11–20 of 107 posts
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.
I wonder if healthy diet also plays role in the outcome.
> 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.
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.
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.
Lifespan != healthspan
That'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.
> 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.…
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Jokes aside, 10 hours a week is quite something. Good that they mention that 2-3 hours is also already beneficial.