Refutes the headline? Only if you failed to RTFA. There are two critical points. Point the first, and IMHO the most important, is the rest of the paragraph tha

Refutes the headline? Only if you failed to RTFA. There are two critical points. Point the first, and IMHO the most important, is the rest of the paragraph that makes the "60 to 75 minutes" statement: the people weren’t necessarily healthy, just alive. In other words, the exercise was sufficient to reduce risks of mortality, but insufficient to actually improve health. That's a damning condemnation of the effects of excessive sitting if ever I've read one: Sit too long and your health is pooched, even if you exercise enough to survive. Point the second, the writer points out that exercise recommendations are a balance between what will bring the most benefit and what (most) people will actually do. Very few people will exercise 60 to 75 minutes a day... ...and I suspect that if they knew that that amount of exercise would have positive survival benefit but negligible health benefit they'd say to hell with it, and just keep sitting. Hence explicit and implicit recommendations from the article: Exercise 150 minutes a week (more if you can), sit less (a lot less).