However moderate exercise (and stress!) stimulates the body to activate trash/repair/rebuild mechanisms which improve health overall.
EDIT:
For example, aerobic exercise stimulates capillary growth lowering pressure required for blood flow. Periodic, moderate fasting triggers the elimination of accumulated fats which might have toxins built up in them (or have oxidized) Healthy, emotional stress teaches us to deal with inevitable tragedies.
I guess the problem of exercise (intense but short) vs chronic stress (moderate but 24x7) could have a similar explanation.
The body is extraordinarily complex, so I don’t think you can extrapolate that to anything else that uses energy.
Any garden variety gym rat will tell you that when you worked out you eat a lot more. And that may be the same for stress, but perhaps what your body does with the energy when you exercise is different.
- our metabolisms are adaptable, so why wouldn’t this increase in energy use simply be offset by an increase in energy production? It can’t be that people who are stressed in general aren’t getting enough energy, because that would correlate stress with weight loss, but I would argue that there are plenty of overweight people with stress.
- if the argument is that an increased metabolism by itself is the culprit, then why wouldn’t people with higher metabolisms in general — like anyone who exercises regularly, but certainly athletes — not also experience more disease? If your answer is “that’s different for some reason”, then that means that increased energy usage and metabolism is not by itself the cause, which suggests it may not be the cause at all.
Furthermore, even granting the supposition that stress requires increased energy usage, their abstract doesn’t make much sense: - “Living organisms have a limited capacity to consume energy.” Okay, so that means that no matter how stressed we get, there’s a cap to the energy we can use. But how is that relevant, since it also applies to exercise or other energy utilization by the body? Why does a limited capacity to consume energy only apply to stress?
- “Overconsumption of energy by [stress handling] brain-body processes leads to … excess energy expenditure above the organism’s optimum”. Thats basically a tautology, but more importantly, it doesn’t tell us that energy consumption above “optimal” — which seems extremely vague — is a bad thing.
- “In turn, [excess energy consumption above the optimal] accelerates physiological decline in cells, laboratory animals, and humans, and may drive biological aging”. So that “may” is a pretty good reason to dismiss this, since again why wouldn’t this lead to increased disease among athletes or anyone with higher metabolism?
- “Mechanistically, the energetic restriction of growth, maintenance and repair processes leads to the progressive wear-and-tear of molecular and organ systems” Maybe, but why are they energetically restricted if metabolism has increased to provide more energy? And again, why don’t we then see increased disease and aging in anyone who exercises regularly, since that exercise not only uses energy that restricts growth, maintenance and repair, but exercise causes more need for repair.
I think the core problem is that it’s all going to boil down to how you define “optimum”, which the authors conveniently don’t. The authors are going to be left with defining “optimum” as meaning “that energy usage which does not cause disease”. But that’s no different than simply claiming “stress causes disease”, so this model describes nothing, since it tells us nothing about how to identify non-optimum energy usage or how non-optimum energy usage causes disease.The humorous (and obviously false, though apparently not if this paper is out there) corollary is that any exercise and non-sedentary lifestyle means you lose years of your life
Together, they try to explain why exercise can force your body to stop using its energy to destroy itself (inflammation, autoimmune diseases) and instead use its energy to restore itself (releasing antioxidants, repairing damage).
https://www.picardlab.org/uploads/7/7/8/4/77845210/2022_bobb...
Lots of interesting stuff about mitochondrial allostatic load. It's essentially a Goldilocks problem - the car that's never driven breaks down quickly when you take it out for a drive, but if you're constantly pushing the accelerator and slamming the brakes, the car's lifetime is cut in half. The paper seems to focus on social and psychological factors that unnecessarily increase stress:
> "From this energetic perspective, the evolution of likes and dislikes, feelings and emotions, and approach/withdrawal behaviors arose to minimize the energetic cost of life."
Case example: Someone just asked me about my holiday season plans and my blood pressure probably went through the roof... I think I'm going to send them this paper.
As mentioned the Goldilocks zones are where you’re not forcing the body beyond what it can safely allocate to exercise in a day without causing stress in other processes. Generally though that Goldilocks zone is significantly greater than most people do in exercise in a week, but would typically fall in the zone of “moderate” exercise from a clinical point of view. This is effectively 3-6 times the expenditure of energy from rest for 150 minutes per week spread over a week for at least 10 minutes of moderately strenuous exercise at 70% heart rate per session. Most people in their 40’s or 50’s would typically find this fairly grueling, but that’s because of that homeostatic adaptation - the body resists changing its homeostasis and induces all sorts of negative experiences during the adaptation phase. Once you’ve adapted the opposite feelings present for the same reason - you begin to crave a routine of exercise because you body resists the adaptation to a more sedentary life.
N.b., This is why while exercise definitely helps lose weight, it’s primarily by managing inflammation and mood. This is why the only significant way you can lose weight over time is to reduce caloric intake materially under your homeostatic energy consumption.
Exercise and specifically improvement of VO2max also decrease your average heart rate, so it's quite aligned with the battery theory.
Maybe evolutionary, there is optimal amount of time for organisms to survive relative to their size. Organism size, in turn, correlates with heart size and heart size correlates with how fast it beats. Probably totally missing the mark, but if it was true, it would be interesting to look into why there are outliers.
Anywho, I find it humorous to think about a battery theory car analogy - "every car has a preset number of miles and maintenance would decrease usable lifespan of the car because you need to drive to the mechanic".
"Stress reactivity occurs specifically in situations that diminish one’s control and where the prospect of being negatively evaluated, rejected, and/or shamed are contextually manipulated (Dickerson et al., 2004)."
I find I get the most stressed when I'm excited about a new challenge -- a new work project, seeing a path to achieving a goal I've been working towards for a while. When I start to feel too excited (or in the framework of this paper, I start to expend too much energy and my heart rate is elevated thinking about all I want to do to overcome the challenge), I can generally reign in the stress by reminding myself that failure happens, my peers will understand it, and I don't have complete control over anything anyway.
I'm not saying that to be snarky. Just as an FYI that it can be kinda hard to even describe how one came across this knowledge. Like asking someone how they know LC circuits act as a resonator.
And I guess exercise science is even less popular than physics. You can find the latter on Wikipedia, and a bit of the former too:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_physiology
There is a lot of great YouTube content about exercise physiology too, if you can cut through the "bro science" ecosystem.
300 calories is about the same as 30 minutes of zone 3 cardio (70-80% max heart rate, i.e. pretty high perceived exertion).
Most people in an exercise routine would only do that a couple times per week.
An "overactive" brain, day in day out, could add up to more than most people deliberately exercise.
Meanwhile, being in a stressed state that reduces executive function is going to lead people to the quick, easy, hyper palatable, high energy density, unhealthy food options available.
Undoubtedly, in absolute terms they have a higher capacity to withstand the negative physical effects of psychosocial stress as described in the paper, precisely because of these physiological adaptations.
If regular people trained themselves to deal with stress then they would have a higher capacity too.
The paper is referring to the maximum capacity of a particular organism at a particular moment in time. It doesn't assert that the capacity is uniform across a species or doesn't change over time.
It doesn't. That limited capacity to consume energy applies to exercise, brain activity, thermogenesis, digestion, and every other biological process as well. It is a fundamental aspect of cellular biology and a major focus in the field of exercise physiology.
Fitness training is the very slow and deliberate process of pushing these limits tiny percentages higher.
I suggest you build some practical and theoretical knowledge of the field before dismissing the paper.
Exercise, even a brief walk, reduces cortisol and boosts mood-enhancing endorphins.
Meditation and mindfulness, once seen as trendy, are now scientifically proven to rewire the brain for better stress handling.
Nutrition plays a surprising role; omega-3-rich foods like salmon can lower stress hormones.
Quality sleep, especially deep sleep, allows the brain to reset and repair.
Finally, don't underestimate the power of social support. Sharing your struggles with others can significantly lighten your mental load.
Their videos have a section where they link the sources. In this case https://sites.google.com/view/sources-workoutparadox
Stress is a silent killer. It's basically being mostly unhappy, feeling unfulfilled and trapped. It's a spectrum that can range from simply being unhappy to being deeply depressed.
We all have bad days or even bad weeks, life happens and often it's best to learn this. The current fad (?) of "I'm going to experess my non-positive feelings as they are all the time" gives too much weight to what are normal passing moments.
I don't want to say being a hypochondriac is normalized (else I might get canceled) but... Words, they create worlds. It's important to be mindful of what we choose to create.
Belief drives behavior, and when allowed to perpetuate the victim mentality can cause unnecessary (semi) permanent damage. It's perfectly normal to experience some pain. Don't make more of it than necessary.
I think this model is missing a critical component: the bodies ability to use energy effectively is limited by having the proper nutrients available. The easiest example being a deficiency of B vitamins since they are used for energy metabolism. Many other factors can impair energy metabolism and just eating more will not fix the situation.
Whereas with this model we have statements that seem too over-simplified:
> The organism’s energy consumption capacity is biologically limited
This seems overstated- we know that certain athletes can consume 2x or even 3x a resting amount to support physical exertion- the human body seems designed to be able to produce more power for physical exertion when needed by consuming more energy (in addition to making long-term adaptations to make energy usage more efficient).
I also think that readers of this paper may take away an understated understanding of the possible negative effects of energy deficiency. Any physiological problem could be impacted by energy metabolism. For example, even if something is known to be caused by a deficiency in a nutrient that cannot be synthesized by the body, it's still possible that improved energy metabolism might be able to reduce the usage of that nutrient in some pathways to conserve more for where it is needed.
Most top athletes are retiring around 35. Their bodies are ruined like those who need to physically work hardly every day. They look elder as well.
We are not machines that will do more when given more sources without consequences.
+120 bpm for 60min = -7200 beats off your life -20 bpm for 23 hours = +27600 beats added to your life Net: +20400 beats, or 6.8 hrs added, every day you keep it up
Obviously some factors missing in that, you can't live forever.. but back of the envelope it nets positive not negative
In contrast, exercise that keeps good health in mind can require noticeable extra energy consumption and seems like it would fall in line with the huge volume of research showing the benefits of exercise.
In contrast this article seems to point to studies of increased resting metabolic rates being harmful with no evidence about exercise.
From what I can find, this is incorrect, unless the athlete is doing a high impact sport like American football, rugby, boxing etc.
If they're doing a non impact sport like swimming, cycling, running, they are likely to live longer and healthier than non athletes.
https://healthland.time.com/2012/12/14/fast-stronger-longer-...
The "energy blockages" means the affects of the stress on the body. (tight shoulders, abs etc..) And some mindful streching exercises (like QiGong and Yoga) aims to release this tension on the body (hence the reverse the effect of the stress) and be "healthy"
This isn't a true statement. Just turn on golf or bowling or cycling or marathon running or triathlons for a few hours. People retire from sports early for lots of reasons. The ones whose bodies are wrecked are overwhelmingly the ones in impact sports.
But athletes also retire because they're no longer competitive. A 40 year old, on average, can't jump as high or run as fast as as 27 year old. You're not going to be a successful 50 year old basketball player when you're up against people decades younger than you.
The human body can't be simplified down to a candle, where once you've burned through it, it's done and over.
there are more good critique online, sorry busy right now to find it.
But please don't spread this myth.
What energy are we talking about here exactly? ATP?
Thank you for the link to the nutritionist's article. I'll read it with interest.
Pontzer contends “[exercise] just won’t do much for your weight" because "we naturally compensate for exercise by reducing non-exercise activity expenditure (NEAT) and resting metabolic rate (RMR)". That excercisers exercise less when they're not specifically exercising.
Ward says Pontzer underestimates exercise's role, misinterprets energy compensation and overemphasis anecdotal evidence, and cherry-picks data by choosing studies that primarily show minimal changes in Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE) and weight loss with increased physical activity.
Ward points to a broader range of studies that demonstrate significant increases in TDEE and weight loss in individuals who engage in moderate to high levels of exercise, arguing that this evidence indicates exercise can be a substantial factor in energy expenditure and weight management.
Ward specifically points out
Pontzer told me “the distinction between confounders and mediators is largely conceptual” and “They would be treated the same in stats analysis such as the one used”, but any statistician would argue the differences are defined and vitally important. Confounders interfere with the causal pathway we’re interested in; mediators are part of the causal pathway we’re interested in. Hence, when statistically adjusting and removing the effect of different variables, we do this for confounders, not mediators – thus removing the interference.
You can start with the Wikipedia article for Metabolism or search for "metabolic scope" and "metabolic efficiency".
TaiChi/QiGong/Yoga is about eliminating incidental tension.