Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

560-610 minutes of exercise a week needed for substantial heart benefits

bmjgroup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 107 posts

Re: 560-610 minutes of exercise a week needed for substantial heart benefits

#31

Post by bryanlarsen »

alsetmusic wrote: post #18
marricks wrote: post #9

> 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.

> 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.

10h/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.

Re: 560-610 minutes of exercise a week needed for substantial heart benefits

#32

Post by jimbokun »

comrade1234 wrote: post #7

A 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.

This study also shows a noticeable benefit from lower exercise levels, just not nearly as much as very high exercise levels.

Re: 560-610 minutes of exercise a week needed for substantial heart benefits

#33

Post by sva_ »

pmarreck wrote: post #3

Cool, now combine this with being a parent of young kids in a 2-income family without any other assistance.

I 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.

Re: 560-610 minutes of exercise a week needed for substantial heart benefits

#34

Post by declan_roberts »

lostmsu wrote: post #5

At 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.

The joke is that jogging will add years to your life, but you'll have spent those years jogging.

Re: 560-610 minutes of exercise a week needed for substantial heart benefits

#35

Post by dec0dedab0de »

pmarreck wrote: post #3

Cool, now combine this with being a parent of young kids in a 2-income family without any other assistance.

It's even easier with young kids, you just play with them. Once they get older and too cool it becomes a pain.

Re: 560-610 minutes of exercise a week needed for substantial heart benefits

#36

Post by jimbokun »

dumbdumb125 wrote: post #11

There 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.

What’s a MET hour?

Re: 560-610 minutes of exercise a week needed for substantial heart benefits

#37

Post by stared »

Without 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.

Re: 560-610 minutes of exercise a week needed for substantial heart benefits

#38

Post by nemomarx »

jimbokun wrote: post #26
marricks wrote: post #9

> 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.

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

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

Re: 560-610 minutes of exercise a week needed for substantial heart benefits

#39

Post by volkk »

giwook wrote: post #17
noelwelsh wrote: post #13

> 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.…

Urban 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).

i 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.

Re: 560-610 minutes of exercise a week needed for substantial heart benefits

#40

Post by jeffbee »

The 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.

Post reply on HN