4 ms·
+1. I surf occasionally, and go rock climbing a couple times a week. Compared to the "average American" I suspect I'm pretty active. Compared to other rock clim
by pinkmuffinere 1y ago
+1. I surf occasionally, and go rock climbing a couple times a week. Compared to the "average American" I suspect I'm pretty active. Compared to other rock climbers and surfers, I'm probably relatively inactive. If I'm not concerned about improving at these hobbies, and just want 80% of the health benefit of being active, am I achieving it? Or am I still below?
Edit: From the linked paper:
'''
2.1 Subject Recruitment
Nineteen male subjects ((41.9 ± 13.8 years; 82.6 ± 13.9 kg)) participated in this study and were
assigned a research arm based upon meeting one of the following criteria related to physical
activity:
- Sedentary (SED): n= 10. Does not perform exercise regularly or elevate heart rate outside
of daily tasks
- Active (AC): n=10. Performs aerobic exercise for at least 150 minutes per week, and has
at least a six-month history of doing so
'''
I bet that "Performs aerobic exercise for at least 150 minutes per week" is related to some standard advice (but I'm too lazy to confirm that. I guess that provides an easy measuring stick to decide if we're being 'active enough'
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Insanity 1y agoI am in a similar boat as you. I go bouldering twice a week for about 2h per session, I swim once a week for 45 minutes, and I walk an hour each day during my commute. But I would be interested to know how much this contributes to keeping me healthy.
- justinator 1y agoHealth is not the same as performance. You can have the former (sounds like you do to me), without the latter (but you're working on it -- what's the rush, going to the Olympics any time soon?). The extreme of "performance" is rarely healthy.