If you exercise from ages 20 to 40 and then quit, are you healthier at age 60 than if you had never exercised?

Question

The specific problem, as delineated in another forum: John and Bill are identical twins. Neither has smoked; neither drinks. John spent his time between the ages of 20 and 40 in the gym, working his hind end off and generally incurring the approval of his HMO. Bill spent ages 20 to 40 sitting in front of the TV, eating all the bad stuff you're supposed to eat in front of the TV. On their 40th birthday, John gives up his health-club membership and joins Bill in front of the TV. When they reach their 60th birthday (assuming they haven't killed each other arguing over the remote or politics or ???), should John be healthier than Bill, or will he have lost whatever advantage he had by having worked out for 20 years?

Answer 1

I read somewhere that if you stop exercising regularly for as little as 6-8 weeks, all the conditioning goes back to baseline. Especially if you gain fat.

Answer 2

The 20 year interim between ages 40 and 60 would in probably negate most of the benefits from the prior years of activity. Due to the unique vagaries of individual bodies it is really not possible to determine with any certainty the outcome of this question due to the time frames involved and the fact that no two people can have identical activity levels or dietary habits for a 20 year period.

Answer 3

i dont have a concrete answer but i think john would be a bit healthier, but would be declining... see bill was in front of the tv for 40 years, while john 20. but both would be in horrid condition

Answer 4

Hmm considering you can lose any toning in your muscle fibers after 2-3 weeks, hmm let's see 20 years? He's lost it all.

Answer 5

Not sure read some health tips and articles on this site

Answer 6

huh?