Is exercise good for you?

The study below concludes that it is. That is rather surprising. Past studies have concluded that there is little lifespan advantage from lifestyle changes.

But this study has large holes. For a start, does lots of excercise cause you to live longer or do people with good survival genes exercise more? There were of course no controls for genetic factors

And were the advantages one poeople who had aleways excercised a lor or were they people who had just taken it up? That could be a big difference with significant implications. Taking up excercise late in life might not help you

Estimated Number of Deaths Prevented Through Increased Physical Activity Among US Adults

Previous studies suggest that a substantial number of deaths could be prevented annually by increasing population levels of physical activity.1-3 However, previous estimates have relied on convenience samples,2,3 used self-reported physical activity data,1-3 and assumed relatively large increases in activity levels (eg, more than 30 minutes per day).1-3 The potential public health benefit of changing daily physical activity by a manageable amount is not yet known. In this study, we used accelerometer measurements (1) to examine the association of physical activity and mortality in a population-based sample of US adults and (2) to estimate the number of deaths prevented annually with modest increases in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity intensity (MVPA).

Methods
This cohort study was approved by the National Center for Health Statistics Ethics Review Board. This study used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), and written informed consent was obtained for all NHANES participants. The study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline.

The NHANES is a representative survey of the US civilian, noninstitutionalized population, including oversampling for non-Hispanic Black participants and Mexican American participants. Race and ethnicity was determined by self-report and classified using preferred terminology from the National Center for Health Statistics as Mexican American, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, or other. Race and ethnicity was included in this study to better characterize the US population. In 2003 to 2006, NHANES participants aged 6 years or older were asked to wear an accelerometer for 7 days. For this study, we evaluated 4840 of 6355 adults aged 40 to 85 years or older with accelerometer data. The remaining 1515 individuals were excluded because they were not eligible or refused to participate in the monitoring protocol (853 [13%]), had monitors that malfunctioned or lost calibration (360 [6%]), or had no valid days with monitor data (302 [5%]). Mortality follow-up was completed via National Death Index linkage through December 31, 2015. We estimated MVPA by summing accelerometer minutes at or above an established cutpoint4 and creating 8 physical activity categories (0-19, 20-39, 40-59, 60-79, 80-99, 100-119, 120-139, or ≥140 minutes per day).

The number of deaths per year prevented with increased physical activity was estimated as the adjusted population attributable fraction (PAF)5 multiplied by the US population annual number of deaths for 2003 (for individuals aged 40-84 years). To calculate the PAFs, we used population prevalence estimates and hazard ratios adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, education level, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), diet, alcohol use, smoking status, and self-reported chronic conditions, mobility limitations, and general health. Hazard ratios were estimated using Cox proportional hazard regression models, and the proportional hazards assumption was confirmed for our main exposure (ie, MVPA). Counterfactuals for increased activity were set to 10, 20, and 30 minutes per day higher than participants’ observed values. Those classified as frail6 or who required equipment to walk were assumed to be unable to increase their activity (eMethods in the Supplement); when PAFs were calculated, physical activity levels for these participants were held constant. Data were analyzed with SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc), accounting for the NHANES complex sample design.

Results
This analysis included 4840 participants. Of these, 2435 (53%) were women, 993 (10.4%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 887 (5.1%) were Mexican American (Table). A total of 1165 deaths occurred during a mean (SEM) follow-up of 10.1 (0.1) years.

Adjusted hazard ratios changed from 0.69 to 0.28 across increasing activity categories (vs 0-19 minutes per day). Hazard ratios used to generate the PAFs for the 8 activity categories were as follows: 1.00 (reference) for 0 to 19 (548 [7.9%]), 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.85) for 20 to 39 (616 [10.0%]), 0.51 (95% CI, 0.42-0.63) for 40 to 59 (635 [11.8%]), 0.40 (95% CI, 0.29-0.55) for 60 to 79 (614 [12.7%]), 0.34 (95% CI, 0.25-0.47) for 80-99 (633 [14.4%]), 0.32 (95% CI, 0.21-0.48) for 100 to 119 (508 [12.1%]), 0.30 (95% CI, 0.19-0.48) for 120-139 (384 [9.3%]), and 0.28 (95% CI, 0.18-0.42) for 140 or more (902 [21.7%]) minutes per day. The number of participants with frailty or needing special equipment was 280 (49.4%) for 0 to 19, 164 (26.3%) for 20 to 39, 94 (12.4%) for 40 to 59, 66 (9.5%) for 60 to 79, 42 (5.1%) for 80 to 99, 31 (4.7%) for 100 to 119, 20 (2.9%) for 120 to 139, and 35 (2.7%) for 140 or more minutes per day.

Increasing MVPA by 10, 20, or 30 minutes per day was associated with a 6.9%, 13.0%, and 16.9% decrease in the number of deaths per year, respectively. Adding 10 minutes per day of physical activity resulted in an estimated 111 174 preventable deaths per year (95% CI, 79 594-142 754), with greater benefits associated with the addition of more physical activity (209 459 preventable deaths [95% CI, 146 299-272 619] for 20 minutes and 272 297 preventable deaths [95% CI, 177 557-367 037] for 30 minutes) (Figure).

The PAFs indicate that the addition of 10 minutes per day of MVPA was associated with the prevention of 8.0% (95% CI, 6.0-10.0) of total deaths per year among men, 5.9% (95% CI, 2.0-9.8) among women, 4.8% (95% CI, 0.0-10.7) among Mexican American individuals, 6.1% (95% CI, 2.2-10.0) among non-Hispanic Black individuals, and 7.3% (95% CI, 5.3-9.3) among non-Hispanic White individuals.

Discussion
In this cohort study, we estimated that approximately 110 000 deaths per year could be prevented if US adults aged 40 to 85 years or older increased their MVPA by a small amount (ie, 10 minutes per day). Similar benefits were observed for men and women and for Mexican American, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White adults. To our knowledge, this is the first study to estimate the number of preventable deaths through physical activity using accelerometer-based measurements among US adults while recognizing that increasing activity may not be possible for everyone. However, 1 week of monitoring may not reflect changes in activity over time, and the observational study design limits the direct determination of causality.

These findings support implementing evidence-based strategies to improve physical activity for adults and potentially reduce deaths in the US.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2788473 ?

**************************************************

Targeting the ‘Imperial’ Supreme Court

The typical Leftist tendency to invert reality. Roe v. Wade was the imperial decision, not its repeal. There is something wrong in the brain of Leftists. Their hatreds distort their contact with reality

It might be scant surprise that the Supreme Court is the target of broadsides these days, but it could come as a shock to see one such potshot launched from the pages of the Harvard Law Review. Its author is a Stanford Law professor, Mark Lemley, whom the school touts as the most cited professor in the law of intellectual property and “one of the ten most cited legal scholars of all time.” The sage accuses the court of being a Machiavellian hoarder of power.

Professor Lemley’s “The Imperial Supreme Court”* strikes us as inaccurate. He spots the “emergence of the imperial Supreme Court” engaged in a “radical restructuring” of American law. The justices, he asserts, are working at “stripping power from every political entity except the Supreme Court itself” to “concentrate power” at the high court. He essentially doubts the justices’ integrity, accusing them of, in effect, a coup.

We, too, detect a shift in the balance of power, but where Mr. Lemley sees a gathering of power, we see its dispersal. In case after case, this conservative court has insisted on returning constitutional authority to what Justice Samuel Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health calls the “people and their elected representatives.” Abortion is just one issue where decision making authority now resides within the democratic process, rather than beyond it.

Mr. Lemley concedes that “this in turn might seem to shift power to the states” and that Dobbs does “give power to state governments, albeit at the expense of individual rights.” That is exactly right, and in the wake of Dobbs there has been in respect of abortion an efflorescence of decision making from ‘We the People,’ from Kentucky to Michigan to California. By all accounts, Dobbs spurred voter passion, reminding Americans of the force of their franchise.

The professor cites another case from last term, West Virginia v. EPA, which held that on “major questions” agencies like the EPA are required to point to “clear congressional authorization” for regulatory authority. Mr. Lemley labels this a “powerful step to limit agency power” — and it is that — but if constitutional capital is being reallocated, it is to Congress, not the court. If the legislature does not quite know what to do with it, that is its failing.

Mr. Lemley also invokes a case from this term, Moore v. Harper, which turns on whether the national parchment assigns exclusive responsibility over federal elections to state legislatures. If that position, argued by Republican state lawmakers, triumphs, it is state courts that will be sidelined. Mr. Lemley calls that possibility “remarkable intrusion on state legal process.” Fair enough, but it is certainly not an aggrandizement of the high court, or any court.

To cut the “imperial” court down to size, Mr. Lemley expresses a willingness to entertain “radical fixes,” including curtailing its jurisdiction and packing its ranks. The “ship has sailed” on its legitimacy, he claims, and so anything goes. It appears as if it is Mr. Lemley and the liberal legal establishment who are preparing to wheel on the court. It would be an irony if this court’s returning power to the people is read as an invitation to aggression.

https://www.nysun.com/article/harvard-law-review-wheels-on-the-court ?

******************************************************

When Did “Patriotism” Become A Dirty Word?

Like so many other things these days, patriotism as a value that was once held regardless of political affiliation has now been rebranded as the calling card of extremism. This wasn’t always the case. But with tensions high and ever-increasing political division, is patriotism really outdated in our modern discourse? And when did it become a dirty word?

The Death Knell of Patriotism

There’s a common realization often observed by the critical thinkers of today: What was once a moderate or centrist viewpoint a decade ago has now somehow become a hallmark of the right-wing. Once-average opinions on topics like immigration, gay marriage, abortion, and other controversial stances widely accepted by the notable figures of progressivism years ago are now predominantly branded as the stamp of authenticity for the new right wing.

Patriotism wasn’t always a partisan issue. But it’s evolved into one as our culture demands that we adhere to an increasingly ridiculous standard of political correctness. Something as innocuous as celebrating Independence Day is now an offensive act to the thousands of marginalized people who were targeted by the creation of our country. Columbus Day is now Indigenous Peoples’ Day. We have fully committed to letting our past actions dictate our current and future behavior as citizens with convictions.

It’s hard to pinpoint when exactly patriotism became synonymous with other buzzword-y concepts like the ever-threatening “death of democracy” and the apparent rise of a new alt-right, led by fascist theocratic white males. But over time, as truth has become entirely subjective and identity has evolved into whatever feels good to the individual (regardless of reality), we’ve come to associate the concept of patriotism as something else that should be quashed, along with sexism, racism, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, and all the rest.

54% of Americans believe that truth is subjective.

A survey of 2,000 participants by a cultural research institution found that 54% of Americans believe that truth is subjective. This belief thereby indicates that there are no moral absolutes in this world and no distinction between right and wrong besides what each individual decides for himself or herself. This is not just a talking point circulated on Twitter or hypotheticals that we posit among our peers. Truth has now become a postmodern concept dictated by the self and not by reality. Because this overhaul in rationalism, consciousness, and identity has been permitted, we’re now subject to whatever you or I deem politically correct, and equally subject to punishment if we transgress into what is (subjectively) offensive.

Judging the Past by Today’s Standards

Many Americans today may be able to trace their ancestry back to the early beginnings of America. This enables us to see how our own forebears made their way to this country and often failed to thrive but merely survived on their own labors. This might fill us with pride at the thought of our own predecessors playing a role in the formation of our society, paving the way so that one day we, too, could celebrate the fruits of their hard work. But some would never dream of taking part in such a shameful act.

The possibility of having forebears who defended the South during the Civil War or who sustained the practice of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries is enough to fill some of us with an overwhelming sense of indignity and remorse. But because we live in a politically correct society, that will never be enough.

This obligation of white guilt now not only includes just Americans. The United Kingdom, even in the immediate wake of the death of a long beloved monarch, was branded as the most contemptible colonizing force on earth. All of the advancements in health, science, medicine, technology, art, politics, economics, and education, to name a few, are to be patently ignored as cheap byproducts of imperialism.

We constantly judge the past by today’s standards, even though it’s not only an exercise in futility but egotism and arrogance as well. Though we might believe we have the innermost motivations of our oppressive forebears down to a science, we will never truly understand the forces at work within them. But that isn’t good enough – they must be subject to today’s standards, no matter how absurd or ridiculous. In becoming increasingly obsessed with rewriting or “re-contextualizing” the past, we waste considerable energy on the pursuit of folly rather than dedicating our interests to the present and the future.

Patriotism Is the New Intolerance

Patriotism used to signify a healthy sense of loyalty to your country. It doesn’t mean a blanket approval of its past actions, however deplorable or horrendous they might be, but gratitude for the sacrifices that have been made to secure our freedoms, freedoms which even some of the most developed nations don’t get to enjoy. Today, the most we can hope for in terms of patriotism is fundamental gratitude and a basic appreciation for the opportunities we’re offered here, though even those sentiments are few and far between.

The patriotism of the individual can drive the vision of a better future and make it a reality.

Many would equate patriotism with nationalism or intolerance, though in its purest form, patriotism is what the founders of our nation stood for, even when they were unsure it would survive. Patriotism now to many is equated with intolerance, whether related to race, gender, socioeconomic status, or any other prejudice. Patriotism, now known as intolerance to others’ backgrounds or lived experiences, has become intolerable.

A devotion to your country, which is the fundamental definition of patriotism, suggests a loyalty and a vested interest in the future and success of our society as we know it. In this manner, patriotism is absolutely indispensable to our identity as Americans who want to build our lives and raise our families here. This doesn’t mean that we condone far overreaching government actions or that we sanction every action of the politicians we most agree with. It could even be argued that the function of government today is directly in opposition to the true objectives of patriotism. But the patriotism of the individual, instead of cynicism and pessimism, can drive the vision of a better future and make it a reality.

Closing Thoughts

Patriotism is branded as many things that it isn’t, especially today. But when the majority of the politically correct’s most dogged adherents tell us to forgo patriotism as a sentiment and as a component of our individual and national identity, we’d likely be better off doing the opposite.

https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/when-did-patriotism-become-a-dirty-word

********************************************************

The tiny Australian town gripped by a child sexual abuse crisis: 'If this was happening in Melbourne or Sydney it'd be front page news'

Reading between the lines, the offenders were Aboriginal. Aborigines (blacks) tend to be treated leniently by the courts. It's "the soft bigotry of low expectations"

The tiny Northern Territory town of Tenant Creek has been rocked by the actions of two vile rapists who are set to be released from detention mere months after they were convicted of their horrific crimes.

Ezekial James, 28, who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl in a community near Tennant Creek in the Top End in 2017, causing her to fall pregnant, is eligible for parole only four months after he pleaded guilty to the grisly crime.

In another case close by, a teenager who raped a seven-year-old girl while he was out on parole for arson back in May last year is set to be released less than two months after conviction.

Both cases have sparked outrage over the leniency given to the rapists.

Sky News Australia's Rita Panahi, who spoke to the network's Darwin Bureau Chief Matt Cunningham who covered both crimes, relayed her shock. 'Frankly, if this was happening in Melbourne or Sydney it'd be front page news,' she said. 'It'd be leading the news service for a week.' 'How can such horrific crimes see such lenient sentences?' she asked Cunningham.

Panahi claimed there was difficulty in speaking out against these cases due to fears of being labelled 'racist'. 'How can we elevate these issues?' she continued.

'We'll talk about it on this program, we'll talk about it on Sky News but it seems so many people are terrified to broach this subject because there can be blowback.'

The pair referred to comments made by senator Jacinta Price on the network who suggested that 'until there's an end to domestic and family violence, there won't be an end to these sorts of issues'.

Ezekial James pleaded guilty to raping a 12-year-old girl when he was 23-years-old in 2017. He approached the child near a football ground at night and lured her back to his family's residence where he assaulted her.

The victim returned to her grandfather's home after the traumatising incident and discovered later on that she was pregnant. The girl gave birth at Alice Springs Hospital in August 2018 after being in an 'extremely anxious' state.

Justice Barr described the girl's situation as 'horrible' and the birth as 'very traumatic for a young teenager who did not have the psychological resources to deal with the very stressful situation'.

James was taken into custody by police in December 2021, four years after the 2017 rape, when DNA evidence linked him to the child. He has previously been in prison for multiple offences including two cases of aggravated assault against women and recklessly endangering life.

Justice Barr said it was unlikely he would reoffend before his sentence was suspended.

In the other case, a 16-year-old boy groped a seven-year-old girl while she was watching TV at a house in the Top End.

The teen, who was out on parole for arson, then forced the child into a bedroom where he raped her.

The girl was later flown by the Royal Flying Doctor Service to a clinic in Alice Springs for treatment. She currently struggles to sleep, is too scared to go outside and wants to leave Tennant Creek.

The boy was arrested four days later and was sent to a youth detention centre. He pleaded guilty to the assault and was sentenced in the Northern Territory Supreme Court on November 30.

The boy, who is now 18, is set to be released from detention less than two months after his conviction.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11567917/Northern-Territory-gripped-rape-crisis-two-men-set-released-raping-young-girls.html

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************