4 ms·
I don't think 30 mins, 3 times a week of exercise is remotely close only stretching back a few decades, my grandfather was working his own land as a subsistenc
by 0zemp2c 3y ago
I don't think 30 mins, 3 times a week of exercise is remotely close
only stretching back a few decades, my grandfather was working his own land as a subsistence farmer without much "automation"...probably doing the equivalent of three hours of CrossFit a day, basically every day. looking back at pics of him now...he was strapped, even in his late 70s (what was also known as "normal").
my genetics probably come from hundreds of generations of people who led similar lives, yours too
I achieved my "normal" body weight with a minimum of two+ hours per day, every day, of exercise...just like all of my ancestors who shaped my genes
90 mins a week is probably not enough to even slow down weight gain, we are dramatically underestimating how much exercise we need, and dramatically underestimating how much we need to clean up our diets...in 1880 basically anyone doing subsistence farming (most people) was the equivalent of a CrossFit nut with a "clean" diet...everyone
- escapedmoose 3y agoI don’t have the energy to refute these claims one by one, but I would recommend you do some more research into the lifestyles and health conditions of previous generations. Glad you’ve found something that works for you though
- comfypotato 3y ago5 hours per week of 3 METs (a 2.5mph walk is 3 METs) reduces your risk of Cardiac disease by 70%. This is from one of the bigger meta analyses I’ve ever read. The US’s exercise guidelines are based on it. In general more is better, but it’s diminishing returns, and you could argue that more time than this could be better spent doing other healthy tasks.
- QuercusMax 3y agoNever heard the term MET before- it's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent_of_task https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent_of_task