I am pretty confident from my own experience that the study’s conclusion is broadly true. But the study leaves open one obvious alternative explanation: people who have enough free time to exercise regularly (and exercise was used as a stand-in for fitness level, it doesn’t look like they actually measured anything else) could have less stressful and anger-inducing lives overall.
Anecdotally, I started lifting again a few weeks ago. Took a few years off due to Covid complications, but was previously exercising regularly.
Walked up to the bar stressed about all sorts of things, everything is expensive, car is making weird chafing noises when I make sharp turns, politics, this and that.
Did 3 sets of 5 deadlifts with a 60kg bar. Barely any weight on the bar since I didn't want to annihilate my joints. Regardless, as I finished the sets, all that stress was just gone, and it stayed away for days. I was calmer, clearer, more present.
I don't think I have fewer reasons to be stressed since getting the gym membership, but I sure am less stressed.
Deadlifts in particular, but really any full body lifts have always been a mental state degauss button for me. Doesn't matter how many problems you have before you walk up to that bar, you'll barely remember them when you're done.
Not saying "cardiorespiratory fitness" and "heart rate" are 1:1, because they're certainly not, but beta blockers are a known treatment for certain kinds of anxiety. I can attest that taking low-dose propranolol twice a day (without pulling any other levers related to lifestyle, stress, etc.) has helped me mellow the fuck out, which I sorely needed lol. So I would wager that cardio fitness is itself correlated with anxiety and anger, although in practice it's tangled up with many other factors.
In addition to baseline heart rate, there's also some interesting stuff related to anxiety and heart rate variability. My understanding is that certain types of breathing exercises improve HRV in the short term, which is good for calming down if you're riled up, but people with good cardio health have a better baseline HRV in the first place. (Also, this has always been unintuitive to me, but higher variability is better for anxiety, not lower variability.)
My final year of college I lived 2 miles off campus and would daily bicycle to school. In previous years I would commute via car as I lived too far to make the trip conveniently. I perceived greater emotional well-being during the 1 year period of moderate daily exercise. My grades also improved dramatically and I was more resilient during periods of sleep deprivation or intense study. As an adult with a family it has been more difficult to establish a pattern of daily physical activity. Going to the gym is very boring for me.
Would a stressed out Amazon/Uber eats delivery person who is very fit from working 10 hours a day, but with barely enough money to feed their family going to be less angry/anxious than a rich person lounging at his villa with zero worries? This is looking at one variable which isn't very useful.
I am 100% certain my resilience to stress and anxiety is directly tied to my cardiovascular health. I'm prone to a heart-racing, hot-eared flywheel of anxiety. When I've been running a lot I can FEEL the vagal tone/HRV fitness that gives me an physical off ramp for the mental space to take a fucking chill pill.
Cardio is unpleasant and stressful, which is why most people don't do it. Someone willing to do something that is not fun, on a regular basis, is going to have stronger mental status that someone who doesn't try at all.
I used to feel this way until I discovered cycling, I started running because I don't want to bike in NYC winter weather. Highly recommending trying cycling since you get to make it as hard as you want and it builds amazing cardio
Once you get over the hump and develop a certain amount of cardiovascular fitness, it stops being unpleasant and stressful.
The real problem is that most people don't feel like this is true. It really takes a solid 6ish months of earnest effort (AT LEAST 3x per week, probably more) to develop cardiovascular fitness. For some people, it'll take even longer.
I run an average of 6 days per week for the past 10+ years. At this point running is just about the easiest thing I do, it doesn't take any mental fortitude at all to do it. It wasn't always that way though, I used to dread it.
It can be, especially when you're only getting started and completely out of shape (I advise mostly walking and a bit of running if thats the case). But it can also be a beautiful, relaxing, meditative and totally addictive thing - which is why tens or hundreds of millions around the world do it. That feeling of unlpeasant stress means you probably went to hard; decrease the intensity. Walk if u have to, then run a bit, then walk some more. I agree that when you're starting out - feeling like you're suffocating / out of air is not a great feeling. There's really no reason to train like that.
Exercise is good, everyone knows. The problem is advising people to exercise doesn't work and doesn't scale. Gyms are for people who have plenty of intrinsic motivation and money and time.
To improve physical activity at the population scale and over a lifetime, it literally has to be built into the design of the cities, so people get enough exercise while walking to work or grabbing groceries.
Yeah, during covid and little bit after I was in amazing shape because I was able to go on nice long bike rides a few times a week. It got me thinking what would our society feel like if everyone was able to exercise?
We lack basic education in fitness, really, we do! They don't teach it in schools, but really just walking your 8-10k steps a day + simple own-weight exercises at home do wonders! Gym is fine for those who like it and can afford it (time, money), but by far not the only solution. We need to educate ourselves better. Plus, better cities, I am with you on that one.
I'm all for walkable/bikeable cities, but that doesn't solve the intrinsic motivation problem either.
I live in an area that has a lot of walkable and bikeable things nearby. There are a lot of people who drive anyway. Some because they're older, others because they have kids, others because they have busy schedules, and some are just lazy.
So while I'm in favor of better city layout, I don't think this would be a magic solution.
> Gyms are for people who have plenty of intrinsic motivation and money and time.
There are a lot of ways to work out without a gym. You can go for a walk or run around your neighborhood or even do a lot of workout programs at home. There are many easy workout systems that don't even take a lot of time and are easy to get started if you're not in shape.
How does that change anything? Walk to the shops and buy a donut and you'll still be at a net negative. Most people who are overweight are eating far to much and a bit of walking each day isnt going to beat their diet. The reason people recommend gyms and good diets is because its very time efficient. 45mins in the gym beats out hours of light walking.
Absolutely true. I lost a belt notch when I visited Japan for two weeks and walked everywhere. That being said redesigning cities is hard. It's a lot easier to meet people where they are: in front of the TV. Kettlebells, dumbbells, resistance bands, treadmills, and bike trainers are all great for doing whilst one marathons the latest season of "Real Housewives of Transylvania" or "Star Trek Impulsivity" or whatever.
Affordability is a real question as a lot of this gear is costly for the average consumer - I wonder whether a government health stipend would help with this.
It's not that hard, it's just time-consuming. Takes ~30 years. Roads/buildings/etc break down eventually, you just need to incrementally design for the better new version instead of rebuilding the older version. Plenty of those European countries are doing it.
99.9% of exercise can be done outside of a gym. Walk, hike, run, cycle, swim, ski, paddle, play soccer, basketball, skate, play tennis, hockey, archery... The idea that exercise equals paying a subscription is so American.
I would love to learn why some people can self-motivate to exercise while others would need coercive interventions. Such as to build cities in a way that some exercise is inevitable.
Or put differently: is there really nothing that can be done to shift people into being self-motivated?
I think you have the coercion direction reversed. If there was a choice - if people could easily walk places - they probably wouldn’t buy expensive cars.
I wonder if there is some underlying lizard-brain thing going on here.
If you "know" you are physically unfit you are quick to anger and aggression because you potentially need to act like that to not need to rely on physical fitness if it came to needing it? I.e. you need to deter others through your aggression rather than relying on fitness if it came to a fight?
Or alternatively the other perspective if you "know" you are fit you can keep the stress hormones low safe in the knowledge that if it comes to it you've got the fitness to handle a fight?
Linguistics question: the title says “[…] is associated with lower anger and anxiety”
I read it as _people who have lower anger, and people who have anxiety_
Am I broken? (I am a native English speaker but that doesn’t mean that I speak English correctly)
This study seems both wildly underpowered, chooses relatively bad methods for analysis (splitting between below average and above average, really?) and has far too many comparisions (they claim to have used bonferroni corrections where necessary, and then don't mention it again).
All in all, it's a pretty good example of modern psychological research. Bad statistics, hyped up findings and (probably) wild over-generalisation about what this tiny study means for society/the world/my research funding.
I think the biggest flaw here is around the measurement of VO2 max. So they first ask people how often they exercise (cos no-one ever lies) and then use a linear equation to map that to VO2 max. Granted, the equation has lines for age and sex, so it's not entirely useless, but if you're only going to sample 40 students then why not try to measure things a little better?
The most unintentionally hilarious thing about their methods section is that age was not normally distributed (according to a shapiro test). They sampled students, so of course it's not going to be normally distributed. Students have a well-known bias in age.
Ultimately, regardless of whether or not this finding turns out to be true (I like the idea of it, myself) this study provides absolutely no evidence for the effect.
Note: I have a PhD in psychology, but left the field a decade plus ago. I'm both horrified by this study, and also having a lot of fun poking holes in it, maybe I should try to get back into reviewing? ;)
I loved the gym and it did help my psyche. That is very clear to me. But now I don't go to the gym anymore, because I have a very stubborn radial tunnel syndrome in my right arm and my knee osteoarthritis is worse than ever. Of course both of those things make me angry and anxious. While I am absolutely positive that exercise helps your psyche, I would not be surprised if the majority of this correlation is actually from a common cause (it might also be stress in general - i.e. no time for exercise), lack of financial resources or just a bad place of living, etc.
I live ruraly, am reitivly poor, assets, but high outside bills,my work is laborious, and other aspects of k|ping a house going are also labour intensive.Never been in a jym.The harder I work, the stronger I get, and as my financial situation has gotten tighter and tighter, I am forced to act pragmaticly, which is to say a distilation of efficiency.
The most intetesting thing is that people are responding to whatever newer matter of fact way I am comunicating and acting with there own version and seem to enjoy working with somone pushing there own personal edge, I know I do.
38 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 60.8 ms ] threadExercise may relieve depression as effectively as antidepressants - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46541672 - January 2026
Exercise twice as effective as anti-depressants - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39396047 - February 2024
Running from the Pain (2018) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27306725 - May 2021
Running from the Pain - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16573009 - March 2018
Walked up to the bar stressed about all sorts of things, everything is expensive, car is making weird chafing noises when I make sharp turns, politics, this and that.
Did 3 sets of 5 deadlifts with a 60kg bar. Barely any weight on the bar since I didn't want to annihilate my joints. Regardless, as I finished the sets, all that stress was just gone, and it stayed away for days. I was calmer, clearer, more present.
I don't think I have fewer reasons to be stressed since getting the gym membership, but I sure am less stressed.
Deadlifts in particular, but really any full body lifts have always been a mental state degauss button for me. Doesn't matter how many problems you have before you walk up to that bar, you'll barely remember them when you're done.
In addition to baseline heart rate, there's also some interesting stuff related to anxiety and heart rate variability. My understanding is that certain types of breathing exercises improve HRV in the short term, which is good for calming down if you're riled up, but people with good cardio health have a better baseline HRV in the first place. (Also, this has always been unintuitive to me, but higher variability is better for anxiety, not lower variability.)
As Calvin's dad says, misery builds character.
The real problem is that most people don't feel like this is true. It really takes a solid 6ish months of earnest effort (AT LEAST 3x per week, probably more) to develop cardiovascular fitness. For some people, it'll take even longer.
I run an average of 6 days per week for the past 10+ years. At this point running is just about the easiest thing I do, it doesn't take any mental fortitude at all to do it. It wasn't always that way though, I used to dread it.
It can be, especially when you're only getting started and completely out of shape (I advise mostly walking and a bit of running if thats the case). But it can also be a beautiful, relaxing, meditative and totally addictive thing - which is why tens or hundreds of millions around the world do it. That feeling of unlpeasant stress means you probably went to hard; decrease the intensity. Walk if u have to, then run a bit, then walk some more. I agree that when you're starting out - feeling like you're suffocating / out of air is not a great feeling. There's really no reason to train like that.
To improve physical activity at the population scale and over a lifetime, it literally has to be built into the design of the cities, so people get enough exercise while walking to work or grabbing groceries.
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/jure/pubs/activity-inequality...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPUlgSRn6e0&ab_channel=NotJu...
I live in an area that has a lot of walkable and bikeable things nearby. There are a lot of people who drive anyway. Some because they're older, others because they have kids, others because they have busy schedules, and some are just lazy.
So while I'm in favor of better city layout, I don't think this would be a magic solution.
> Gyms are for people who have plenty of intrinsic motivation and money and time.
There are a lot of ways to work out without a gym. You can go for a walk or run around your neighborhood or even do a lot of workout programs at home. There are many easy workout systems that don't even take a lot of time and are easy to get started if you're not in shape.
Affordability is a real question as a lot of this gear is costly for the average consumer - I wonder whether a government health stipend would help with this.
It's not that hard, it's just time-consuming. Takes ~30 years. Roads/buildings/etc break down eventually, you just need to incrementally design for the better new version instead of rebuilding the older version. Plenty of those European countries are doing it.
Or put differently: is there really nothing that can be done to shift people into being self-motivated?
If you "know" you are physically unfit you are quick to anger and aggression because you potentially need to act like that to not need to rely on physical fitness if it came to needing it? I.e. you need to deter others through your aggression rather than relying on fitness if it came to a fight?
Or alternatively the other perspective if you "know" you are fit you can keep the stress hormones low safe in the knowledge that if it comes to it you've got the fitness to handle a fight?
...Or perhaps none of that!
Interesting.
All in all, it's a pretty good example of modern psychological research. Bad statistics, hyped up findings and (probably) wild over-generalisation about what this tiny study means for society/the world/my research funding.
I think the biggest flaw here is around the measurement of VO2 max. So they first ask people how often they exercise (cos no-one ever lies) and then use a linear equation to map that to VO2 max. Granted, the equation has lines for age and sex, so it's not entirely useless, but if you're only going to sample 40 students then why not try to measure things a little better?
The most unintentionally hilarious thing about their methods section is that age was not normally distributed (according to a shapiro test). They sampled students, so of course it's not going to be normally distributed. Students have a well-known bias in age.
Ultimately, regardless of whether or not this finding turns out to be true (I like the idea of it, myself) this study provides absolutely no evidence for the effect.
Note: I have a PhD in psychology, but left the field a decade plus ago. I'm both horrified by this study, and also having a lot of fun poking holes in it, maybe I should try to get back into reviewing? ;)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316113514
[1] well, listened to the audiobook while walking