it, that crucial fact has little impact. I cooled to them at the end. They started well, and then petered out."

    Obesity is a hormonal, not caloric, disorder.

    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/insulin-causes-weight-gain-hormonal-obesity-iv/

    Diets fail 99 percent of the time. It's because of the garbage advice we are given. Look at the AHA recommendations. 55 percent carbs on a weight-loss diet?

    "Eating less" and "moving more" doesn't lead to weight loss.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/08/11/the-calories-incalories-out-myth/

    "So, although these correct and worthy researchers want controlled studies, they are not going to get them. Liberty will triumph over the food police."

    The only way to see the effects of diet on mortality is a controlled metabolic ward study. Too much liberty and not controlling scum corporations only out for a quick buck is a problem as well. Being exposed to advertisement makes kids eat more.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2743554/

    People like Oprah push lies like "Weight Watchers works", celebrating her 40 pound loss. ...How many times has Oprah lose that same 40 pounds again and again? That should tell you something.

    Weight Watchers doesnt work. Oprah is a liar and a shill for Big Food.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/24/oprah-weight-watchers-and-big-food-shilling/

    We need to look at obesity from an evolutionary perspective if we are to beat this disease:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/19/an-evolutionary-look-at-obesity/

    And it's largely due to evolutionary mismatches:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/01/15/agriculture-and-diseases-of-civilization/

    So if we change our environments from obesogenic to ancestral, we will begin to reverse this disease of civilization (and a lot more with it!).

    Also see this study by O'Dea (1984), which showed that 10 Australian Aborigines who returned to an ancestral diet for 7 weeks showing improved lipid and CHO metabolism, almost completely reversing their diabetes:

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMjMzNy9kaWFiLjMzLjYuNTk2/10.2337%40diab.33.6.596.pdf

    Amd if you want to talk about certain aspects of diet on intelligence, look no further than the n3-n6 ratio:

    In this context the only dietary factors related to cognitive performance were n−3 and n−6 fatty acids. Dietary n−3 fatty acids were positively related to cognitive test scores in male and female children, while n−6 showed the reverse relationship, significantly so in females. In female children the positive effects of n−3 intake were twice as strong as in males and exceeded the negative effects of lead exposure. This suggests that increasing dietary intake of n−3 and decreasing n−6 fatty acids may have cognitive benefits in children, especially in females.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3206402/

    Our ancestors had closer to a 1:1 ratio:

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/1/179S.full?ijkey=5c7af875f3dc71a303f7df78c52145e8b7c31643

    While the typical American diet contains 14 to 25 more n6 than n3:

    http://www.umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/supplement/omega6-fatty-acids

    Also, people with a lower SES are more likely to be food insecure. There is an inverse relationship with energy density and energy cost, sweets and fats are more palatable and scientists are always working in food labs to make foods more palatable so we eat more of it; and lower SES is associated with lower fruit and vegetable intake, lower nutrient intake and, overall, a lower quality diet. Lower SES people are more likely to be obese:

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/1/6.full

    But it also does come down to intelligence as well:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/19/obesity-and-intelligence/

    But see above for some dietary factors also seen to affect intelligence.

    So, clean up diet, exercise more, stay away from processed garbage and attempt to eat a bit closer to how our ancestors did, since our genomes evolved for our past environment, not any possible future one. If we keep that in mind, we'd be OK and we wouldn't have obesity and all of the problems that are related to it. Is it any surprise that obesity comes along with so many other deadly diseases? It's because of the diets we eat and how much we eat of it. Once processed carbs were introduced into the West, obesity, diabetes and rates of other diseases exploded. Processed food is one of the main causes of the obesity epidemic.

    It's a pretty vicious cycle overall, and to beat it we need to change our obesogenic environments.

    (Note: Under Doctor supervision only)

    I haven’t read and absorbed all your links but I can’t believe they would support your dictum that the cause of obesity is hormonal not calorific. No doubt hormonal effects on appetite and on metabolic rate are or can be significant but how does that negate the importance of the number of calories your food and drink provide you with?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    I don't think he is directly addressing the accounting point. There is, indeed, an accounting identity which reads something like:

    change in weight in lbs =~ (calories in - calories out)/3500

    His point is that attempts directly to intervene in either calories in (via diet) or calories out (via exercise) don't, in practice, work very well.

    All those skinny savages wandering around the Amazon are not counting calories or going jogging. Fat American girls, however, are doing both.

    The theory he is referring to says that 1) one's urge to eat and one's basal metabolic rate are both under the control of the endocrine system, 2) the way to lose weight is to influence the endocrine system, and 3) diet and exercise are not good ways to do 2) and may even be counterproductive.

    That's how the theory goes. I don't claim to know if it's right. Well, it's right that diet and exercise don't work.
    , @res

    No doubt hormonal effects on appetite and on metabolic rate are or can be significant but how does that negate the importance of the number of calories your food and drink provide you with?
     
    Which was in response to an earlier statement by RaceRealist88: "Obesity is a hormonal, not caloric, disorder."

    This is another A and B rather than A vs. B type discussion. I think Wiz's point is basically correct, but some elaboration from my POV.

    First, the classic example of hormones and weight is the effect of thyroid hormone on metabolism. Hyperthyroid revving up metabolism and causing weight loss vs. hypothyroidism slowing down metabolism causing weight gain. This doesn't eliminate the effect of calories, but can make it hard to consume little/enough to lose/gain weight.

    Other hormones probably also matter, such as leptin and ghrelin (for hunger) and insulin (for cellular uptake of nutrients).

    Second, the calories in vs. calories out argument is frequently used, but seldom contains an attempt at a complete accounting (because it is hard if not impossible). Some things that are usually neglected:
    - Non-digestible calories (e.g. fiber).
    - Digestible calories which are not handled properly (e.g. malabsorption, sugar excretion in diabetics).
    - Resting metabolic characteristics of an individual body (vs. a one size fits all estimate, e.g. muscle mass).
    - Exceptional but less visible metabolic needs (e.g. immune system fighting infection, shivering).
    - Metabolic costs of converting between nutrient forms (e.g. converting phenylalanine to tyrosine vs. directly consuming tyrosine, getting sugar directly vs. converting to/from body fat).
    Not a complete list, but hopefully it gives an idea.

    It is worth noting that weight change happens at the margins. If someone is consuming 1500 calories per day and expending the same amount there is no change. A small 50 calorie change in any of consumption, metabolic efficiency, metabolic output, etc. will result in a gradual 50 calorie per day change in weight (translation to pounds depends on tissue type involved). That adds up. There are also feedback effects, possibly positive (destabilizing, e.g. more weight -> less activity) or negative (stabilizing, e.g. calorie deficit -> low energy -> less activity).

    Also worth noting the importance of body composition to resting metabolic activity: http://www.livestrong.com/article/438693-a-pound-of-fat-vs-a-pound-of-muscle/

    All of that said, I think there is significant truth in RaceRealist88's statement. To cast this into Wiz's personal experiences, how much of the difference due to the dietary changes you described above do you think was due to consciously changing number of calories consumed vs. changing the way your body responded to the calories (mostly mediated by hormones?)?

    P.S. Bill's comment 110 is also a good elaboration IMHO.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "I haven’t read and absorbed all your links but I can’t believe they would support your dictum that the cause of obesity is hormonal not calorific"

    All of the links I provided don't state that obesity is hormonal and not caloric---it was the specific article by Dr. Jason Fung that did.

    Eating is not under conscious control---contrary to popular (broscience) belief. Dozens of hormones dictate when you eat and still a dozen more dictate when to stop eating. Long bouts of dieting destroy metabolisms:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25608460

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25614201

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10596518

    This is something that people don't want to admit---that the advice they've been giving for hundreds of years don't work.

    Hormones dictate fat gain and where the body stores fat (look at the Hottentot; do you think all they need to do is 'eat less and move more' to get rid of that fat around their buttocks?). So if hormones dictate fat gain, then obesity is a hormonal, not caloric, disorder.

    "how does that negate the importance of the number of calories your food and drink provide you with?"

    Look at the recommendations from the AHA. 55 percent carbohydrate diet. That's a joke. That keeps insulin elevated and when insulin is elevated, fat cannot be unlocked from the adipocite so it's not used for energy. What the body does use for energy is the glucose from the carbohydrates you just ingested which also spiked your insulin. Insulin causes insulin resistance. Insulin resistance causes high insulin. High insulin causes insulin resistance; it's a vicious cycle that is compounded with shitty advice for diabetics/pre-diabetics in particular.

    I tell my clients to eat VLCKD if they're diabetic. VLCKD have an amazing track record managing diabesity:

    Conclusions: The interventional weight loss program based on a VLCK diet is most effective in reducing body weight and improvement of glycemic control than a standard hypocaloric diet with safety and good tolerance for T2DM patients.

    http://www.nature.com/nutd/journal/v6/n9/abs/nutd201636a.html?
  102. @res

    we are in the business of a clear-eyed, cold assessment of decay
     
    Handicap systems seem like a good way to track that as long as changes are easily measurable (e.g. golf's numerical scale). Not as good as direct measurement (e.g. running speed, visual acuity, strength, mental tasks), but still useful IMHO. Even more so if statistical data is available for handicap status by age.

    If you do a search for description of the Real (aka Court) Tennis handicapping system as it has been internationally for about 40 years (before which it was a bit eccentric and ad hoc – like “bar side wall”, “bar all openimgs” just to mention two possible handicap features which are no longer used) you will see how precise it is and how a general slow slide from age 40 or so can’t be disguised. (The last World Champion was expecting to lose to his repeat challenger aged 26 when he was 46 but pulled off yet another crushing victory before being crushed by the 28 year old two years later. He had actually lost a lot of the national Opens and Professional championships to the challenger over the previous 4 years. It is a game in which the mind plays a big part but can only slow the inevitable. The old champs reign was 22 years!).

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks. I did a search (e.g. this looked useful: http://www.realtennisonline.com/rto/index.aspx?nav=forums.nav&keys=38&skin=tra ), but did not have any luck finding curves by age. Can you help me out? Also, do men and women compete against each other? Is there any sense of how the male/female difference slots into the age differences?
  103. JL says:

    Generally speaking, the paleo and cross fit movements have produced the best, latest information on how to take care of yourself. This article, and the ensuing discussion, seem overly simplified and years out of date. Cutting edge these days is the interaction of gut flora with human metabolism, a complex system inside of a complex system.

    Read More
  104. @James Thompson
    Late in the day, I realize I should have added a link to diet, so that the post was not entirely about exercise.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/diet-is-iq-test/

    I can provide my own personal experience in favour of my tbeory and practice. I keep fit enough to play in tennis tournaments (singles and doubles) without fear of disaster while trying to win without getting worked up about the result. My BMI over a two or three years is likely to vary between about 23.5 and 25.85 although I may have stabilised it under 25 now that I only eat during a 6 to 8 hour period each day with few exceptions when not travelling.

    My theory was that a big, especially high carb breakfast would leave my stomach by lunchtime crying out to be filled again so I took to trying a high protein breakfast which would be digested slowly and not soon leading to an empty feeling. Although not tempted to try the Atkins diet I understood that it probably worked because fat, like protein, was digested slowly. By often having breakfast of smoked salmon on dry grainy toast I gave effect to my theorising and it did seem to be consistent with not needing much to eat for lunch.

    Now I have added elements of Michael Mosley’s and others’ intermittent fasting régime and I rarely eat outside a 6-8 hour period each day. Typically I have coffee and low cal water based drinks when I wake then have my first meal between 1230 and 1430. I eat quite a lot of high quality cheese and probably too much ice cream so it will be interesting to see if my blood lipids are still at the excellent levels my latest prescribed statin drug seems to have produced when I was tested not long after I started taking it.

    I think my 14 to 18 hour fasting fits plausibly into the theory that our hunter gatherer ancestors so often went a long time without food that their bodies moved into cell repair or disposal mode after it had used up its glucose and glycogen. I hope so, but the sense of virtue and discipline, however slight, is a benefit which is independent of scientific reality :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Interesting. Thanks. I like the sound of your approach and it seems like you are getting good results. One thing, you might not want to reduce your BMI too much. Based on my own research the sweet spot for lowest mortality in men is ~23-30 (lowest in the middle). This is a very contentious issue in nutrition/health because it conflicts with the usual advice concerning ideal BMI so published papers sometimes have conflicting information. Going by how you feel and perform physically is probably best, which I am guessing is what you do.

    To explain a little, part of the controversy is the presence of confounders like weight loss in cancer.
  105. res says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    If you do a search for description of the Real (aka Court) Tennis handicapping system as it has been internationally for about 40 years (before which it was a bit eccentric and ad hoc - like "bar side wall", "bar all openimgs" just to mention two possible handicap features which are no longer used) you will see how precise it is and how a general slow slide from age 40 or so can't be disguised. (The last World Champion was expecting to lose to his repeat challenger aged 26 when he was 46 but pulled off yet another crushing victory before being crushed by the 28 year old two years later. He had actually lost a lot of the national Opens and Professional championships to the challenger over the previous 4 years. It is a game in which the mind plays a big part but can only slow the inevitable. The old champs reign was 22 years!).

    Thanks. I did a search (e.g. this looked useful: http://www.realtennisonline.com/rto/index.aspx?nav=forums.nav&keys=38&skin=tra ), but did not have any luck finding curves by age. Can you help me out? Also, do men and women compete against each other? Is there any sense of how the male/female difference slots into the age differences?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Well searched! I doubt if anyone has compiled the age related statistics though I can imagine some Cambridge don encouraging a young mathematician to unearth acouple of decades of archived data and adequate evidence of ages to produce some charts of interest at least to tennis obsessives.

    Women have long (several decades anyway) had equal opportunities in the game though I have never heard of a club President who was a woman. And I'm afraid that the land of the free and home of the brave has the one august institution where women are simply not allowed on court.

    The women's world champion (the > 20 years younger wife of the last past men's world champion) is a class above every other woman player and could beat all but 25-30 men - and indeed was the Pro (with a male amateur) in a winning Pro Am pair a couple of years ago. (The doubles handicapping is based on the assumption that the better player will take most of the play which means for example that a big lumbering partner with a really good volley can be stationed at the servers' end half way to the net guarding the side galleries (on the righthanders' backhand side of the court) while a nimble young pro, if it's a ProAm, covers most of the court). For ordinary social doubles, even when handicaps are used, most pairs share the back play more or less equally.

    With a felt covered hard ball being hit sometimes at high speed men have an obvious advantage at any age compared with women of similar age. Not so much in returning the ball (though a strongly held racquet is less likely to fail to return a ball which is not hit or blocked precisely in the sweet spot) but in the pace of the hard hit baĺl. So it is interesting to observe the 35 year old woman who is no match for a 60 year old man able to match him when she is 45 and he is 70, and beat him reliably when she is 55 and he is 80 though he may still, at 80 be stronger than her for lifting weights or even hitting a ball with pace (if he doesn't stumble!).

    One contrast noticed by the capable older player having to give a big handicap advantage to a young player is that women who may hit the ball quite accurately still won't hit it with enough pace so that the better player can't reach it or can't middle it whereas the clumsy but strong young man will benefit from lucky shots hit at such pace that pace alone makes a controlled return too hard, and they can benefit from a wild shot hitting the edge of a gallery and coming off fast at such an angle that it can't be returned and may well set up a chase which is a condition for changing ends and server.

    I'm sure you will believe I can rattle on for a lot longer.... But I am reminded of promising myself to write up the simple tactics to be learned by the seriously uncoordinated who, years ago, I could not imagine enjoying the game. I don't know how they could without the handicapping system but it normally works very well. After a long break I recall playing in a handicap tournament after I had had a few games to establish a handicap. I beat a top pro 9/8 who had to give me a handicap of Owe 30, Receive 30 [i..e. he had to win 6 points to win a game and I had to win only 2] plus Only 1 serve and Bar the Tambour [he lost a point if his shot hit the projecting buttress like feature at the receiver's end called the Tambour]. Next round I had to give the same handicap and won 9/8 before being comfortably beaten by an up and coming "young bandit" who was still improving his handicap. And so on, and on.

    BTW one of the bonuses the game offers is that being able to play the game, even before you are looked up on the worldwide database, is all the introduction you need to get a game at almost every club.
  106. res says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I can provide my own personal experience in favour of my tbeory and practice. I keep fit enough to play in tennis tournaments (singles and doubles) without fear of disaster while trying to win without getting worked up about the result. My BMI over a two or three years is likely to vary between about 23.5 and 25.85 although I may have stabilised it under 25 now that I only eat during a 6 to 8 hour period each day with few exceptions when not travelling.

    My theory was that a big, especially high carb breakfast would leave my stomach by lunchtime crying out to be filled again so I took to trying a high protein breakfast which would be digested slowly and not soon leading to an empty feeling. Although not tempted to try the Atkins diet I understood that it probably worked because fat, like protein, was digested slowly. By often having breakfast of smoked salmon on dry grainy toast I gave effect to my theorising and it did seem to be consistent with not needing much to eat for lunch.

    Now I have added elements of Michael Mosley's and others' intermittent fasting régime and I rarely eat outside a 6-8 hour period each day. Typically I have coffee and low cal water based drinks when I wake then have my first meal between 1230 and 1430. I eat quite a lot of high quality cheese and probably too much ice cream so it will be interesting to see if my blood lipids are still at the excellent levels my latest prescribed statin drug seems to have produced when I was tested not long after I started taking it.

    I think my 14 to 18 hour fasting fits plausibly into the theory that our hunter gatherer ancestors so often went a long time without food that their bodies moved into cell repair or disposal mode after it had used up its glucose and glycogen. I hope so, but the sense of virtue and discipline, however slight, is a benefit which is independent of scientific reality :-)

    Interesting. Thanks. I like the sound of your approach and it seems like you are getting good results. One thing, you might not want to reduce your BMI too much. Based on my own research the sweet spot for lowest mortality in men is ~23-30 (lowest in the middle). This is a very contentious issue in nutrition/health because it conflicts with the usual advice concerning ideal BMI so published papers sometimes have conflicting information. Going by how you feel and perform physically is probably best, which I am guessing is what you do.

    To explain a little, part of the controversy is the presence of confounders like weight loss in cancer.

    Read More
  107. Bill says:
    @res

    If you show me a twins study which says smiling for pictures (or just smiling in general) has a large genetic component, I will laugh at you. Or at least smile. Nobody smiled for pictures before about WWII.
     
    To be precise, the only thing you can really conclude from a study is that there is a genetic effect (large or small) for the prevailing environment in that group. I agree extrapolating study results beyond their true area of applicability can be a problem.

    It’s obviously entirely social and environmental. Same for obesity. Same for longevity. Same for lots of stuff. Where did all the heart attack deaths go? Did genes change?
     
    Simply no for your first three sentences (emphasis mine). Your last two sentences are simply a restatement of my between cohorts point (which you neglected to quote). My original comment 42 talked about both genetic and environmental effects. Don't pull just one of those out and act like you are addressing what I said.

    I get that many (most?) people can only think about completely genetic or completely environmental extreme positions/strawmen. Please don't confuse my position with either of those.

    Also, one thing that should not be ignored is the ability of genes to influence one's (choice of) environment. This is likely why IQ heritability increases with age.

    As I have said before (and will likely say again), the interesting question is: what changes are possible to achieve environmentally? Hence why Dr. Thompson's post is of interest. Where things become even more interesting is when one can use genetic information to fine tune environmental interventions (e.g. choice of diet, exercise, etc.).

    Simply no for your first three sentences (emphasis mine).

    I don’t believe you.

    Your last two sentences are simply a restatement of my between cohorts point (which you neglected to quote). My original comment 42 talked about both genetic and environmental effects. Don’t pull just one of those out and act like you are addressing what I said.

    Uh, I was agreeing with you. The tip-off was when I did what you describe as restating your between cohorts point.

    To be precise, the only thing you can really conclude from a study is that there is a genetic effect (large or small) for the prevailing environment in that group.

    Which is exactly what I said (and you neglected to quote) in my comment #99, “for the prevailing environment” being one of them perfect synonym thingies for “Conditional on the environment in place during the study period.”

    Read More
  108. Bill says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I haven't read and absorbed all your links but I can't believe they would support your dictum that the cause of obesity is hormonal not calorific. No doubt hormonal effects on appetite and on metabolic rate are or can be significant but how does that negate the importance of the number of calories your food and drink provide you with?

    I don’t think he is directly addressing the accounting point. There is, indeed, an accounting identity which reads something like:

    change in weight in lbs =~ (calories in – calories out)/3500

    His point is that attempts directly to intervene in either calories in (via diet) or calories out (via exercise) don’t, in practice, work very well.

    All those skinny savages wandering around the Amazon are not counting calories or going jogging. Fat American girls, however, are doing both.

    The theory he is referring to says that 1) one’s urge to eat and one’s basal metabolic rate are both under the control of the endocrine system, 2) the way to lose weight is to influence the endocrine system, and 3) diet and exercise are not good ways to do 2) and may even be counterproductive.

    That’s how the theory goes. I don’t claim to know if it’s right. Well, it’s right that diet and exercise don’t work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. Yes, I think you have rescued his overstatement.

    I am happy to believe that an approx 16/8 fasting régime with exercise works pretty well if you don't have to obsess about precise weight like a boxer or jockey or someone modelling for The Donald.

    Mind you dieting takes mental energy so I used to find it easiest to lose a few kilos after Christmas excess and something odd about the water on holiday could give me a week or so, uncomplicated by anything like a business lunch or deadline stress, in which I could and did greatly reduce my calorific intake. And momentum counts.

  109. res says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I haven't read and absorbed all your links but I can't believe they would support your dictum that the cause of obesity is hormonal not calorific. No doubt hormonal effects on appetite and on metabolic rate are or can be significant but how does that negate the importance of the number of calories your food and drink provide you with?

    No doubt hormonal effects on appetite and on metabolic rate are or can be significant but how does that negate the importance of the number of calories your food and drink provide you with?

    Which was in response to an earlier statement by RaceRealist88: “Obesity is a hormonal, not caloric, disorder.”

    This is another A and B rather than A vs. B type discussion. I think Wiz’s point is basically correct, but some elaboration from my POV.

    First, the classic example of hormones and weight is the effect of thyroid hormone on metabolism. Hyperthyroid revving up metabolism and causing weight loss vs. hypothyroidism slowing down metabolism causing weight gain. This doesn’t eliminate the effect of calories, but can make it hard to consume little/enough to lose/gain weight.

    Other hormones probably also matter, such as leptin and ghrelin (for hunger) and insulin (for cellular uptake of nutrients).

    Second, the calories in vs. calories out argument is frequently used, but seldom contains an attempt at a complete accounting (because it is hard if not impossible). Some things that are usually neglected:
    - Non-digestible calories (e.g. fiber).
    - Digestible calories which are not handled properly (e.g. malabsorption, sugar excretion in diabetics).
    - Resting metabolic characteristics of an individual body (vs. a one size fits all estimate, e.g. muscle mass).
    - Exceptional but less visible metabolic needs (e.g. immune system fighting infection, shivering).
    - Metabolic costs of converting between nutrient forms (e.g. converting phenylalanine to tyrosine vs. directly consuming tyrosine, getting sugar directly vs. converting to/from body fat).
    Not a complete list, but hopefully it gives an idea.

    It is worth noting that weight change happens at the margins. If someone is consuming 1500 calories per day and expending the same amount there is no change. A small 50 calorie change in any of consumption, metabolic efficiency, metabolic output, etc. will result in a gradual 50 calorie per day change in weight (translation to pounds depends on tissue type involved). That adds up. There are also feedback effects, possibly positive (destabilizing, e.g. more weight -> less activity) or negative (stabilizing, e.g. calorie deficit -> low energy -> less activity).

    Also worth noting the importance of body composition to resting metabolic activity: http://www.livestrong.com/article/438693-a-pound-of-fat-vs-a-pound-of-muscle/

    All of that said, I think there is significant truth in RaceRealist88′s statement. To cast this into Wiz’s personal experiences, how much of the difference due to the dietary changes you described above do you think was due to consciously changing number of calories consumed vs. changing the way your body responded to the calories (mostly mediated by hormones?)?

    P.S. Bill’s comment 110 is also a good elaboration IMHO.

    Read More
  110. I wonder if biological thermodynamics might simply the many theories proposed here. In the mean time, a simpler version

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/fat-is-intellectual-issue/

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Dr. Thompson, the first law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to human physiology.

    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/

    Further, contrary to popular belief, a kcal is not a kcal. Different macros get processed through different metabolic pathways. Would ten kcal of spinach and ten kcal of sugar have the same effect on the body? No.

    https://feinmantheother.com/2016/05/16/a-calorie-is-a-calorie-uncoupling-and-collateral-estoppel/

    Stating that 'a calorie is a calorie' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/

    In regards to your article on Kanazawa's study, I agree it's not a strong effect, but this still shows that lower IQ populations need to be targeted with nutritional classes, for instance.

    Further, low SES populations are more likely to be obese and it's due to cheaper food being available that's higher in kcal/low in nutrients.

    Fix that and some of the epidemic can be fixed.

    Source: PT and nutritionist, I have experience here.
    , @James Thompson
    "simplify" is what I intended to write late last night.
    On that note, I plan to write a short thermodynamic account on dieting. Sometime.
  111. @Wizard of Oz
    I haven't read and absorbed all your links but I can't believe they would support your dictum that the cause of obesity is hormonal not calorific. No doubt hormonal effects on appetite and on metabolic rate are or can be significant but how does that negate the importance of the number of calories your food and drink provide you with?

    “I haven’t read and absorbed all your links but I can’t believe they would support your dictum that the cause of obesity is hormonal not calorific”

    All of the links I provided don’t state that obesity is hormonal and not caloric—it was the specific article by Dr. Jason Fung that did.

    Eating is not under conscious control—contrary to popular (broscience) belief. Dozens of hormones dictate when you eat and still a dozen more dictate when to stop eating. Long bouts of dieting destroy metabolisms:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25608460

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25614201

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10596518

    This is something that people don’t want to admit—that the advice they’ve been giving for hundreds of years don’t work.

    Hormones dictate fat gain and where the body stores fat (look at the Hottentot; do you think all they need to do is ‘eat less and move more’ to get rid of that fat around their buttocks?). So if hormones dictate fat gain, then obesity is a hormonal, not caloric, disorder.

    “how does that negate the importance of the number of calories your food and drink provide you with?”

    Look at the recommendations from the AHA. 55 percent carbohydrate diet. That’s a joke. That keeps insulin elevated and when insulin is elevated, fat cannot be unlocked from the adipocite so it’s not used for energy. What the body does use for energy is the glucose from the carbohydrates you just ingested which also spiked your insulin. Insulin causes insulin resistance. Insulin resistance causes high insulin. High insulin causes insulin resistance; it’s a vicious cycle that is compounded with shitty advice for diabetics/pre-diabetics in particular.

    I tell my clients to eat VLCKD if they’re diabetic. VLCKD have an amazing track record managing diabesity:

    Conclusions: The interventional weight loss program based on a VLCK diet is most effective in reducing body weight and improvement of glycemic control than a standard hypocaloric diet with safety and good tolerance for T2DM patients.

    http://www.nature.com/nutd/journal/v6/n9/abs/nutd201636a.html?

    Read More
  112. @James Thompson
    I wonder if biological thermodynamics might simply the many theories proposed here. In the mean time, a simpler version

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/fat-is-intellectual-issue/

    Dr. Thompson, the first law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to human physiology.

    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/

    Further, contrary to popular belief, a kcal is not a kcal. Different macros get processed through different metabolic pathways. Would ten kcal of spinach and ten kcal of sugar have the same effect on the body? No.

    https://feinmantheother.com/2016/05/16/a-calorie-is-a-calorie-uncoupling-and-collateral-estoppel/

    Stating that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/

    In regards to your article on Kanazawa’s study, I agree it’s not a strong effect, but this still shows that lower IQ populations need to be targeted with nutritional classes, for instance.

    Further, low SES populations are more likely to be obese and it’s due to cheaper food being available that’s higher in kcal/low in nutrients.

    Fix that and some of the epidemic can be fixed.

    Source: PT and nutritionist, I have experience here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Much to discuss, which I will have to delay for some weeks.
  113. @res
    Thanks. I did a search (e.g. this looked useful: http://www.realtennisonline.com/rto/index.aspx?nav=forums.nav&keys=38&skin=tra ), but did not have any luck finding curves by age. Can you help me out? Also, do men and women compete against each other? Is there any sense of how the male/female difference slots into the age differences?

    Well searched! I doubt if anyone has compiled the age related statistics though I can imagine some Cambridge don encouraging a young mathematician to unearth acouple of decades of archived data and adequate evidence of ages to produce some charts of interest at least to tennis obsessives.

    Women have long (several decades anyway) had equal opportunities in the game though I have never heard of a club President who was a woman. And I’m afraid that the land of the free and home of the brave has the one august institution where women are simply not allowed on court.

    The women’s world champion (the > 20 years younger wife of the last past men’s world champion) is a class above every other woman player and could beat all but 25-30 men – and indeed was the Pro (with a male amateur) in a winning Pro Am pair a couple of years ago. (The doubles handicapping is based on the assumption that the better player will take most of the play which means for example that a big lumbering partner with a really good volley can be stationed at the servers’ end half way to the net guarding the side galleries (on the righthanders’ backhand side of the court) while a nimble young pro, if it’s a ProAm, covers most of the court). For ordinary social doubles, even when handicaps are used, most pairs share the back play more or less equally.

    With a felt covered hard ball being hit sometimes at high speed men have an obvious advantage at any age compared with women of similar age. Not so much in returning the ball (though a strongly held racquet is less likely to fail to return a ball which is not hit or blocked precisely in the sweet spot) but in the pace of the hard hit baĺl. So it is interesting to observe the 35 year old woman who is no match for a 60 year old man able to match him when she is 45 and he is 70, and beat him reliably when she is 55 and he is 80 though he may still, at 80 be stronger than her for lifting weights or even hitting a ball with pace (if he doesn’t stumble!).

    One contrast noticed by the capable older player having to give a big handicap advantage to a young player is that women who may hit the ball quite accurately still won’t hit it with enough pace so that the better player can’t reach it or can’t middle it whereas the clumsy but strong young man will benefit from lucky shots hit at such pace that pace alone makes a controlled return too hard, and they can benefit from a wild shot hitting the edge of a gallery and coming off fast at such an angle that it can’t be returned and may well set up a chase which is a condition for changing ends and server.

    I’m sure you will believe I can rattle on for a lot longer…. But I am reminded of promising myself to write up the simple tactics to be learned by the seriously uncoordinated who, years ago, I could not imagine enjoying the game. I don’t know how they could without the handicapping system but it normally works very well. After a long break I recall playing in a handicap tournament after I had had a few games to establish a handicap. I beat a top pro 9/8 who had to give me a handicap of Owe 30, Receive 30 [i..e. he had to win 6 points to win a game and I had to win only 2] plus Only 1 serve and Bar the Tambour [he lost a point if his shot hit the projecting buttress like feature at the receiver's end called the Tambour]. Next round I had to give the same handicap and won 9/8 before being comfortably beaten by an up and coming “young bandit” who was still improving his handicap. And so on, and on.

    BTW one of the bonuses the game offers is that being able to play the game, even before you are looked up on the worldwide database, is all the introduction you need to get a game at almost every club.

    Read More
  114. @Bill
    I don't think he is directly addressing the accounting point. There is, indeed, an accounting identity which reads something like:

    change in weight in lbs =~ (calories in - calories out)/3500

    His point is that attempts directly to intervene in either calories in (via diet) or calories out (via exercise) don't, in practice, work very well.

    All those skinny savages wandering around the Amazon are not counting calories or going jogging. Fat American girls, however, are doing both.

    The theory he is referring to says that 1) one's urge to eat and one's basal metabolic rate are both under the control of the endocrine system, 2) the way to lose weight is to influence the endocrine system, and 3) diet and exercise are not good ways to do 2) and may even be counterproductive.

    That's how the theory goes. I don't claim to know if it's right. Well, it's right that diet and exercise don't work.

    Thanks. Yes, I think you have rescued his overstatement.

    I am happy to believe that an approx 16/8 fasting régime with exercise works pretty well if you don’t have to obsess about precise weight like a boxer or jockey or someone modelling for The Donald.

    Mind you dieting takes mental energy so I used to find it easiest to lose a few kilos after Christmas excess and something odd about the water on holiday could give me a week or so, uncomplicated by anything like a business lunch or deadline stress, in which I could and did greatly reduce my calorific intake. And momentum counts.

    Read More
  115. @James Thompson
    I wonder if biological thermodynamics might simply the many theories proposed here. In the mean time, a simpler version

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/fat-is-intellectual-issue/

    “simplify” is what I intended to write late last night.
    On that note, I plan to write a short thermodynamic account on dieting. Sometime.

    Read More
  116. @RaceRealist88
    Dr. Thompson, the first law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to human physiology.

    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/

    Further, contrary to popular belief, a kcal is not a kcal. Different macros get processed through different metabolic pathways. Would ten kcal of spinach and ten kcal of sugar have the same effect on the body? No.

    https://feinmantheother.com/2016/05/16/a-calorie-is-a-calorie-uncoupling-and-collateral-estoppel/

    Stating that 'a calorie is a calorie' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/

    In regards to your article on Kanazawa's study, I agree it's not a strong effect, but this still shows that lower IQ populations need to be targeted with nutritional classes, for instance.

    Further, low SES populations are more likely to be obese and it's due to cheaper food being available that's higher in kcal/low in nutrients.

    Fix that and some of the epidemic can be fixed.

    Source: PT and nutritionist, I have experience here.

    Much to discuss, which I will have to delay for some weeks.

    Read More
  117. @Joe Hide
    You lost me with your introductory comment, "My attitude toward exercise can best be summed up..." followed by a derogatory comment on exercise. Thats your intro. Again, that's your intro. All your meta-analysis, quoted studies, and pretend partial acceptance of the value of exercise, is undone. That said, I do like many of your other articles. Also, perhaps you have done a great service to those of us who are older, exercise intelligently, and experience in reality the enormous cognitive, physical, and emotional benefits of exercise. We become immune to intellectual articles that run counter to everyday reocurring evidence. Keep it up!

    Thats your intro. Again, that’s your intro. All your meta-analysis, quoted studies, and pretend partial acceptance of the value of exercise, is undone.

    Come on…

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS