Which Sport is Best for Longevity?

Highlights

• Racket sports and swimming have shown the best longevity outcomes in current research
• Sports that include a social aspect tend to be most beneficial for extending lifespan
• Sports that incorporate bursts of intensity, as well as whole-body movements, tend to show better results in studies
• When recommending sports for longevity, it is important to consider factors that will impact adherence

Introduction

We know that physical activity is crucial for health and longevity. Many different sports can help introduce it into your client’s lifestyle. Are some of them better for longevity than others? It is a hard question to answer, but research suggests some differences exist. You may encounter clients that are unsure which sport to pursue, that need to choose one sport due to time constraints, or just want reassurance about their sport of choice. Understanding how different sports influence longevity can help you offer the best advice.

‍

‍

Every sport offers a different range of benefits

Studies are consistently highlighting the health and longevity benefits of regular exercise. Even low levels of physical activity show a 20% reduced risk of death compared to being sedentary (1). But many clients want to go beyond the basics. There is a rising interest in ways to optimize exercise routines. Choosing the right sport is certainly one of them. For example, a study on elderly women found that playing table tennis improved cognitive function more than walking, dancing, or resistance training (2). It is clear that each sport offers a unique set of benefits, which also applies to lifespan.

Research on British adults

In 2017, a study of more than 80000 British adults aimed to answer the question of which sport is best for longevity. They followed up with each participant after an average of 9,2 years to see which sports were associated with the lowest mortality. The first found that if participants were active, no matter how much of which sport they did, they reduced their risk of death by 28% compared to inactive participants (3).

A detailed analysis revealed that compared to inactive participants, the risk of death from any cause was 47% lower among those who played racket sports such as badminton, tennis, or squash, 28% lower for swimmers, 27% lower among those who did aerobics, and 15% lower for cyclists. They saw the weakest improvements for joggers.

Copenhagen city study

Another interesting study comparing outcomes for different sports was published in 2018. It was based on data from the large Copenhagen City Heart Study, which included over 8500 participants with an average follow-up of 25 years. The researchers found that compared to sedentary people, those who played tennis gained an extra 9,7 years to their lifespan. Other sports had comparatively lower benefits, with badminton offering 6,2 extra years, soccer 4,7 years, cycling 3,7 years, swimming 3,4 years, jogging 3,2 years, calisthenics 3,1 years, and health club activities such as running on the treadmill and weight lifting 1,5 years. These results were adjusted for confounding factors such as smoking, education, income, alcohol consumption, and diabetes.

‍

‍

The social aspect of sports is key

There are several similarities we can see in both of the above-mentioned large observational studies. The authors of the Copenhagen study highlighted the social aspect of sports. We can see that most of the best longevity sports in the studies require another person or a group to play. This seems to be consistent with what is observed in the Blue Zones, places where people live exceptionally long and healthy lives compared to the rest of the world. Strong involvement in a community is a theme observed in every single Blue Zone (5).

The intensity and whole-body movements

Both studies also suggest that it matters what types of physical activity a given sport requires. Researchers from the British study commented that the heart has to work harder during sports that engage both arms and legs, such as swimming or racket sports. Swimming is also non-weight bearing, allowing older adults to exercise at a higher intensity without risking injury. Researchers from the Copenhagen study said that bursts of intensity, usage of large muscle groups, and whole-body movements were all hallmarks of sports that showed the best results. Sports that require a steady state effort without much variation, such as jogging, did not do as well.

This is in line with The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. They call for 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity per week and regular resistance and balance training (6). The most longevity-friendly sports tend to combine a lot of different aspects of fitness in a single bout of exercise.

Adherence considerations

When identifying the best sport for longevity, it is important to consider factors impacting adherence. According to research, tennis may be the best sport, but if it is not a sport that your client is likely to implement into their routine, it will not be a beneficial choice. There are a lot of factors that determine if your client will stick to a given sport. The following three come up in the majority of research looking at exercise adherence (7).

• Social support. Support from peers, staff, or family helps establish positive social interactions and feelings of belonging to a group.
• Self-efficacy and competence. Your client’s perception that they can do well in a given sport is an important aspect to evaluate.
• Integration into daily life. The client’s preferences, background, and schedule have to be considered.

When recommending a sport to your client, always consider these three factors. They will only get the full benefits of doing a sport if it becomes a part of their routine.

‍

‍

Conclusions

Based on observational research, tennis, badminton, squash, and other racket sports appear to be the best choice for longevity. One reason is that these sports include a social aspect. You need someone to play with and you benefit from being a part of a local club or community. These sports also challenge the body in a variety of ways. They include bursts of intensity and more complex whole-body movements compared to the steady-state effort during jogging. It is essential to remember that all sports are beneficial compared to being sedentary. This is why you should consider factors that will impact adherence when discussing the choice of a sport with your clients.

References

1. Arem H et al. Leisure time physical activity and mortality: a detailed pooled analysis of the dose-response relationship. JAMA internal medicine 2015;175(6):959-67. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0533
2. Jeoung BJ. Relationships of exercise with frailty, depression, and cognitive function in older women. Journal of exercise rehabilitation 2014;10(5):291-4. 10.12965/jer.140128
3. Oja P, Kelly P, Pedisic Z, Titze S, Bauman A, Foster C, Hamer M, Hillsdon M, Stamatakis E. Associations of specific types of sports and exercise with all-cause and cardiovascular-disease mortality: a cohort study of 80 306 British adults. British journal of sports medicine 2017;51(10):812-7. 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096822
4. Schnohr P, O'Keefe JH, Holtermann A, Lavie CJ, Lange P, Jensen GB, Marott JL. Various Leisure-Time Physical Activities Associated With Widely Divergent Life Expectancies: The Copenhagen City Heart Study. Mayo Clinic proceedings 2018;93(12):1775-85. 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.06.025
5. Marston HR, Niles-Yokum K, Silva PA. A Commentary on Blue Zones®: A Critical Review of Age-Friendly Environments in the 21st Century and Beyond. International journal of environmental research and public health 2021;18(2):837. 10.3390/ijerph18020837
6. Piercy KL, Troiano RP, Ballard RM, Carlson SA, Fulton JE, Galuska DA, George SM, Olson RD. The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. JAMA 2018;320(19):2020-8. 10.1001/jama.2018.14854
7. Collado-Mateo D et al. Key Factors Associated with Adherence to Physical Exercise in Patients with Chronic Diseases and Older Adults: An Umbrella Review. International journal of environmental research and public health 2021;18(4):2023. 10.3390/ijerph18042023

‍