Comment by koolba 17 hours ago
> We know from one study that people who played tennis a few times per week lived roughly 10 years longer than average. So we'll use that value going forward.
There has to be some incredible correlation between having the time and money to play tennis “a few times per week” and being significantly wealthier than the average person. And being wealthy is clearly the healthiest thing you can do.
Every town I've lived in has free courts in a park that anyone can use.
I have a friend who, when you bring up exercise in any capacity, how good it is for you, anything about it, even if its just how I did it, he has to find some way to twist it so it can't be good. This thread is so reminiscent of conversations with him.
"Tennis is great for you" "there's probably a correlation with being rich" "Also unhealthy people don't regularly play tennis so there's survivors bias". "But there's free courts" "Nope they turned those into pickleball courts" "Wake up at 4:30am and go for a run" "Bro if youre waking up at 4:30 when are you going to bed" etc
People will find any reason they can to be unhealthy. Its better to just not engage with them.
>he has to find some way to twist it so it can't be good [...]
>"Tennis is great for you" "there's probably a correlation with being rich" "Also unhealthy people don't regularly play tennis so there's survivors bias".
But these seem like pretty reasonable objections? At the very least you should retort with a study that at least tried to control for confounders.
>"Wake up at 4:30am and go for a run" "Bro if youre waking up at 4:30 when are you going to bed" etc
I can't tell which side you're trying to strawman here. What's wrong with running at a normal time?
Sure; I would enjoy talking about these confounding factors, on the tennis court after a round.
My point is that it seems like the only people who bring up trivia like "maybe tennis isn't as good for you as you think it is because there's survivors bias in the population of people used to do studies on the sport" are people who never play tennis. Similarly, if you're a runner you've probably multiple times had people say, directly to you, "oh I could never do that to my knees, running is so bad for them!"
You're explaining micro-gravity in orbit to an astronaut [1]. Leave the science and the confounding factor enumeration and the hypothesis to the academics. Just go play tennis.
Yes, that has become a problem for tennis players, but it's a quite recent problem. Before pickleball became popular, though, free public tennis courts were widespread in urban and suburban areas. Perhaps not in rural areas, though I can't speak definitively on that.
Pickleball nets are often portable and good co use with Tennis courts. That’s what we do
Plus pickleball is popular so you will find more people to play with
Conversely, as a life-long resident of the U. S, I've never seen a tennis court that required payment to play, and I've seen plenty of tennis courts. I know paid tennis clubs exist, I've just never stepped foot in one.
Now that I think about it, many decades ago I lived in apartment complexes (Indianapolis, as if it makes a difference) that had tennis courts. I don't know if that's a thing anymore or not.
> Now that I think about it, many decades ago I lived in apartment complexes (Indianapolis, as if it makes a difference) that had tennis courts. I don't know if that's a thing anymore or not.
It was very common. That's where I learned how to play. I have no idea how common it is with new apartment construction though.
If you're in the northeast US it's very common to have free or have to pay a nominal fee for public tennis courts (this may depend on the quality of your town's Park and rec department)
In NYC, it's 15/hr or 100/season. In the town I grew up in it's 20/yr for residents and 40/yr for non residents. I'm my current town it's free. And I suspect that there are waivers/discounts for folks that can't pay that amount.
Not in North America. Not sure about Mexico, but in the US and Canada the majority of tennis courts are public and free (some of them are being converted to pickle ball, but that's a rant for another post). You can pick up a racquet at a thrift store for a few bucks. A can of balls (a few bucks more) can be used for a long time, especially if you're a beginner to intermediate. If you become more advanced, the biggest expense can be shoes and strings, but that depends on your form/play style.
I find tennis an incredibly cheap sport to do recreationally. Basketball can be cheap, too, but I think you'd go through shoes pretty fast, especially on a city hard court. Soccer maybe cheaper, but it's too much organization (hard to get 10+ people on the same page at the same time).
I am begging HNers to at least pull up the study in scihub and see if there was multivariate adjustment (there was) before they hip-fire the first thought they had when they saw someone summarize a study in a blog post.
I understand but incompetence is so common everywhere in society that mistakes like this genuinely are the first thought people should have.
I have the opposite opinion - if criticism like this is so obvious (and it is), then it's up to the article to refute it immediately - this saves time of everyone reading it and gives it more credibility.
So any mention of a study in an online comment or blog post has to couch it in a bunch of pre-responses to potential kneejerk dismissals from people who won't even look at the study?
You can tell who never looks studies up on scihub because they have no idea that multivariate modeling for confounders (especially income and education) is something pretty much every study does, so it makes no sense to assume you just blindly outsmarted the study when you thought of the first confounder that came to your mind.
Yet it everyone else's responsibility to defend casual mention of every study from a critique you came up in 5 seconds.
Nobody has an obligation to assume competence. Incompetence is very common on both sides. It is reasonable to assume incompetence. Given it's such common criticism and refuting it is simple, yes, the author should pre-respond. Otherwise everyone else has to look at the study which costs more time in total and also allows incompetent scientists to get away with it because unless people investigate further, both look the same on the surface.
There are plenty of wealthy people who are unhealthy.
Wake up at 4:30am and go for a run. You’re already accomplishing more at that point in the day than most wealthy people who are comfortably laying in bed.
The hard thing is doing the thing. Just do, that’s it.
>Wake up at 4:30am
About that, what hours people that wake up at 4.30 am go to bed? If they're so conscious about their well being I'd assume at least 8 hours of sleep, so maybe they go to bed at... 8~9 pm? my question is what do they do to end their day at 9pm? If you work 9-5, you have just 4 hours left after work. Less if you commute, have dinner and a "go to be" routine of maybe 30 min. How about social life after work? Run errands? In my case, if I need to do anything out of my house it has to be after work hours (because almost everything is closed between 6am and 9am when I start work).
So, what's the secret?
I go to bed at 8-9pm and get up at 4:30.
My fiance and I don't have kids. I'm sure this is the biggest factor to allow me to live by this schedule.
Having a short commute helps a lot obviously, but I still was able to keep this schedule back when I had an hour commute. Back then, if we had even one errand to run after work, it was straight to bed when we got home, so we usually tried to keep errands to the weekend. Even if we had no errands, a lot of days we only had time to cook dinner and watch an episode of the Office.
Now we have a 10min commute, so after work we have time for an errand or two, then go to the gym, then we can even watch movie or something before bed.
I cook easy meals, things that don't take long and don't require more than a pot or a skillet. I don't mean microwave garbage or instant ramen either. I mean things like soups and beer-steamed sausage.
However, this usually leads me to eating the same few meals over and over. If I ever want more variety, I meal-prep on the weekend.
My fiance and I don't usually clean on weekdays. We probably live like slobs by some people's standards, but we're never more than 20min from a clean house.
As for social life... All of our friends live too far away to see them on weekdays anyway.
The secret isn't the "4:30" part, it's the "do the thing" part. You can almost certainly squeeze something into 30 minutes of your day, somewhere convenient. So pick the convenient time and do that.
I don't live somewhere with sidewalks, so running is out for me. (Plus I don't like it much.) I do a basic circuit with pushups, lunges, and pull-ups, first thing in the morning, while the coffee is still brewing. It's my "I don't feel like fussing with a proper routine" bare minimum, but it's enough. Then I have breakfast, shower, and get on with the day. It takes no actual equipment (anything that supports your weight is fine for pullups) and costs nothing but time.
>So, what's the secret?
There isn't one. Its a trade-off. I get up between 4:15 and 4:45 (depending on the day) to exercise. I go to bed between 9 and 10 pm (usually 9:30.) I exercise with a group of people, and that ends up being most of my socializing time. 5 - 9 is family time.
I incorporate errands into my schedule. When I walk home from work from the train station I will stop by the local grocery store to pick up anything that is needed.
My employer is fine with me working from the train to and from work. I get there early and I leave early.
Weekends are arranged to buy other items in bulk.
My bed time routine is probably 15 minutes of reading a book before I fall asleep.
Committing in advance.
I pay for a gym membership with group classes. You have to book your attendance in advance. I make a habit of doing it the night before. In the morning I get up at five to go to the class I booked the night before. If I wait until the morning, it doesn’t happen. Other people I know are in running groups where they plan to meet their friends at an early hour.
It’s not so much a secret as a set of tradeoffs. A few years back, I learned that I had made the wrong tradeoffs - I was unbelievably obese and got to spend a week in a cardiac ward because of a whole lot of bad choices.
My kid was only 16 months old at the time. So when I got out of the hospital, I got to deal with the guilt at almost leaving her fatherless through terrible decision making.
So now I make better decisions. Running early works best for me (and I collect an immense amount of data so I can prove that). I’ll usually go to bed at around 10:30, sleep until 4:30, do my exercise for the day, have breakfast and get to work. I snack on proteins, have a very small meal for lunch and then take a nap. I’ll usually walk in the afternoon or maybe play some pickup tennis in a nearby park, rinse and repeat. I have a very full life, enjoy every moment of it and can work with the schedule I have.
It’s just a tradeoff. Angiograms suck and I don’t recommend them. Having limited unstructured time isn’t great, but it beats the hell out of a poke in the heart. :)
The 4:30 part helps me with performance in a roundabout way. One of my weirdo obese habits was this messed up relationship with productivity, where I had all these great resources to learn how to get fit but wouldn’t do it because it took time away from work. Dropping pounds and adding in running boosted my productivity a lot - I could do much more in fewer hours. With morning runs, I get a nice little productivity hit that makes exercise even more habit forming because I get the reward mechanisms from the exercise, those boost productivity which gives me another set of reward mechanisms later on in the day when I’m starting to wind down. I’m really just an addict chasing different highs.
A different time might be better for you - the key is to do something, be consistent, turn it into a habit and slowly improve.
I get up at 5am to work out. I don’t need 8 hours of sleep - 6.5 works fine for me. Sleep by 10:30pm. It’s not that hard. Most people here are going to try to figure out a reason why they can’t do it because it‘s easier than admitting they’re just too lazy and/or lack the will.
Looking through this thread is hilarious. The top comment is a guy claiming that the author must be rich because he plays tennis (what kind of bumpkin says this?) and that’s the true secret to his health. It’s all just excuses. Those who want it go and get it.
This is important. I can't speak for GP obviously, but for many people who get up unusually early there is no doubt that it is about having "extra time", but it only means they sleep less than they should or that they simply shifted their sleep (ie no extra time).
There is no free lunch and compromising sleep quality and amount is really a fool proof way into physical and mental issues.
Nope. I get 8-7.5hrs every night. I’m asleep within 15 minutes, zero screen time.
Commute home starts at 4pm on the train, I work while on the train. Get home at 5pm, get dinner ready. Dinner cooked by 6-6:30pm usually done eating shortly after.
Wind down starts at 7pm, do some miscellaneous things like dishes etc, take a hot shower. In bed by 8pm.
I avoid driving as much as possible. I will always walk, run, ride a bike, or take public transit rather than drive.
Driving is tremendously expensive when it comes to time.
Sure, but this is missing the point. It doesn't have to be 4:30am. It doesnt even need to be ~30 minutes earlier than you usually wake. Its any stretch of time you dedicate during the day to exercise.
4:30 is that awkward time when people who haven't slept yet and people who are already awake meet.
> There are plenty of wealthy people who are unhealthy.
No one said correlation is 1. It's just on average wealthy people live longer.
Very much this. While tennis has become more accessible and lower cost over time, it has always been an expensive sport.
Honest question: Why?
There's a free court near me, and both balls and racquets can be gotten for peanuts.
They're talking from a North American perspective (probably). In most of Europe, there are plenty of outdoor and other free exercise opportunity. Another downside of the incorrect build environment (poor city planning) is that Americans simply don't have built-in ways to move their bodies. When I spent time in Eastern Europe, there was literally a free tennis/basketball court across the street. And a variety of other courts, including outdoor gym. And when house sitting around, there was nearly always an outdoor park with greenspace for strolling, exercise. All free.
At least in all of the US suburbs I've lived, there's been free tennis courts and a variety of other courts all over the city. The high school down the street from me has 4 tennis courts. I hear them being used all the time when I'm on a walk (incidentally, along a greenway with a shared use walking/bike trail that wraps around the school grounds and connects via a tunnel under a highway to the rest of the city bike trail system).
Well, while we're talking about anecdotes, my neighborhood in a poor Texas town also had a free tennis court. There were a couple more down the road. My in-laws suburb has walking trails end basketball courts.
It depends. In suburban areas there are free courts generally available at parks and schools. Rural areas don't have many options. Urban areas have fewer free options that tend to be crowded. Balls are the next largest cost since they are expendable - get lost, go dead, etc. Historically these were much larger costs due to manufacturing and construction differences. My guess is that a lot of this is generational carryover as the free courts are generally newer (1980s+) and the carryrover where well of players from prior generations mostly inspired their kids to follow suit.
Tennis is very difficult though. One of the highest barrier to entry sports skill-wise.
Non-athletic adult people can't step onto a tennis court and consistently get the ball back to you, even if you hit it to them.
I thought Padel was easy, but when I organized a Padel after-work I saw that that was not reality, and Padel is much easier than tennis.
Non-athletic adults can't do anything consistently. Which sports do you think are easier? Certainly not baseball or American football. Perhaps soccer, but only because soccer is more generous about inconsistency: play doesn't stop if you lose the ball or kick it inaccurately, as long as it doesn't go out of bounds. On the other hand, non-athletic adults are going to tire very quickly constantly running around the field with no stoppage.
That’s why people are gravitating towards Pickleball. It has a lower barrier to entry
Tradition, mostly. Tennis is seen as an upper class sport and prices will be set accordingly, it is not the case everywhere though.
Another reason is that a tennis court takes significant space for just 2 (or 4) people. So unless it is subsidized, when land is at a premium like in a large city, it is going to be expensive.
Tennis requires a certain proficiency to have fun with. Beginners tend to have trouble getting the ball reliably across the net onto the other player. This proficiency takes time to build. Thus, unless one makes a big up-front time investment, tennis is not particularly good exercise. Up-front time investments are expensive.
Also one cannot tennis alone. Anything one must practise with a partner is more expensive due to scheduling requirements.
The OP was talking about monetary wealth. Here you're redefining "expensive" to mean something other than wealth, i.e., time.
Also, the whole point of the submitted article is that the investment of time into exercise is totally worth it.
Yes, there's a learning curve to tennis, as with any sport. You could just go jogging/running by yourself, but the advantage of sports, including tennis, is that they're usually a more fun and less boring form of exercise than jogging/running by yourself. If exercise is fun, then you're more likely to stick to it rather than skipping it.
> has always been an expensive sport
Since I've been a child, living in multiple countries across Europe and Asia, there's always been either free or cheap tennis courts near me. I don't even play tennis much and I know this, I'm sure if I was searching I'd find way more low cost options.
It's more likely that the demographic who play tennis tends to be wealthy, rather than the sport itself being expensive.
I've never really bought this argument. The average American spends five hours a day watching TV.
Exactly. Some guy once told me that "research" shows that people who play golf live longer. I still didn't pick up the sport yet. Not sure I'll pick it up anytime soon, although I like the idea of living longer.
It's just like the headline that was going around a few years ago: "Studies show that women who own horses live 15 years longer than those who don’t".
It's not surprising there's a strong correlation between "rich people" hobbies (horses, golf, tennis, sailing, etc.) and health outcomes/longevity.
I bet it's even simpler than that: people who can play tennis a few times a week are a healthier cohort than people who are unable to physically do this
There's really overwhelming evidence that exercise itself has a causal role, and it only gets more impactful the more effective it is at raising your fitness (i.e., given the logistical constraints of your life, the more that the exercise you can do raises your strength and endurance, the greater the benefits without a clear obvious ceiling (though the benefits do get increasingly marginal)).
Even if we lived in a world where it didn't causally extend lifespan, the extension to healthspan [0] or QALYs [1] alone would be reason enough.
Derek Thompson's written about recent research to this effect [2]:
"Last year, Ashley and a large team of scientists conducted an elaborate experiment on the effects of exercise on the mammalian body. In one test, Ashley put rats on tiny treadmills, worked them out for weeks, and cut into them to investigate how their organs and vessels responded to the workout compared to a control group of more sedentary rodents. The results were spectacular. Exercise transformed just about every tissue and molecular system that Ashley and his co-authors studied—not just the muscles and heart, but also the liver, adrenal glands, fat, and immune system.
"When I asked Ashley if it was possible to design a drug that mimicked the observed effects of exercise, he was emphatic that, no, this was not possible. The benefits of exercise seem too broad for any one therapy to mimic. To a best approximation, aerobic fitness and weight-training seem to increase our metabolism, improve mitochondrial function, fortify our immune system, reduce inflammation, improve tissue-specific adaptations, and protect against disease."
Everyone really should be making it a priority to work up to at least meeting the physical activity guidelines as well focusing on the other core pillars of health described by the Barbell Medicine guys [3]. Anyone focused on biohacking and supplement stacks without having these in order is fundamentally unserious, majoring in the minors.
[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/healthspan
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quality-adjusted_life_year#En...
[2] https://www.derekthompson.org/p/the-sunday-morning-post-why-...
[3] https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/where-should-my-priorit...
If you're disciplined enough to put something in your calendar and do it over a period of months, without someone breathing down your neck to do so, whether you feel like doing it or not, then you are likely able to apply that effort in other areas of life.
So then it's a bidirectional correlation. You're more likely to be fit if you are wealthy and more likely to be wealthy if you are fit.
Essentially, what you're looking at is that people who engage in self improvement end up better off than those who don't.
It's a priori obvious but some people are uncomfortable with it for some reason - trauma response / coping mechanism, something like that.
Of all the excuses I’ve seen here, this one is particularly hilarious. Have you never lived in a city? There are public courts everywhere.
Also, if you have health issues, you will not be playing tennis twice a week. Plus tennis is on the expensive to stay active in when you need a club membership and courts to play.