![]() |
| View of Lake Toba |
![]() |
| Pictures taken by walkers comparing their walks |
![]() |
| That's our >90 min nature walk |
![]() |
| View of Lake Toba |
![]() |
| Pictures taken by walkers comparing their walks |
![]() |
| That's our >90 min nature walk |
We know for sure that having good cardiorespiratory fitness is a strong indicator of overall physical health. However, is someone with good cardiorespiratory fitness less likely to have mental health disorders or dementia later in life?
A newly published systematic review and meta-analysis provides new updates on this link across all age groups in their study (Diaz-Goni et al, 2026). 22 studies (out of 27 chosen) with 4,007,638 participants were studied in that review.
The participants were between 18 and 64 years old, who had fitness measured at baseline and followed for 4 to 29 years. Different methods were used for measuring fitness. Some studies used VO2 max, others used indirect or submaximal exercise tests while others measured peak workload and exercise duration. Note that this paper talks about cardiorespiratory fitness and NOT about VO2 max values.
Higher cardiorespiratory fitness was associated with substantially lower future risk of depression, psychotic disorders and dementia. However it did not show to clearly help with anxiety.
Each 3.5 mL/kg/ min (or 1 MET) increase in cardiorespiratory fitness was associated with a 5 percent lower risk of depression and 19 percent lower risk of dementia.
Overall, those with higher cardiorespiratory fitness had a 36 percent lower risk of depression, 39 percent lower risk of dementia and 29 percent lower risk of psychotic disorders compared to those with lower fitness.
The authors discussed a few potential mechanisms that may explain why higher cardiorespiratory fitness helps mental or neurocognitive disorders.
From a physiological perspective, improved brain blood flow, vascular function induces structural, cellular and molecular adaptations to enhance neuroplasticity which then support cognitive and emotional regulation.
Exercise and higher cardiorespiratory fitness has been shown to help maintain the size/ volume of the hippocampus. The role of the hippocampus is linked to emotion regulation, memory and cognitive resilience. Atrophy of the hippocampus has been consistently linked to mental and cognitive disorders.
Mental health disorders and neurodegeneration are definitely complex and multifactorial. Please note that the authors also did not just conclude that "exercise is the answer". They concluded that higher cardiorespiratory fitness appears to be associated with a lower risk of several mental and neurocognitive disorders and cardiorespiratory fitness may be a useful marker to sort out groups at risk.
This is also interesting to note. Because only 1 or 2 studies were available, the authors were not able to study them as a group. Those individual studies suggested that higher fitness may be associated with lower risk of bipolar related disorders, dissociative, obsessive-compulsive and stressor-related disorders, sleep apnea as well as anxiety and ADHD in children. Depression in girls also appeared lower with higher fitness.
If the fitness influencers do pick up on this topic, I hope they do not simplify it by making it as easy as doing "some exercise or sports".
So taken at face value, higher cardiorespiratory fitness seems to lower risk across a wide range of psychiatric and neurocognitive disorders. Do note that genetic predisposition, chronic pain, social support, smoking and diet are definitely confounding factors.
The evidence does continue to add up showing that higher cardiorespiratory fitness helps with physical disease and premature death, but also with better mental health, lower dementia risk and other mental disorders.
Reference
Diaz-Goni V, Lopez-Gil JF, Rodriguez-Gutierrez E et al (2026). Cardiorespiratory Fitness And Risk Of Mental Disorders And Dementia: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis. Nat Mental Health. DOI: 10.1038/s44220-026-00599-4
I shared with my patient a really interesting article I read this past week (Cochrum et al, 2021). The study assessed if running coaches could visually assess a long distance runner's running economy. These 121 running coaches were coaching high school runners to runners at international level.
Running economy was measured in 5 trained recreational runners at about 12.8 km/ hour. The runners were filmed from the front, side and rear while running on a treadmill. There was a minimum VO2 difference of 2 mL.kg/ min between adjacent runners that the coaches visually assessed.
The coaches viewed each video and ranked the runners on a scale from 1 (most economical) to 5 (least economical). They also completed a demographic questionnaire and listed running style biomechanical observations they used in determining each ranking.
There was also a statistical algorithm to determine the effect of coaching level, years of coaching, training experience, competition level, certification status and educational level on the ability to accurately rank running economy.
Get ready for this, NONE of the coaches ranked them all correctly. Only 6 percent (or 7 out of 121 coaches) managed to identify 3 correctly.
In our clinics, we sometimes blame running economy (due to cadence, stride length, running style, gait) as a cause of problems or injuries. From the research paper, it is surprisingly difficult to judge visually.
Perhaps most runners do not have a "wrong" running style or form. Running mechanics are definitely self organized. As one trains more regularly, their body would gradually find the path of least resistance. The running style would then suit their anatomy and training load after accounting for their injury history, and strength.
Much research suggests that runners often become more economical simply by running regularly, without needing to consciously change their running style and technique (Van Hooren et al, 2024)
Does this mean most runners do not need running gait correction? Since biomechanical measures did not reliably predict injury suggesting that we cannot so easily "see a risky/ wrong running gait" and fix it.
Most healthcare professionals may disagree (since it means they cannot charge their patients more) and I would encourage you to pause and take a step back. Do not assume your running style is the problem however fancy these "advance" running gait analyses may promise. Especially if you are not injured.
I am also not saying running gait analysis is useless. It can be helpful when a runner is already injured. Small adjustments like shortening stride length, width or increasing cadence can easily help runners with knee pain and help them return to running more comfortably while the underlying tissue settles.
So, if you are a healthy, non injured runner looking to run faster or even prevent injuries, it's better to work on your strength, recovery, consistency, training load and progression. Your running style may not need correction. Your body would have already figured that out, especially if you are a serious runner with more than 5 years of consistent running.
I may look at and discuss running gait in our clinic as part of my assessment, but it is usually not a immediate area of concern. Personally I do not like looking at running gait on a treadmill since it will be different compared to running outside. I would get my patients to run outside while watching them if I need to.
Unfortunately there are many other healthcare professionals who do not understand this or choose not to understand (so they can make more money), to keep up with this misconception.
References
Cochrum RG, Conners RT, Caputo JL eyt al (2021). Visual Classification Of Running Economy By Distance Running Coaches. Eur J Sp Sci. 21(8): 1111-1118. DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2020.1824020
Van Hooren B, Jukic I, Cox M et L (2025). The Relationship Between Running Biomechanics And Running Economy: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis Of Observational Studies. Soorts Med. 54(5): 1269-1316. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-024-01997-3
![]() |
| Orang Asli |
So not surprising that a recently published study by Alzobi et al (2026) found that patients who did not opt for surgery exhibited progressive hamstring muscle atrophy.
A total of 1,207 thighs were examined. There were 92 with ACL tears and the other 1,115 acted as controls. The average age of the subject group was 61± 9 years.
Over 4 years, the ACL deficit thighs were smaller by an average of 28.18 mm, all due to progressive hamstring atrophy. The differences ranged from 13.92 to 42.43 mm smaller. The sartorius muscle also atrophied by an average of 3.02 mm.
There were no significant differences in the quadriceps or adductor cross sectional area. hamstring force was decreased significantly whereas quadriceps force showed no significant change.
The researchers concluded that muscle deterioration occurred in the posterior thigh muscles (hamstrings) with minimal changes in the front thigh muscles (quadriceps) over time. And for ACL deficient knees, it is really important to target long term rehabilitation strategies focusing on hamstring preservation.
We already know that one of the reasons women sustained ACL tears is that their hamstrings were significantly weaker than their quadriceps muscle strength.
If you have been reading our previous blog articles, you already know that the quadriceps (thigh muscles) and gastrocnemius (calf muscles) increases load on the ACL due to anterior shearing forces at the tibia (shin bone). This is especially so when the knee is straightened (Maniar et al, 2022).
The hamstrings and soleus (deeper calf muscles) help to unload the ACL by generating posterior tibial shearing forces (Maniar et al, 2022).
So for those of you who have torn your ACL, whether or not you choose to go for surgery, make sure you focus on your hamstrings and soleus muscles instead.
References
Alzobi O, Mohajer B, Fleuriscar J et al (2026). Thigh Muscle Changes In The ACL-Deficient Knee: A 4-Year Lonitudinal MRI Study of 1,207 Patients. JBJS Am. 108(3): 219-226. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.25.0064
Maniar N, Cole MH, Bryant AL et al (2022). Muscle Force Contributions To Anterior Cruciate Ligament Loading Sports Med. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-022-016743