6 ms·
560-610 minutes of exercise a week needed for substantial heart benefits
- josefritzishere 5mo ago9-10 hours seems like a lot. That's very discouraging.
- roryirvine 5mo agoI'm genuinely surprised to read people saying this. Walking, housework, gardening, etc are all classed as moderate for this purpose, whilst things like running or lifting weights are vigorous and count double. So we're only talking about a couple of dedicated exercise sessions a week, on top of an hour of non-sedentary activities each a day.
- stevenwoo 5mo agoThis is a change from the prior roughly 150 minutes and looks to scale depending upon the subject's starting fitness - higher fitness can get by with less, lower fitness needs to hit the higher duration numbers.
- pmarreck 5mo agoCool, now combine this with being a parent of young kids in a 2-income family without any other assistance.
- georgeecollins 5mo agoI wonder why this gets downvoted. Nowadays people are aware of what they sacrifice economically and physically when they have kids. It changes the incentives.
- kaffekaka 5mo agoPeople choose between staying physically fit or have kids? I find that hard to believe.
- giwook 5mo agoIt's difficult but where there's a will there's a way. I know plenty of parents who find time to get exercise in. And even if you don't hit ~600 minutes in a week, any amount of exercise is beneficial. Go for a run pushing your kids in the stroller (even more cardiovascular benefit than just running by itself tbh). Do a bunch of squats at home while cradling your toddler (it becomes funtime for them, like they're on a mini rollercoaster ride). Take your kids for a hike, whether they're tiny and need to be brought along in a baby carrier or they can walk by themselves. Basically, you can make it happen if you really want it to happen.
- InitialLastName 5mo agoSide benefit: Your kids grow up seeing you build habits that keep you healthy long-term. Eventually, they get involved and that helps them learn self-care skills. Plus, going for a walk/run in the stroller with Dad has to be developmentally healthier than staring at a tablet on the couch.
- sva_ 5mo agoI frequently see couples who have a baby buggy with big wheels that allows jogging. Or a trailer for the bike. Or a backpack where you can put a baby on top.
- dec0dedab0de 5mo agoIt's even easier with young kids, you just play with them. Once they get older and too cool it becomes a pain.
- bryanlarsen 5mo ago"Moderate exercise" is not a very high bar. Chores and playing with your kids probably count. There's a good chance you're already getting the required amount.
- Tade0 5mo agoI have two kids and recently I started cycling to work. I can get maybe half the new recommended number on a good week. That apparently translates to a 20% reduction. Upon reading the article: > The average age was 57 years and 56% were female and 96% were white. My take is that all this study says is that's kind of late to try to tackle this problem in one's 50s. That being said it's nice to know that I could maybe get a 30% reduction if I were to start spitting my lungs out at this age doing 10h of intense cardio.
- elevation 5mo ago> Cool, now combine this with being a parent of young kids in a 2-income family without any other assistance. For anyone literally in this situation: start small and consistent. Your goal is not to pencil in 10 hours a week of cardio. Instead, try to do 30 seconds of the same calisthenics exercise with your child before work/school consistently for 6 months. Perhaps pushups. Over time you'll find the 30 seconds grows because you want it to. You might learn that warming up with jumping jacks helps you do pushups more comfortably. You might watch videos with your child about pushup variations and incorporate them into your routine together. Perhaps invest a few $$ into small equipment to support activities you're already doing, like pushup handles. Or maybe an over-the-door pullup bar. Your routine won't be "optimal" in the 600 minutes sense, but a suboptimal routine that you do consistently is infinitely better for you than an ideal routine you don't, and it can expand/contract based on your needs.
- Simulacra 5mo agoI think this would be tough for a lot of people ... that's 10 hours of exercise. I walk 5+ miles a day which takes me roughly an hour and a half. I'm only getting five to 7 hours.. Not sure I have the time in the day to add another three.
- b0sk 5mo agothat's assuming you are walking at a fairly brisk pace.. the article says > 560 and 610 minutes a week of moderate to vigorous physical activity
- lostmsu 5mo agoAt this rate you get more lifespan not exercising. 10h a week out of your waking time is about 9%. No way your heart health gonna give you that much.
- giwook 5mo agoLifespan != healthspan
- commandlinefan 5mo agoI don't know... If you're actually exercising an hour and a half each day, every day, you're going to be incurring some pretty regular exercise related injuries and degeneration. Your heart might like all that running, but your knees are going to make you regret it.
- kaffekaka 5mo agoThe knees need exercise to be well. Nutrients are passed into meniscus etc by pressure cycling.
- giwook 5mo agoRunning is not the only form of exercise. There are plenty of low impact forms of exercise out there that can get you into any zone of cardio you want.
- otherme123 5mo agoNowadays exercising might mean walk at decent pace. People acts like they are asking you to run 90 minutes daily at marathon record pace, when they are actually saying to walk briskly for trips less than a mile, or take the stairs instead of the elevator. Only a few people take benefit from running heavier than 5 km (3 miles) in 30 minutes every other day. The rest of you exercise should come from anything that is not driving or browsing the web.
- toasty228 5mo ago> If you're actually exercising an hour and a half each day, every day, you're going to be incurring some pretty regular exercise related injuries and degeneration The human body evolved for that, and much more, you're not training 90 min per day at athlete level performance, you'll be fine... Of course if you run 10 hours per week with bad technique you're going to fuck your shit up, but you can easily alternate 60 min of gym/cardio every day with very little chance of injuries + an evening 30min "brisk" walk or 30 min of bicycle commute. It's your body, do as you want, but chances are you exercise (way) too little, not too much
- umvi 5mo agoThat's like 90 minutes of exercise a day if you take zero rest days... Not happening for most people. I think even marathon training requires less than 90 minutes a day on average.
- bitexploder 5mo agoModerate is not vigorous. They mean being active and walking, etc.
- jerlam 5mo agoThe imprecise language in these studies often means people can interpret them in whatever way they want. This study defines moderate as "brisk" walking, suggesting that it's not just walking. Athletes live in their own bubble where "vigorous" means "maximal".
- bitexploder 5mo agoRight. It is a weakness and makes the meta analyses super important. I can't see all but trained athletes doing even low zone cardio for that much time. But I can see an active person walking, moving around, 12K steps, with a couple hours of genuine workouts / wk hitting that threshold. That matches with how I understand the rest of the studies on this better as well.
- j_w 5mo agoThe easiest thing for people to do if they aren't confident about their level of stress (moderate vs vigorous vs maximal) is to wear a smart watch with a HR monitor. They aren't perfect (chest straps better yada yada) but you can see your HR zones and if you are in Z1 you are moderate, Z2/3 vigorous. The language isn't that precise because a trained marathoner is doing 7 minute miles for two hours at 50% of the populations resting heart rate.
- jerlam 5mo agoI've got multiple wearables and they all seem to agree that normal walking does nothing for me. Barely increases my heart rate, not even Z1. Nor does "doing chores" which seems even more nebulous. But that's just a data point of one.
- comrade1234 5mo agoA lot of this sounds very different than other studies that have said small amounts of exercise have substantial benefits. I was always a little suspicious when they would say that you only need moderate exercise like walking because when you do vigorous exercise your blood vessels expand up to 3x diameter, keeping your arteries supple and elastic. You just don't get that by walking.
- jimbokun 5mo agoThis study also shows a noticeable benefit from lower exercise levels, just not nearly as much as very high exercise levels.
- crazyfingers 5mo agoAnd many studies that show more exercise volume at high intensity is associated with higher MACE risk.
- marricks 5mo ago> Those adults who met the 150 minute a week guideline on exercise experienced a modest 8-9% reduction in cardiovascular risk 30%+ reduction from 10 hours a week of exercise sounds ideal, but 9% isn't nothing.
- alsetmusic 5mo ago> 10 hours a week of exercise Honestly, only a hypochondriac or a narcissist would consider 10h/w acceptable. Everyone is too busy trying to stay alive. The number only makes sense if you're a body-builder or an influencer who trades on appearance.
- ndr 5mo agoEvolution didn't spend millions of years so we could sit 8 hours a day and slouch through the rest.
- bryanlarsen 5mo ago10h/week of moderate exercise should be straight forward. moderate exercise includes stuff like cleaning and other chores, playing with your kids, walking to the corner store, et cetera.
- jere 5mo agoI don't think those count as "moderate to vigorous" exercise, at least for most of the time you're doing any of them.
- nickburns 5mo agoConsider the speed/vigor with which one does something, whatever it might be. It can be quite the range.
- bryanlarsen 5mo agoThe study specifically includes walking in their list of exercises. You probably do want a mix of exercises -- 90 minutes of vigorous exercise a week is a standard recommendation, but 10h a week of vigorous exercise is probably contraindicated for the average 57 year old in the study. Walking is good exercise for anybody who is out of shape.
- Ronsenshi 5mo agoImportant point is that study was done on participants with average age of 57. And by "substantial" benefit they mean reduction in cardiovascular events by 30% compared to around 10% for people who do 150 minutes of exercise a week. I wonder if healthy diet also plays role in the outcome.
- dumbdumb125 5mo agoThere are multiple comprehensive umbrella reviews on the subject. Synthesis of knowledge synthesis. Tens of thousands of study subjects over decades and decades. 15 MET hours above 3 METs gain 70% of the possible benefits from cardio. Not exactly contradictory results, but it makes this sound like bullshit.
- jimbokun 5mo agoWhat’s a MET hour?
- nickburns 5mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent_of_task https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent_of_task
- dumbdumb125 5mo agoMET is a measure of cardio exertion. Walking briskly is 3. Moderate running is 6. These are just examples. An hour spent at 3 MET is 3 MET hours.
- noelwelsh 5mo ago> Those adults who met the 150 minute a week guideline on exercise experienced a modest 8-9% reduction in cardiovascular risk, the study found. This was consistent across all levels of fitness. > In order to achieve substantial protection, classed as a greater than 30% risk reduction, between 560 and 610 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise a week was needed. So 30 minutes a day is still good, but more is better. Seems reasonable. Also exercise doesn't mean planned / scheduled exercise, like going to the gym. Daily activities can count, like cycling to the train station for example. Which gets to one of my favorite hobby horses: increasing exercise at the population level is an urban design problem.
- giwook 5mo agoUrban design can help, but only for those who actually want to take the 'hard' route. Most people I know would rather take a subway or call an uber for anything above 20 minutes of walking (which makes me sad).
- bojan 5mo ago20 minutes of walking is a perfect bicycle distance.
- jimbokun 5mo agoWalking to subway station and from destination subway station to final destination is significantly more walking time than using a car from home to final destination.
- volkk 5mo agoi think that's a chicken and egg cultural problem. build cities in a way where bicycles/walking is encouraged, then over time you'll have people that want to do exactly that.
- bluefirebrand 5mo agoI used to live in a very walkable part of Victoria BC, which was great! Unfortunately I was eventually priced out, and the job market there was very competitive so I had to move I wound up in a fairly walkable part of Calgary. But Calgary is not a super walkable or bikeable city. Transit here is at best ok, and winter gets very cold. There are some good bike paths but you have to be pretty determined to use them when it snows or it's -40 out. I guess what I'm saying is urban design is super important, but geography has a say too. We don't all get to live in the relatively mild west coast weather.
- giwook 5mo agoI'm not convinced. I may be misunderstanding how the study was conducted, but it sounds like a more reasonable conclusion to draw from the study is that those who tend to have better health outcomes and longer healthspans/lifespans are the ones who also are willing to prioritize their health and physical fitness and are willing to spend this much time on exercise. The average age of participants in the study was 57, so you're already narrowing in on a very specific and pretty narrow subset of the population when you're looking at seniors who are also spending 10 hours a week on exercise. While 560-610 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity certainly helps, I'd think these are individuals who are generally abstaining from smoking, will try to eat healthy at least moderately often, stay away from overconsumption of fast food or alcohol, etc. Basically, it sounds like there is a degree of correlation here between habits and outcomes that is being conflated with causation.
- ianbooker 5mo agoConfounders are included and therefore controlled for, and causality can be assumed since the DV is an event/hazard. This is also the reason you end up with the seemingly high average...
- declan_roberts 5mo agoCombined with retatrutide or other GLP-1 agonist peptides and that number is probably significantly smaller.
- stared 5mo agoWithout a control group, correlation is not causation. So the opening sentence is misleading, exaggerated, or maybe even plain false: > Adults should aim to do between 560 and 610 minutes a week of moderate to vigorous physical activity to achieve a substantial reduction in the risk of heart attacks and stroke, suggest the findings of an observational study published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine. It is highly likely that healthier people exercise more (and the bedridden exercise way less). Also, who exercise more: people who care about their health in general, who don't overwork themselves, who have disposable time and income. For example, an older person's walking pace is strongly correlated with their remaining life years. If we force these people to walk faster, they won't outrun death - we would very likely just increase their mortality.
- jeffbee 5mo agoThe headline relies entirely on the definition of "substantial". Anyway, the statistics and logic of the paper appear sound at first reading, but I'm interested in why they censored participants with cycling VO2(max) over 55 as "implausible". Well, on second thought, a potential flaw of this analysis is that calculating MVPA from medical accelerometer data has a huge blind spot. Bicycling is invisible to those devices, as is any other activity that doesn't move your wrist, like leg presses.
- solumos 5mo ago> Adults should aim to do between 560 and 610 minutes a week of moderate to vigorous physical activity > Observational study Can we stop doing this please?
- bzmrgonz 5mo agowow, that's a lot of time... I wonder if we can offset that time by doing one HIIT exercise a week. there's a group of people trying to crank up SPRINTING-SATURDAYS as a thing on youtube (sprintingproject). I like the idea because the body has 6 days to recover, there's no way to cause damage with 6 day recovery.
- croes 5mo agoHow wealthy are those who have time to spend 10 hours on exercise?
- zingababba 5mo agoI mean I get you are trying to imply this is some type of luxury but I've been exercising almost daily my entire life from when I was an unemployed teenager to now at 40yo making a respectable living. It has absolutely nothing to do with wealth. Hell during a rough spot in my life I was homeless for a week and was still working out daily. For me it's literally my anti-depressant. What it honestly comes down to is people absolutely love to make excuses, simple as.
- croes 5mo agoUsing yourself as sole data point is rather useless. Time is a limiting factor and wealth often means more leasure time https://www.fittechglobal.com/fit-tech-features/Research-Wealthy-weekend-warriors/32118 https://www.fittechglobal.com/fit-tech-features/Research-Wea...
- sva_ 5mo agoIt makes me feel better about my cycling addiction. Although I wonder how healthy ultra distances are (cycling all day, which I frequently do on at least 1 day of the weekend)
- oogabooga67 5mo agoSo this study was on adults aged 40-69, over 8 years or so. And then they had 500k possible people, of which 200k or so had accelerometer data, and then 17k or so of those actually had done a vo2max test, which they admit might select for a slightly healthier population. I don't know if you can say much if anything close to the headline from looking at this data. I guess the one interesting thing is that they only had accelerometer data, so i guess maybe this wouldnt undercount activity minutes the way my garmin does (i can do a lot before i cross 100bpm or whatever the threshold is). It seems like a lot here depends on how you try to measure this activity. Garmin uses the hr mostly i think so basically most of my stepcount is ignored. Pure accelerometer data underrepresents resistance training and overrepresents relatively low energy fidgeting. I feel like this is a garbage study tbh. Or a mid study with a garbage headline slapped on it.
- crazyfingers 5mo agoDubious.
- maxglute 5mo agoMethod uses accelerometer data... how does that map to lifting, or seems like it doesn't it averages out rest time and lift itme
- GeoAtreides 5mo agopeople: oh noes who has time to exercise every day so hard so difficult also people: 2h average a day doomscrolling on tiktok
- burnt-resistor 5mo agoI guess I need to become a lumberjack now then. AI-resistant and exercise.