| > I don't exercise as I yet have to see data showing me that exercise will increase lifespan by longer than the time invested doing it. Add the opportunity cost of the lost time to the picture as well That's double counting. If exercise time gets you the same increased lifespan as time invested doing it, then the "time" factor cancels. So there is no opportunity cost -- you get more life for "spending" life. > Second, are you aware of the vomitories in the Roman Empire Not a real thing, other than the architectural term. Nothing to do with regurgitation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomitorium While your personal mileage may vary, I find my quality of life immensely increased with regular exercise. Science supports it -- exercise helps mood, life quality of insomniacs, increase happiness, reduce anxiety, and many other positive qualities. (http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/exercise-happiness.htm has links to all these studies.) I encourage you to do as you wish with your life. I, however, will continue to put my time in. Preferably in high intensity cardio exercise 2-3x/wk, and 1-2 strength training sessions per week. FWIW, the "life extension foundation" seems to support exercise. http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag96/feb96-fitness.htm |
Regarding "exercise", if you ask Dr. Weil, walking 20-30 minutes or doing garden work is the best exercise - that's what the Okinawans or the Sardinians do. I think a walk is good enough to stabilize your blood sugar after a meal (even just 10 minutes of walk do miracles) and allow you lymph to flow.
Exercise also increases IGF-1, which is without much doubt negative for longevity: http://blog.wellnessfx.com/2013/09/04/igf-1-trade-performanc...
Also, higher muscle mass means increased basal metabolic rate, which affects the lifespan potential negatively.