Live data from Hacker News

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

bmjgroup.com

21–30 of 107 posts

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

#21
post #17

> 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).

20 minutes of walking is a perfect bicycle distance.

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

#22
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lifespan != healthspan

I 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.

The knees need exercise to be well. Nutrients are passed into meniscus etc by pressure cycling.

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

#23
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lifespan != healthspan

I 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.

Running 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.

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

#24
post #17

> 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).

Walking 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.

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

#25

> 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.…

At certain times of day the London underground deliberately directs people to longer paths around the stations to alleviate congestion. This kind of thing could be a health benefit.

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

#26
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.

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

#27

I 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.

that'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

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

#28
post #3

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

I wonder why this gets downvoted. Nowadays people are aware of what they sacrifice economically and physically when they have kids. It changes the incentives.

People choose between staying physically fit or have kids? I find that hard to believe.

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

#30
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.

Evolution didn't spend millions of years so we could sit 8 hours a day and slouch through the rest.
Post reply on HN