I haven't heard people mention it before but I've often wondered why physical exercise wasn't considered "intelligent" when so much of the brain was dedicated to tasks like moving around and coordination.
Not disagreeing, but let me point out that animals can move their bodies quite well and we consider most of them significantly less intelligent. I don't know what proportion of the brain is used for movement and what proportion is used for cognition.
IANAB, but large animal bodies correlate with large brain size. Huge animals like elephants and whales have much bigger brains than humans, but are not considered cognitively equivalent to humans.
Maybe moving and maintaining a body requires body size proportional "raw" computational power and maybe human brains have mostly just qualitative differences not related to mass when compared to animals (ok, and a bit of extra proportional brain mass too).
If this is the case the connection between excercise and cognitive capacity could seem natural. Excercise requires massive neural resources and thus physical excercises also excercise the brain to a large degree and the whatever qualitative bit that humans have "on top" simply rides the wave to some improvement.
Couldn't this prove the point that we don't equate movement with intelligence, though? Who's to say animals also don't possess this intelligence? Maybe we'd have to go down the chain then, to more inert species like plants and fungi, though they also possess intelligence I can't begin to comprehend.
Dolphins and bears can balance a ball on their nose. Human artists can balance multiple plates on sticks. Is it a difference in computing power, or just because we can't force animals to practice enough?
from personal experience i can say: after i started working out extensively, often for 10+ hours a week, i did notice that i just had a lot less time and energy left for intellectual endeavours (which consisted of mostly reading and programming exercise projects). not only was the time spent in the gym "lost" (intellectually), but afterwards (i mostly trained in the evening) i was just too tired and exhausted for longer periods of intense concentration.
that said, i began spending a lot of time reading about exercising instead, which is surprisingly intellectually stimulating. there are a bunch of high level powerlifters, bodybuilders and weightlifters who do, for example, scientific paper reviews and criticism. i learned a lot about second-guessing findings there. road cycling is probably on of the most data driven sports out there (i kinda quit strength sports during covid and started cycling, which is probably even more time consuming).
there are intellectually aspects to - and surrounding - most sports to a degree, but i doubt intelligence is the decicive factor even in comparably tactical athletic disciplines (team sports).
The conventional wisdom of exercising alternate days, 20 minutes per day, etc. may lead to many people over-training themselves. In my experience, the "exercise-life" balance (similar to work-life balance) has to be had for benefits to accumulate and our ability to continue it.
That said, I lift twice a week for a total of about 4 to 4.5 hours, and that strikes an optimum balance for my age, physiology and everything else. I tried many other forms and failed to find that exercise-life balance.
Additionally a lot of conventional wisdom in exercise science borders on "voodoo", and some are challenging it [1].
I appreciate Rippetoe for getting me into strength training but the article is complete and utter BS and he does peddle quite a bit of it.
The antagonistic effect of endurance training on strength is not really relevant for recreational runners and this has been show time and time again in multiple high-quality studies. You should only really care if you're a competitive lifter; a ton of people who go to the gym have terrible cardio, and I would argue that good cardio fitness is much more relevant to overall health; you should _not_ be getting winded going up a couple flights of stairs.
Furthermore the cardiovascular effects of strength training are insufficient for all-around good health. Cardio stimulates different metabolic pathways that are very much useful in life; having done both activities I can tell you when I was an active marathon runner I just had way more energy in the tank for everything.
The article makes a mention that nutrition is more relevant for heart health than cardiovascular condititioning, something that not only is just plain false, but also ignores that body mass is body mass and having an excessive amount of muscle mass does not correspond with cardiovascular health either.
The critiques about repetitive motion in running are just downright ridiculous. Runners get injured, of course. So do people who deadlift with bad technique. As a species we are frankly much more adapted to running than moving heavy weights, as evidenced by the amount of effort our bodies go through to keep muscle mass off as compared to any other primate. There is a balance between both but Rippetoe just goes on about things like being "harder to kill" which is plain fanboying; I would contend that being an ultramarthon runner or an Ironman triathlete corresponds far better with grit and not getting killed over all the gymgoers that can barely run a mile.
I am curious what type of people are you categorizing in "gymgoers that can barely run a mile". Certainly no the ones who follow Starting Strength program, since with personal experience I can say my mile time is way better it is now with SS, than it was before. Maybe the "gym bros" who are more into hypertrophy? :-)
sure, the person only doing strength training will have better endurance than a person doing nothing at all. i also agree strength training is usually critically neglected compared to cardio (which is slowly changing tho).
it's the toxic "cardio kills your gains" broscience that's harmful, as it leads to people actively avoiding healthy cardio. i've seen strength athletes use the escalator instead of the stairs because they tried to avoid getting their heart rate up outside the squat rack. this is counterproductive to both health and athletic ability.
Exercise-life balance will change, as well, throughout your life. We all have different seasons.
Some years ago I was working at a university and could go to the gym and lift heavy over lunch. That was great -- a good decompression, opportunity to talk w/people in other parts of the university, and the strongest I ever got. At another time in life I did CrossFit. It gave me some community when traveling and I could fit it outside the workday. Now due to covid/kid/corporate job I switched for a few years to circuit training/HIIT in the basement. That got me into very good shape in a different way than lifting heavy a few times a week. And now I have to change again -- different family schedule has taken away my early-morning workout slot and my short bike commute and so I'm trying to find the new normal. Maybe I can join a gym again, but with the family morning grind and family evening routine I cannot easily spend more than 40 min a day on fitness, and as winter approaches the outside activities possible change.
It is important to acknowledge the different seasons of life.
Back to the article. Mathematicians know the power of walking; that's why it's a tradition for many week-long conferences to have a Wednesday afternoon hike. The best of course is the one at Oberwolfach but the hike I went on at Luminy is a close second. Many mathematicians run, play Ultimate Frisbee, rock climb, dance, etc. From my own experience exercise is significant in clearing my mind and thus enabling creativity (rather than rumination), and it has a significant effect on my resting heart rate and sleeping heart rate. Sleep in turn is very important to cognition and creativity. As I get older, the more I notice I need to pay attention to these things and can't take them for granted. Building exercise into my routine is crucial. Systems are important.
It's definitely about finding your personal balance of effort versus capacity to recover, although do make sure to read up on conventional wisdom and use that to guide you first. It takes a while to know what you're actually looking for.
To add an anecdote, my balance changes depending on my focus at the time. If I'm on a strength training arc, it's 3 days a week at 1-2hrs a session. If I've shifted focus to functional fitness I can train 3-4 times a week at ~40minutes a session, as it just doesn't take as long to do the work, and doesn't take as long to recover from that work.
Food and sleep are usually the limiting factor, I just can't recover fast enough and that is what over training really is, it's training over your capacity to recover.
there's a lot of bro science regarding overtraining. almost all of the time it's actually undersleeping and undereating, i.e. recovery is the limiting factor. back then i was single, didn't work full time and also had flexible work time, so sleeping 8-10 hours a night and eating huge heaps of food every day was the norm. endurance sports are a little different in some aspects, mostly body weight management.
i'm not the biggest fan of rippetoe. e.g. the article you linked is at least partially bullshit for high(er) level athletes (i only skimmed it though). it's important to keep the audience in mind though; it may be valuable advice for _some_.
The way I've heard it is 'what most people think is overtraining is underrecovering'. My brother is a sports medicine doctor and what he told me is that actual overtraining is pretty much only seen in real athletes after months of sustained excessive training. What most people go through is actually called 'overreaching' and while it's not optimal you can keep going if you recover properly.
as they say: "you get stronger on rest days". this applies to both endurance and strength sports. the trick is to use your rest days productively; it doesn't necessarily require being inactive (for those who really want to go all in).
also, there's the principle of polarized training (for endurance sports): "go easy on the easy days, go hard on the hard days", because if you go to hard on the easy days, you can't go hard enough on the hard days.
a lot of people are under the impression that giving 100% every time, every day is the best way, probably thanks to years of training montages of sly dragging sleds through waist deep snow and karate-kid ... idk, kicking a tree really hard or whatever karate kid does, when actually it just leads to exhaustion and burnout.
Most of the professional athletes I've met get 10-12 hours of sleep. Now that I do lifting I need a solid 9 hours of sleep to recover and I need to stuff my face full of food to make gains.
Not impossible but certainly something that a lot of people can't do consistently if they want to have a job and do other things in life. Getting a half day of rest is almost a luxury for many.
yes, i usually slept without an alarm and there's a very noticable difference of about 2 hours between training and non-training days (i.e. 7 vs. 9 hours). i'm not a professional athlete, i'm a motivated amateur.
non-athletes often think it's nice to eat whatever you want and not gain weight, but it's actually quite unpleasant to having to force feed yourself all the time; not at least because you start wanting to eat certain meals - with a purpose. it took me a ridiculous amount of time and effort to put on some mass.
i used to go to the gym because i was bored. when i didn't feel great, i went to the gym because i knew i'd feel better afterwards. the gym was my safe space and my default activity. now that i have a family conditions have changed considerably; training is usually done late at night, in between obligations or on a few "me time" weekend hours for longer bike rides. works well enough, i can't complain.
Spot on, the article does begin with this sentence: "If you are a competitive distance runner or cyclist who is serious about your sport, this article has not been written for you."
funnily enough, dedicated strength training (i.e. heavy squats) is one of the most effective methods to improve the performance of endurance athletes (especially cyclists).
The thing about cycling which is nice is it allows for your brain to decompress and wander into deep thought (assuming a solo ride) while tour body is physically working. Whereas mountain biking is more action and coordinated and quite fun but doesnt get me into a deep state if mind. Powerlifting builds muscle and does provide benefits (structural integrity especially for the end years of my life) but i don't feel rejuvenated more just tired after working out. I find that im not as sharp during the hour or two after from tiredness (for an intense workout). To be fair both cycling and mountain biking im totally cooked for something equivalently intense.
for me it's complicated. sometimes i do get into those deep thoughts on long solo rides, but i found that i couldn't really concentrate on complicated issues enough without neglecting my concentration on the road. i did have a couple of good ideas from time to time, but it wasn't a regular experience and highly dependend on the type of riding. moreover, i run the risk of forgetting about the good ideas if the ride goes on for several more hours and i fall into other deep thought mind traps.
if i do structured training i try to stay concentrated on the task at hand, i.e. pedalling technique, breathing, recovery (heart rate), keeping watts constant, controlling cadence and so on. i do long virtual endurance rides with the ERG on but tend to watch entertaining movies.
i don't seem to get into deep though states much during weightlifting, as the lifts require me to be concentrated and fully focussed and the pauses are too short to get lost on the one hand and require active recovery on the other.
the big difference here is that most people who want to use training time for intellectual improvement just listen to podcasts, but that's not really an option for me as i'm hearing impaired and barely understand anything.
Fair - i think my point is that there is some value getting into those deep thought spaces for benefit cognitive function in addition to the physical exercise. Not scientifically proven but i suspect it has a benefit.
But not before you have reached a rather high level of technique. Before that, it feels like a sustained fight against drowning that fills your entire attention like few other things do. I'd say the threshold to mentally let go is lower in almost every other sport. That state of a background task that keeps the kind from dozing off, it's leaving plenty of attention to the mind wandering? I rarely hear that mentioned by swimmers, the state of mind trope frequently occurring is "counting tiles", which rather sounds like as if even those with perfect technique and routine don't disconnect mind from physical activity all that much.
sorry, i'm not sure what you mean. i can't recommend any books or papers. on the one hand i'm not a scientist myself, on the other hand i have no idea what you're interested in or what is relevant for you.
I had a friend of mine who was a jock played in varsity athletes and was quite strong. He also happened to a be 100% average student in the STEM field. His professors were always shocked when he was the too student in the class - significant amount of disbelief.
