Seems like a pretty small effect - if I'm 58 and I have the brain of a 57 year old, and to achieve that I did an entire year of exercise (as was done in this study) ... you'd have to evaluate it against many other things to decide if that was really the easiest way to achieve that result.
I'm always suspicious of small effect sizes even when they are statistically significant. It just seems like so many confounders could bring about the effect. Here I'd wonder if just the mental challenge of achieving that sustained exercise over a whole year was responsible, since generally speaking, any mental challenge you undertake on a regular bases improves overall cognition.
They try to argue their way around this:
> "Even though the difference is less than a year, prior studies suggest that each additional 'year' of brain age is associated with meaningful differences in later-life health,"
But it just begs the question, if you think that then go measure those things with your study.
Of course I'm not in any way arguing against exercise. Adding at least a baseline level of exercise into your lifestyle is the most impactful health intervention anybody can do after age 40 I believe.
Because randomized control, multi-year, longitudinal studies into behavioral interventions in human beings are incredibly annoying and expensive to run if you want to account for the risk of drop outs and/or non-compliance. They hosted twice weekly aerobic exercise classes for the experimental group (dozens of people) for a year! That’s not cheap by any means
There's also heart muscle elasticity:
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.117.0...
and reduced dementia risk:
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/small-amounts-of-moderate-...
The general consensus should just be exercising is good for you, that's it, done.
But I agree, it would be better if everyone exercised!
They do not make the claim from the title. Given that the effect is small, it might just be that brain-PAD is sensitive to other factors than age, e.g. exercise. As a matter of fact, this study is decent aupport for that hypothesis.
The standard being 20kgs under weight, skin baked like old leather, and a previously broken collar bone.
But, nothing beats it.
The problem is that doing it sucks.
Downside is there is a fairly steep learning curve to use them without injury.
Eg: Perth's 7km park: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1362227242068763 and https://www.tiktok.com/@9newsperth/video/7553237387548134712
AU Aintree North Recreation Reserve : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5vYNG2eL9g
Skate parks, woops, river and coastal setbacks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfLa32K74Zw
I don’t think land-use policies are the main cause.
[1] https://data.worldobesity.org/rankings/
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data-and-statistics/adult-obesit...
My only observations, having travelled in both, is that Australia like eveywhere has gotten more urban in past 20 years and I've got a feeling the percentage of Australians significantly past the technical bar of "obese" is very low compared to rates in the US of "well past" "just merely obese".
I'm not sure anyone's broken down the obesity quintile demographics.
I really dislike running for running's sake. But I love inline skating. Did a 20km route yesterday, did 43km a fortnight ago (which was admittedly too far for where my stamina is at). One of the things about skating (and this would also be true for cycling) is the different perspective it provides if you normally get around your local area in a car. You get to see the same places from radically different angles, depending on what paths are suitable to the mode of transport. Just going slower on or next to the road you get to see more detail, but footpaths and other tracks are often (possibly not the right terminology, but) 'off the beaten track'. In inner suburban Melbourne (whilst holidaying there) I chanced upon a relatively unpopulated footpath alongside a river / drain that took me 15km into the city, and it was (in parts) both peaceful and beautiful, despite really not being that far away from main roads / highways / freeways.
A lot of people like cycling, can be done individually or in any sized group.
Tennis is mostly individual (although an opponent is required), but I play in a team and enjoy the combination of singles, doubles, and an overall team result.
Football, soccer, rugby can be physically brutal, but are team sports that have a (forced) social aspect if that's an unmet need. Volleyball is a bit less intense. Table tennis. Lots of options for different sports that cater to different levels of physical stress.
Find a local park that has a basketball ring and just shoot hoops with yourself regularly. It at least gets you out of a chair and moving both arms and legs.
If you don't (think you) like any of those things, then you gotta do the hard yards to find that one rare thing you do like. It could just be something that you can find an appropriate level of progression that gives you 'that feeling'. I think that's what got me into skating late in life - I was terrible at it as a kid, but kinda forced into giving it another go as an adult, and within a couple of hours I was already better at it than in my childhood. It was a sense of accomplishment achieved in a relatively short term (= addicted? maybe).
Find your healthy addiction.
There is something out there that suits, surely. Sometimes it’s just a step removed.
The benefits of exercise against aging, mental illness, etc are numerous and well documented. Everybody should do it.
What reason do you have for thinking this? As far as I’ve read, there’s no indication that athletes perform worse than the population average on any of these metrics.
Athletes outperformed non-athletes on standardized tests in a 2014 study of Texas high schoolers.[1] Professional soccer players/footballers outperform the population average on a variety of cognitive assessments.[2] Sub-4 minute mile runners have better longevity and lower risk of cardiovascular disease than average.[3] With the exception of contact sports like American Football which involve serious risks of injury, I can’t think of any example of elite athletes that are worse off on quality of life metrics than average people.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4831893/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00256...
Here's another study, although for some reason it's 95% male, it shows athletic men live an average 3.5 years longer. It also shows athletic women live 0.7 years less, but due to the low number of females in the study I wouldn't read much into that.