The science is clear: resistance training is crucial to ageing well. Lifting weights (or doing bodyweight exercises like lunges, squats or push-ups) can help you live independently for longer, make your bones stronger, reduce your risk of diseases such as diabetes, and may even improve your sleep and mental health.

But not everyone loves the gym. Perhaps you feel you’re not a “gym person” and never will be, or you’re too old to start. Being a gym-goer can be expensive and time-consuming, and some people report feeling unwelcome or awkward at the gym.

The good news is you don’t need the gym, or lots of free time, to get the health benefits resistance training can offer.

You can try “exercise snacking” instead.

What is exercise snacking?

Exercise snacking involves doing multiple shorter bouts (as little as 20 seconds) of exercise throughout the day – often with minimal or no equipment. It’s OK to have several hours of rest between.

You could do simple bodyweight exercises such as:

• chair sit-to-stand (squats)
• lunges
• box step-ups
• calf raises
• push-ups.

Exercise snacking like this can help improve muscle mass, strength and physical function.

It’s OK to hold onto a nearby object for balance, if you need. And doing these exercises regularly will also improve your balance. That, in turn, reduces your risk of falls and fractures.

OK I have done all those, now what?

Great! You can also try using resistance bands or dumbbells to do the previously mentioned five exercises as well as some of the following exercises:

• seated rows
• chest and shoulder presses
• bicep curls
• knee extensions
• leg curls.

When using resistance bands, make sure you hold them tightly and that they’re securely attached to an immovable object.

Exercise snacking works well when you pair it with an activity you do often throughout the day. Perhaps you could:

• do a few extra squats every time you get up from a bed or chair
• do some lunges during a TV ad break
• chuck in a few half squats while you’re waiting for your kettle to boil
• do a couple of elevated push-ups (where you support your body with your hands on a chair or a bench while doing the push-up) before tucking into lunch
• sneak in a couple of calf raises while you’re brushing your teeth.

What does the evidence say about exercise snacking?

One study had older adults without a history of resistance training do exercise snacks at home twice per day for four weeks.

Each session involved five simple bodyweight exercises (chair sit-to-stand, seated knee extension, standing knee bends, marching on the spot, and standing calf raises). The participants did each exercise continuously for one minute, with a one-minute break between exercises.

These short and simple exercise sessions, which lasted just nine minutes, were enough to improve a person’s ability to stand up from a chair by 31% after four weeks (compared to a control group who didn’t exercise). Leg power and thigh muscle size improved, too.

Research involving one of us (Jackson Fyfe) has also shown older adults found “exercise snacking” feasible and enjoyable when done at home either once, twice, or three times per day for four weeks.

Exercise snacking may be a more sustainable approach to improve muscle health in those who don’t want to – or can’t – lift heavier weights in a gym.

A little can yield a lot

We know from other research that the more you exercise, the more likely it is you will keep exercising in future.

Very brief resistance training, albeit with heavier weights, may be more enjoyable than traditional approaches where people aim to do many, many sets.

We also know brief-and-frequent exercise sessions can break up periods of sedentary behaviour (which usually means sitting too much). Too much sitting increases your risk of chronic diseases such as diabetes, whereas exercise snacking can help keep your blood sugar levels steady.

Of course, longer-term studies are needed. But the evidence we do have suggests exercise snacking really helps.

Why does any of this matter?

As you age, you lose strength and mass in the muscles you use to walk, or stand up. Everyday tasks can become a struggle.

All this contributes to disability, hospitalisation, chronic disease, and reliance on community and residential aged care support.

By preserving your muscle mass and strength, you can:

• reduce joint pain
• get on with activities you enjoy
• live independently in your own home
• delay or even eliminate the need for expensive health care or residential aged care.

What if I walk a lot – is that enough?

Walking may maintain some level of lower body muscle mass, but it won’t preserve your upper body muscles.

If you find it difficult to get out of a chair, or can only walk short distances without getting out of breath, resistance training is the best way to regain some of the independence and function you’ve lost.

It’s even more important for women, as muscle mass and strength are typically lower in older women than men. And if you’ve been diagnosed with osteoporosis, which is more common in older women than men, resistance exercise snacking at home can improve your balance, strength, and bone mineral density. All of this reduces the risk of falls and fractures.

You don’t need heavy weights or fancy equipment to benefit from resistance training.

So, will you start exercise snacking today?

Justin Keogh, Associate Dean of Research, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University and Jackson Fyfe, Senior Lecturer, Strength and Conditioning Sciences, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The core experiences of depression – changes in energy, activity, thinking and mood – have been described for more than 10,000 years. The word “depression” has been used for about 350 years.

Given this long history, it may surprise you that experts don’t agree about what depression is, how to define it or what causes it.

But many experts do agree that depression is not one thing. It’s a large family of illnesses with different causes and mechanisms. This makes choosing the best treatment for each person challenging.

Reactive vs endogenous depression

One strategy is to search for sub-types of depression and see whether they might do better with different kinds of treatments. One example is contrasting “reactive” depression with “endogenous” depression.

Reactive depression (also thought of as social or psychological depression) is presented as being triggered by exposure to stressful life events. These might be being assaulted or losing a loved one – an understandable reaction to an outside trigger.

Endogenous depression (also thought of as biological or genetic depression) is proposed to be caused by something inside, such as genes or brain chemistry.

Many people working clinically in mental health accept this sub-typing. You might have read about this online.

But we think this approach is way too simple.

While stressful life events and genes may, individually, contribute to causing depression, they also interact to increase the risk of someone developing depression. And evidence shows that there is a genetic component to being exposed to stressors. Some genes affect things such as personality. Some affect how we interact with our environments.

What we did and what we found

Our team set out to look at the role of genes and stressors to see if classifying depression as reactive or endogenous was valid.

In the Australian Genetics of Depression Study, people with depression answered surveys about exposure to stressful life events. We analysed DNA from their saliva samples to calculate their genetic risk for mental disorders.

Our question was simple. Does genetic risk for depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, ADHD, anxiety and neuroticism (a personality trait) influence people’s reported exposure to stressful life events?

You may be wondering why we bothered calculating the genetic risk for mental disorders in people who already have depression. Every person has genetic variants linked to mental disorders. Some people have more, some less. Even people who already have depression might have a low genetic risk for it. These people may have developed their particular depression from some other constellation of causes.

We looked at the genetic risk of conditions other than depression for a couple of reasons. First, genetic variants linked to depression overlap with those linked to other mental disorders. Second, two people with depression may have completely different genetic variants. So we wanted to cast a wide net to look at a wider spectrum of genetic variants linked to mental disorders.

If reactive and endogenous depression sub-types are valid, we’d expect people with a lower genetic component to their depression (the reactive group) would report more stressful life events. And we’d expect those with a higher genetic component (the endogenous group) would report fewer stressful life events.

But after studying more than 14,000 people with depression we found the opposite.

We found people at higher genetic risk for depression, anxiety, ADHD or schizophrenia say they’ve been exposed to more stressors.

Assault with a weapon, sexual assault, accidents, legal and financial troubles, and childhood abuse and neglect, were all more common in people with a higher genetic risk of depression, anxiety, ADHD or schizophrenia.

These associations were not strongly influenced by people’s age, sex or relationships with family. We didn’t look at other factors that may influence these associations, such as socioeconomic status. We also relied on people’s memory of past events, which may not be accurate.

How do genes play a role?

Genetic risk for mental disorders changes people’s sensitivity to the environment.

Imagine two people, one with a high genetic risk for depression, one with a low risk. They both lose their jobs. The genetically vulnerable person experiences the job loss as a threat to their self-worth and social status. There is a sense of shame and despair. They can’t bring themselves to look for another job for fear of losing it too. For the other, the job loss feels less about them and more about the company. These two people internalise the event differently and remember it differently.

Genetic risk for mental disorders also might make it more likely people find themselves in environments where bad things happen. For example, a higher genetic risk for depression might affect self-worth, making people more likely to get into dysfunctional relationships which then go badly.

What does our study mean for depression?

First, it confirms genes and environments are not independent. Genes influence the environments we end up in, and what then happens. Genes also influence how we react to those events.

Second, our study doesn’t support a distinction between reactive and endogenous depression. Genes and environments have a complex interplay. Most cases of depression are a mix of genetics, biology and stressors.

Third, people with depression who appear to have a stronger genetic component to their depression report their lives are punctuated by more serious stressors.

So clinically, people with higher genetic vulnerability might benefit from learning specific techniques to manage their stress. This might help some people reduce their chance of developing depression in the first place. It might also help some people with depression reduce their ongoing exposure to stressors.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Jacob Crouse, Research Fellow in Youth Mental Health, Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney and Ian Hickie, Co-Director, Health and Policy, Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.