4 ms·

I’m honestly struggling to figure out how I would fit 2 hours of cardio into my daily routine.

nemomarx 5mo ago
Up and down your stairs at home, walking to shops or work, or dedicated gym / biking / walk time before bed is basically it. If you have a tight schedule that can be very hard and if you live in the wrong type of housing it's also harder unfortunately
pimterry 5mo ago
It's lower than it sounds: this time includes even relatively gentle exercise (a brisk walk) and although it's not explicit here most other uses of similar metrics I've seen generally count hard cardio minutes as 2x, e.g. the NHS guidelines (https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/exercise/physical-activity-guidelines-for-adults-aged-19-to-64/ https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/exercise/physical-activity-guid...) this references are 150 mins moderate exercise or 75 mins vigorous.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 5mo ago
  Does lifting weights count as vigorous though? Or strictly cardio? Because if you need to fit 560 minutes of cardio and then also fit weight lifting 3 times a week that's a lot of time working out
  - nickburns 5mo ago
    > Does lifting weights count as vigorous though? In my own experience, no. Strictly cardio. The number of squats you'd have to do to constitue even five minutes of vigorous activity is practicably impossible. Lifting weights could certainly count/classify as moderate activity though, just without as much 'bang for your buck' as dedicated aerobic exercise.
  - jerlam 5mo ago
    It would depend on how high your heart rate goes and stays during lifting weights, because everyone lifts weights differently. I would say that it's not likely based on my own personal experience, and seeing others' time ratios for lifting vs resting.
  - antisthenes 5mo ago
    In my experience lifting weights helps you grow enough muscle to actually be able to do 600 minutes of cardio. With small/insufficient muscle size, you simply run out of stored glycogen before you get tired cardiovascularly. > Because if you need to fit 560 minutes of cardio and then also fit weight lifting 3 times a week that's a lot of time working out Proper exercise is absolutely a lifestyle change and a big commitment. Not only do you have to exercise several hours a week, but also eat healthier macros and fix your sleep to make sure most of the benefits stick and aren't wasted. People try to half-ass it all the time by doing weird diets or going on 15 minutes walk during their lunch break, and yes it's better than nothing, but not by much.
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 5mo ago
      I don't understand how walking in the study is considerate moderate. Like my heartrate for sure goes higher when lifting weights than when I walk. If I walk fast, it might get closer, but I am not that confident. 300 minutes of HIIT per week are equal to 10 HIIT sessions per week, I would argue that's outright impossible, the body cannot handle that, I don't think even an Olympic athlete can handle more than 3 times per week HIIT. Vigorous might be possible, that's still 5 times 1 hour cardio sessions, on top of which you have to add 3 sessions of weight lifting for bone density, on top of which you have to add balance training and stretching. There isn't enough time in a day to do that if you work, let alone if you have kids
      - j_w 5mo ago
        HIIT is far beyond vigorous. Vigorous would be Z2/3 cardio, so like 120-160 BPM for most adults. Moderate would be Z1 90-120. Once you are capable of doing cardio consistently in Z4/5 with HIIT and tempo training you really don't need to worry about "am I doing enough exercise."
        Fire-Dragon-DoL 5mo ago
        I mean, according to this study I would still need that. I can average 165 BPM (because I'm trained, used to average 175) and max 180 in a session. But that's all the cardio I get. I walk 20 minutes per day to bring the kids to school, and lift weight. Weight lifting doesn't count, but I tested yesterday and I average 110 bpm during a workout (it's constant ups-and-downs). Based on that, it would count for moderate exercise. The time investment is steep if we cannot count weight lifting, there is no escape.
  - rsynnott 5mo ago
    > Because if you need to fit 560 minutes of cardio and then also fit weight lifting 3 times a week that's a lot of time working out ... I mean that seems kinda orthogonal. No-one's requiring you to do weight training three times a week. (But no, it presumably wouldn't count)
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 5mo ago
      No of course, but to keep bone density up as you age, weight lifting is your best bet, while 560 minutes of cardio is your best bet for the heart it seems
JimDabell 5mo ago
Two hours of cardio into your daily routine is ~40% higher than the upper bound suggested by the article. A lot of people can get this level of exercise by walking or cycling to work. Even for those people that can’t, it’s something to consider the next time you are changing jobs or moving house.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

Up and down your stairs at home, walking to shops or work, or dedicated gym / biking / walk time before bed is basically it. If you have a tight schedule that can be very hard and if you live in the wrong type of housing it's also harder unfortunately

pimterry 5mo ago

It's lower than it sounds: this time includes even relatively gentle exercise (a brisk walk) and although it's not explicit here most other uses of similar metrics I've seen generally count hard cardio minutes as 2x, e.g. the NHS guidelines (https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/exercise/physical-activity-guidelines-for-adults-aged-19-to-64/ https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/exercise/physical-activity-guid...) this references are 150 mins moderate exercise or 75 mins vigorous.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 5mo ago
Does lifting weights count as vigorous though? Or strictly cardio? Because if you need to fit 560 minutes of cardio and then also fit weight lifting 3 times a week that's a lot of time working out
- nickburns 5mo ago
  > Does lifting weights count as vigorous though? In my own experience, no. Strictly cardio. The number of squats you'd have to do to constitue even five minutes of vigorous activity is practicably impossible. Lifting weights could certainly count/classify as moderate activity though, just without as much 'bang for your buck' as dedicated aerobic exercise.
- jerlam 5mo ago
  It would depend on how high your heart rate goes and stays during lifting weights, because everyone lifts weights differently. I would say that it's not likely based on my own personal experience, and seeing others' time ratios for lifting vs resting.
- antisthenes 5mo ago
  In my experience lifting weights helps you grow enough muscle to actually be able to do 600 minutes of cardio. With small/insufficient muscle size, you simply run out of stored glycogen before you get tired cardiovascularly. > Because if you need to fit 560 minutes of cardio and then also fit weight lifting 3 times a week that's a lot of time working out Proper exercise is absolutely a lifestyle change and a big commitment. Not only do you have to exercise several hours a week, but also eat healthier macros and fix your sleep to make sure most of the benefits stick and aren't wasted. People try to half-ass it all the time by doing weird diets or going on 15 minutes walk during their lunch break, and yes it's better than nothing, but not by much.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 5mo ago
    I don't understand how walking in the study is considerate moderate. Like my heartrate for sure goes higher when lifting weights than when I walk. If I walk fast, it might get closer, but I am not that confident. 300 minutes of HIIT per week are equal to 10 HIIT sessions per week, I would argue that's outright impossible, the body cannot handle that, I don't think even an Olympic athlete can handle more than 3 times per week HIIT. Vigorous might be possible, that's still 5 times 1 hour cardio sessions, on top of which you have to add 3 sessions of weight lifting for bone density, on top of which you have to add balance training and stretching. There isn't enough time in a day to do that if you work, let alone if you have kids
    - j_w 5mo ago
      HIIT is far beyond vigorous. Vigorous would be Z2/3 cardio, so like 120-160 BPM for most adults. Moderate would be Z1 90-120. Once you are capable of doing cardio consistently in Z4/5 with HIIT and tempo training you really don't need to worry about "am I doing enough exercise."
      - Fire-Dragon-DoL 5mo ago
        I mean, according to this study I would still need that. I can average 165 BPM (because I'm trained, used to average 175) and max 180 in a session. But that's all the cardio I get. I walk 20 minutes per day to bring the kids to school, and lift weight. Weight lifting doesn't count, but I tested yesterday and I average 110 bpm during a workout (it's constant ups-and-downs). Based on that, it would count for moderate exercise. The time investment is steep if we cannot count weight lifting, there is no escape.
- rsynnott 5mo ago
  > Because if you need to fit 560 minutes of cardio and then also fit weight lifting 3 times a week that's a lot of time working out ... I mean that seems kinda orthogonal. No-one's requiring you to do weight training three times a week. (But no, it presumably wouldn't count)
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 5mo ago
    No of course, but to keep bone density up as you age, weight lifting is your best bet, while 560 minutes of cardio is your best bet for the heart it seems

JimDabell 5mo ago

Two hours of cardio into your daily routine is ~40% higher than the upper bound suggested by the article. A lot of people can get this level of exercise by walking or cycling to work. Even for those people that can’t, it’s something to consider the next time you are changing jobs or moving house.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]