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

41–50 of 107 posts

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

#41

Post by bluefirebrand »

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 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.

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

#42

Post by syedkarim »

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.

I don't think 10 hours per week is unreasonable or impossible. And I don't see why you need to be a hypochondriac or narcissist to prioritize physical activities. The article does not define the required level of exertion, but I assume things like biking, ping-pong/pickleball, soccer, etc all count. A lot of physical activity can be cheap, though it is more challenging in the winter.

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

#43

Post by schneems »

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.…

[dead]

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

#44

Post by bryanlarsen »

pmarreck wrote: post #3

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

"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.

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

#46

Post by jere »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #31
alsetmusic wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't think those count as "moderate to vigorous" exercise, at least for most of the time you're doing any of them.

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

#47

Post by pimterry »

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.

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-guid...) this references are 150 mins moderate exercise or 75 mins vigorous.

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

#48

Post by nickburns »

jimbokun wrote: post #36
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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent_of_task

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

#49

Post by noelwelsh »

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).

The trick is to make the healthy option the easy route. That's what Paris did (creating more bike lanes, getting rid of parking spots, closing roads to cars) and cycling is now more popular than driving [1].

[1]: See, for example, https://bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsroom/2026/03/11/how-paris-...

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

#50

Post by toasty228 »

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 got a group of 5 or so friends looking at me like I just came out of a spaceship when I told them me and my wife go for walks almost every evening for 30-60 min... walking for the sake of walking was truly alien to them.
Post reply on HN