27 Jun
2013
27 Jun
'13
2:29 p.m.
THis may be hard to accept but some pople hat
exerxise. [...]. Now,
if I did your recoemended <n> hours of exercise a week, can you be
sure that my life will eb extended sufficienrtly for me to have the
same totla number of hours doing what I enjoy? Of course not.
No, but it is entirely plausible that the expected (in the strict
statistical sense) number of hours you will have available for stuff
you enjoy will increase.
And FWIW, I knew a couple of pople who dropped dead
while doing
exercise and know of a lot more.
Sure. And people get electrocuted, too; are you going to therefore
stop working with mains power?
Of course you're not. Nor, I'd hazard the guess, is pretty much anyone
on this list. I'm certainly not. My point is that this sort of thing
is not a reason to avoid doing something - unless you are already
biased against it and looking for something to confirm that bias.
WHo ever said anything about being sedentary?
If you're not sedentary, you're exercising, even if you don't think of
it as exercise. At least as far as your health goes; it's logically
consistent, but pointless, to argue that "exercise" is strictly just
physical activity done for the sake of its effects on your body, and
other physical activity is something else - it's pointless because then
it's not "exercise" but "exercise and/or other physical activity"
that
is recommended for the sake of your health.
I don't exercise in the "just to stay healthy" sense. But I get a lot
of exercise out of my walking style, my bicycling, etc. (I bicycle,
both because it's the best way I've found to get around the city for
roughly half the year and because it's something I find I _do_ enjoy
doing for its own sake.)
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B