According to a new study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, putting all of one’s eggs in either the exercise basket or the nutrition basket cannot protect you from chronic diseases. An effective longevity routine needs to include a balance of both.
An international team of researchers sourced data from 350,000 individuals from the U.K. Biobank, a massive database of health information on British citizens, which medical professionals rely on for these sorts of sweeping analyses. They began the study a decade ago, when the median age was 57, and the participants were all free from “cardiovascular disease, cancer or chronic pain.”
The researchers set rubrics for diet quality and level of activity. For instance, as The New York Times pointed out, the best diets included “over four cups of fruit and vegetables per day, two or more servings of fish per week, less than two servings of processed meats per week and no more than five servings of red meat per week.” Meanwhile, the best exercisers regularly walked, biked and engaged in “vigorous exercise” for more than 10 minutes at a time. Breaking a sweat for just 10 to 75 minutes a week was associated with “lower risk of cardiovascular disease mortality.” That’s one short session a day.
Far and away, the lowest mortality risk came at the center of the Venn diagram: those who sourced high-quality diets alongside consistent movement were likelier to live longer, healthier lives. Their data was especially robust in the realm of cardiovascular health, which is no small achievement. Across the globe, cardiovascular disease (CVD) is easily the leading cause of death.
This might all sound really obvious. We all know that working out and eating right is a great idea. Why do we need expensive, international studies to remind us of something we learned in elementary school health class?
In practice, though, it’s difficult to observe both equally. There are a fair share of people who eat nutritiously, yet don’t observe a consistent fitness regimen (which hamstrings one’s heart health, limits endurance and has an array of unwanted side effects, like poor bone density). On the flip side, there are many amateur and professional athletes who view their concentration as license to eat whatever they want.
Marathon trainees go crazy on Seamless after a long run, weightlifters commit to “dirty bulking” as they try to up their bench press. This reductionist thinking assumes that health is simply a game of calories in and calories out — and goes further to imagine that if you’ve worked really hard on the roads or in the gym, you’ve “earned” a piece of cake.
From a mental health standpoint, yes, it’s important to treat yourself. But from a longevity perspective, it’s important to remember that the body treats unhealthy food choices all the same. Unfortunately, it isn’t possible to outrun or out-lift a steady slate of meals high in sugar, salt and fat. It can come as a shock — to the patient and all their friends — when a high-performing athlete develops a chronic disease. But if that athlete wasn’t favoring a non-processed, whole-food, largely plant-based diet, CVDs are very much in play.
The good news? You don’t have to listen to fitness influencers on Instagram. Your workouts don’t have to be so difficult, and your body doesn’t have to look a certain way. Instead of training like a triathlete, favor simple adjustments to your daily routine that the body absolutely counts as exercise. Walk everywhere; take the stairs where possible; make sure you really sweat a few days a week. If you pair a lifetime of movement with a clean diet, your lifetime’s going to stick around a while.
Thanks for reading InsideHook. Sign up for our daily newsletter and be in the know.
Political columnist Mark Shields died last week. There have been many tributes, all of which focused not only on his sharp commentary but also on what a decent person he was, and the fact that he was interested in, not appalled by, encounters with people who saw the world through different lenses from the ones he used. That is to say, he was an intellectual liberal as well as a political one. Two years ago, when he retired, his sparring partner on PBS's "NewsHour," David Brooks, wrote a lovely encomium.
There is nothing liberal about billionaire libertarian Peter Thiel, whom The Washington Post's Elizabeth Dwoskin profiled in Sunday's June 19 paper. I knew some but not all of this, and was especially intrigued by the title of a biography of Thiel: The Contrarian. Huh? There is nothing contrarian about this ideologue. That is what is so frightening about ideologues: Their ideological framework levels all of life's complexities. In their framework, no one hits a bump in the road, and it is those bumps that keep us humane. He is a 21st-century Ayn Rand with gobs of money. How boring.
In The Guardian, a report on the cost of not having universalhealth insurance: A new study indicates that the lack of such universal coverage in the United States resulted in an additional 338,000 lives lost during the pandemic and an additional $105 billion in health care costs. So, the next time someone says we can't afford universal health insurance, point out that we can't afford what we have, morally or financially.
At The New York Times, Coral Davenport takes a thorough and bracing look at the potential danger to environmental protections, and other necessary government functions, posed by a forthcoming Supreme Court decision in the case West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. In this histrionic age, it is best to avoid the temptation to overstate the stakes in our various political and cultural battles. In this instance, to paraphrase a famous orator, extremism in the defense of common sense is no vice.
Politico looks at the challenges of changing newsroom cultures with a focus on the leadership of Sally Buzbee at The Washington Post, where she replaced Marty Baron in 2021. There is no way for democracy to function without a free press, and there are multiple dangers facing a free press today — some ideological, some financial, some cultural.
Relatedly, at The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf looks at the recent struggle at Georgetown University Law School over the limits of free speech. Newly hired Ilya Shapiro tweeted something that was undeniably stupid and offensive. He apologized, was suspended and the university investigated the matter. Shapiro ended up resigning but he also objected to the investigation by campus bureaucrats. The case raises serious issues about the direction of higher education. As health-law scholar Gregg Bloche told Friedersdorf: "Fear of career-ruining responses to words that offend is chilling classroom discussions, faculty scholarship, and conversation among colleagues."
At Chicago Catholic, Cardinal Blase Cupich offers some advice about preaching on the Trinity, and he cites the book The Vision of Catholic Social Thought: The Virtue of Solidarity and the Praxis of Human Rights, by St. John's University moral theologian Meghan Clark. At a time when too many reduce religion to ethics, it is wonderful to highlight the work of a theologian who recognizes the ways in which are dogmatic truths ground our ethical teachings, and even more when that work gets noticed by a bishop! I reviewed Clark's wonderful book here.