Health & Wellbeing

Year-long exercise study reveals surprising impacts on mental health

Year-long exercise study reveals surprising impacts on mental health
A new study has tapped into 12 months of Fitbit data to reveal some interesting insights around the mental health of more than 100 subjects
A new study has tapped into 12 months of Fitbit data to reveal some interesting insights around the mental health of more than 100 subjects
View 1 Image
A new study has tapped into 12 months of Fitbit data to reveal some interesting insights around the mental health of more than 100 subjects
1/1
A new study has tapped into 12 months of Fitbit data to reveal some interesting insights around the mental health of more than 100 subjects

We’ve seen studies offer some valuable insights into different ways exercise can be beneficial for brain health, from combating depression, to fighting dementia, to boosting our memory. New research has approached this topic with a long-term view, tapping into a year’s worth of Fitbit data to gauge the impacts of different types of physical activity, and turned up some interesting results.

The study is the handiwork of scientists at Dartmouth College, who set out to dig into the nuances of exercise’s effects on brain function and mental health. They sought to expand on studies in this area that had examined the effects of exercise over periods of days or weeks, by instead drawing on data from 113 Fitbit users across a 12-month period.

Across that year, those users were also made to answer questions about their mental health and perform different memory tests. The fitness data included daily step tallies, average heart rates and how much time spent exercising in different heart rate zones. The memory tasks, meanwhile, were designed to individually test the ability to remember autobiographical events, locations, and connections between concepts and other memories.

The results demonstrated how complicated the relationship between exercise and brain health is. While the researchers had expected to find a general positive trend between higher physical activity and memory and mental health, it wasn’t quite that simple. Low-intensity exercise brought improvements to specific memory tasks, while high-intensity exercise brought improvements specifically to others.

More surprisingly, those undertaking more high-intensity exercise reported higher stress levels. Those undertaking lower intensity exercise, meanwhile, reported lower rates of anxiety and depression.

"Mental health and memory are central to nearly everything we do in our everyday lives," says lead author Jeremy Manning. "Our study is trying to build a foundation for understanding how different intensities of physical exercise affect different aspects of mental and cognitive health."

Though it is early days for the research and the study was unable to reveal any causal effects, the scientists believe further work could lead to exciting new tools to manage cognitive health. Just as you might perform a particular workout in the gym to strengthen a particular muscle group, you might have a workout program tailored to keep anxiety at bay, or boost your learning and memory ahead of exam season.

"When it comes to physical activity, memory, and mental health, there's a really complicated dynamic at play that cannot be summarized in single sentences like ‘walking improves your memory,' or ‘stress hurts your memory,'" says Manning. "Instead, specific forms of physical activity and specific aspects of mental health seem to affect each aspect of memory differently."

The research was published in the journal Scientific Reports

Source: Dartmouth College via MedicalXpress

4 comments
4 comments
Username
Self reporting produces useless data.
Captain Danger
I just finished listening to "Standard Deviations: Flawed Assumptions, Tortured Data, and Other Ways to Lie with Statistics" on audio book and the author described several studies simialr to this that were at best flawed from the begining , at worst were deliberate lies.

Just because something is published by "Scientists" and they have a bunch of data does not make it true.

Example
"More surprisingly, those undertaking more high-intensity exercise reported higher stress levels. Those undertaking lower intensity exercise, meanwhile, reported lower rates of anxiety and depression."

Perhaps people that engage in highly stressfully exersises have more intense personalities and would report larger levels of stress.
John Boblett
It appears that this article is simply the reporting of an analysis of the original scientific article, and as such does not contain all of the information and details of the methodology, results, data analysis or discussion of the findings. Username points out that self-reporting is useless. However that depends upon how the self-reporting of information/data is given and may be controlled by the experiments design, which is not discussed in this article.
As for Captain Danger's comments, I do have some agreement with him, however it is not wise to judge the findings of the original paper based on the current author's interpretation. It would be best to return to the original report and draw one's own conclusions following a insightful reading of the research paper. Yes there have been fabricated research and papers, however to simply apply the learnings of one book/text/reference such as "Standard Deviations..." to a research paper based on a summation of said paper does not do justice to the original paper. Again. I suggest going to the original article and analyzing it for yourself to determine its validity.
On the issue of "scientists" I sort of agree that anyone can call themself a scientist and in the case of the original paper what in fact are the credentials of the authors. In addition was the original article peer-reviewed and if so by whom? Want are the affiliations of the original authors, I did not find this, though I may well have missed it.
Whatever, don't simply blow off the work shown in the original paper based simply on the reading of an article such as we have here.
Captain Danger
@John Boblett
I did read the original paper. Or at least tried to. I did take some excerpt from it and posted them here but for some reason they did not get past the censors.
Just let me say that the convolutions in the data required to manipulate the data were incredible.
The data needed to be tortured to get the results and these guys seem to be sadists.
John, have a look a the study , it is only a couple of clicks away and then draw your conclusions.