Exercise and Life Expectancy – Authors' Reply
Chi Pang Wen,Min Kuang Tsai,Shan Pou Tsai,Jackson Pui Man Wai,Yi Chen Yang,Chwen Keng Tsao,Xifeng Wu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60342-0
IF: 202.731
2012-01-01
The Lancet
Abstract:We thank Lennert Veerman and colleagues for giving us the opportunity to clarify the relation between summary mortality ratios and extended life expectancy. There are several reasons why these are not totally comparable. Veerman and colleagues applied our adjusted mortality ratios to estimate the differences in life expectancy, whereas in fact they should have used the unadjusted ratios. As a result, they have underestimated the true differences by about two-fold. Women were more affected by risk factors than men, and the adjustment process seems to have produced a result quite different from the actual data on which the life expectancy calculation was based. Second, in estimating life-lengthening effects from a summary mortality ratio, we need to assume that age-specific mortality ratios are constant across all age groups.1Tsai SP Wen CP A review of methodological issues of the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) in occupational cohort studies.Int J Epidemiol. 1986; 15: 8-21Crossref PubMed Scopus (51) Google Scholar, 2Tsai SP Hardy RJ Wen CP The standardized mortality ratio and life expectancy.Am J Epidemiol. 1992; 135: 824-831PubMed Google Scholar This was not the case: the age-specific ratios for the age groups 40–44 years, 60–64 years, and 80–84 years were 0·77, 0·78, and 0·82 for men, and 0·99, 0·80, and 0·65 for women, respectively. A third factor to consider is whether the study cohort is comparable with the general population. Our cohort had distinct advantages in life expectancy over the general population, owing mainly to the self-selection factor of those with above-average health. This, too, would have affected the extrapolation made by Veerman and colleagues. James O'Keefe and colleagues raise an interesting question as to whether excessive strenuous exercise can become deleterious. We showed graphically that the benefits of mortality reduction peaked at 50 min with a hazard ratio of 0·60, without showing that it continues beyond 70 min. By 120 min, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was around 0·55, with even better hazard ratios for cardiovascular diseases (although less than 0·3% did daily vigorous exercise at this level). The adverse effects of strenuous exercise for incremental efforts for more than an hour a day did not seem to outweigh the benefits. We were not able to identify an upper limit of physical activity, either moderate or vigorous, above which more harm than good will occur in terms of long-term life expectancy benefits—an observation similarly made by the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.3Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee2008 physical activity guidelines for Americans.http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/pdf/paguide.pdfGoogle Scholar We hope, however, that concerns about too much vigorous activity are more academic than practical, with adverse effects more short-term than long-term. Most of the general population is sedentary3Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee2008 physical activity guidelines for Americans.http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/pdf/paguide.pdfGoogle Scholar and our major challenge is how to make the inactive start exercising, and not to give them reasons to avoid exercise. Debra Efroymson and colleagues argue that, of the four domains of physical activity, transportation-related physical activity is the most appropriate for population-wide interventions. We wholeheartedly support walking or cycling to get to daily work destinations, if possible. For a small minority, such activity is achievable. However, when one stretches a three-block walk to a 13-block walk, transportation takes on the nature of leisure-time physical activity (LTPA), because it becomes a voluntary, optional effort, not a daily requirement. Altering the infrastructure of the transportation system is easier said than done.4National Research Council, Committee on Physical Activity Health Transportation and Land Use, National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Institute of MedicineDoes the built environment influence physical activity? Examining the evidence. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC2005Google Scholar The tipping point for governments is the exercise culture of society and the prevalence of LTPA in these commuters. Only after a widespread need is shown by a large number of people already engaged in LTPA will governments or employers offer assistance for commute-related physical activity. Thus, an LTPA-motivated public is a prerequisite for promoting transportation-related intervention. We agree with Ashley Croft and Joanne Palmer that the risk of mortality is an absolute that can be postponed but not eliminated. We emphasised the potential of exercise in reducing the mortality rate in a given year, not per se. Although the probability of death is 100% in the long run, we can reduce the speed of approaching death by walking briskly 15 min every day and thus extend our lives. It comes with a better quality of life, and that applies to us as well as to the prophets. The mentor of one of the authors of our study at the Harvard School of Public Health, Fredrick Stare, once made an impression on that author by offering his vision: “Our goal is to die young as late as possible.”5Hegsted DM Fredrick John Stare (1910–2002).J Nutr. 2004; 134: 1007-1009PubMed Google Scholar The M J Health Management Institution, where our data came from, advocates a similar goal: “Live long, live well and stay young”. We declare that we have no conflicts of interest. Exercise and life expectancyChi Pang Wen and colleagues (Oct 1, p 1244)1 report on the minimum amount of physical activity necessary for reduced mortality and extended life expectancy. Compared with individuals in the inactive group, those in the low-volume activity group reportedly had a 14% reduced risk of all-cause mortality and a 3-year longer life expectancy. We agree that any additional physical activity is worthwhile, but the reported decline in all-cause mortality and increase in life expectancy are not compatible. Full-Text PDF Exercise and life expectancyChi Pang Wen and colleagues1 report dose-dependent improvements in survival associated with increasing amounts of daily physical activity. We agree that inadequate physical activity is a major and growing problem worldwide, but we are concerned that excessive strenuous exercise could be deleterious. Wen and colleagues' survival curves suggest that reduction in long-term all-cause mortality peaks at 45% with about 50 min of vigorous physical activity per day. The shape of the Kaplan-Meyer survival curve for vigorous physical activity shows that the mortality benefit plateaus abruptly at 50 min and raises the question of whether longer durations of daily vigorous physical activity might diminish some of the benefits. Full-Text PDF Exercise and life expectancyWe were pleased to read Chi Pang Wen and colleagues' report of reduced mortality and extended life expectancy with even low levels of physical activity.1 Owing to understandable limitations, the research only assessed leisure-time physical activity (LTPA); however, Wen and colleagues expand their discussion beyond this type of activity to say “of the four domains of physical activity (work, transportation, household, and LTPA)…LTPA is the most related with health benefits. Furthermore, only LTPA is effort-related and promotable.” Full-Text PDF Exercise and life expectancyChi Pang Wen and colleagues1 claim that exercising for 15 min per day results in a 14% reduced risk of all-cause mortality (0·86, 95% CI 0·81–0·91). Further, they claim that every additional 15 min of daily exercise beyond the minimum daily amount of 15 min reduces all-cause mortality by an additional 4% (2·5–7·0). Full-Text PDF