4 ms·

Sources suggest 3-4000 steps on average for Americans, so an extra 1800 is actually a pretty big deal. 40 minutes of walking is no small thing for many.

dundarious 3y ago
AFAIK (brisk) walking 40-90mins a day is the only exercise shown to increase longevity, and that in the US it is a target that is routinely not met. Sounds like a really substantial improvement (as long as the "brisk" target is also met).
- 0_____0 3y ago
  How is 'brisk' defined? When training for cycling I use heart rate zones to choose the right level of exertion for a workout. Zone 2 (115-145bpm roughly, in my case) is widely thought to be the lowest intensity range that yields positive training adaptation. So, I wonder- is a brisk walk maybe equivalent to low zone 2 exercise? Or lower than that even?
  - dundarious 3y ago
    It's pretty damn low. Probably even below 90bpm. Can't remember.
    - 0_____0 3y ago
      I know people with a resting HR that high!
      - dundarious 3y ago
        I'm being completely serious when I say (as a non-doctor), that unless they have a specific heart condition, I presume it would substantially lower if they did some brisk walking. To give you another idea of just how low intensity "brisk" is, one indicator I've seen used is "you can talk in a conversation with relative comfort, but you couldn't sing without getting a bit out of breath". That's how general the advice is, and that's sufficient to improve longevity. More is better, but you're already somewhat close to the bottom of the J curve just doing that (marathon level and beyond is where more is worse again, if I'm remembering correctly). This isn't my original source, but what I found that seems to agree with my memory: 10.1016/j.pop.2013.08.002 There are recommendations for other exercise in there, but none of it is related to longevity, based on my skim.

4 ms·

Sources suggest 3-4000 steps on average for Americans, so an extra 1800 is actually a pretty big deal. 40 minutes of walking is no small thing for many.

by tomtheelder 3y ago

dundarious 3y ago
AFAIK (brisk) walking 40-90mins a day is the only exercise shown to increase longevity, and that in the US it is a target that is routinely not met. Sounds like a really substantial improvement (as long as the "brisk" target is also met).
- 0_____0 3y ago
  How is 'brisk' defined? When training for cycling I use heart rate zones to choose the right level of exertion for a workout. Zone 2 (115-145bpm roughly, in my case) is widely thought to be the lowest intensity range that yields positive training adaptation. So, I wonder- is a brisk walk maybe equivalent to low zone 2 exercise? Or lower than that even?
  - dundarious 3y ago
    It's pretty damn low. Probably even below 90bpm. Can't remember.
    - 0_____0 3y ago
      I know people with a resting HR that high!
      - dundarious 3y ago
        I'm being completely serious when I say (as a non-doctor), that unless they have a specific heart condition, I presume it would substantially lower if they did some brisk walking. To give you another idea of just how low intensity "brisk" is, one indicator I've seen used is "you can talk in a conversation with relative comfort, but you couldn't sing without getting a bit out of breath". That's how general the advice is, and that's sufficient to improve longevity. More is better, but you're already somewhat close to the bottom of the J curve just doing that (marathon level and beyond is where more is worse again, if I'm remembering correctly). This isn't my original source, but what I found that seems to agree with my memory: 10.1016/j.pop.2013.08.002 There are recommendations for other exercise in there, but none of it is related to longevity, based on my skim.