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

51–60 of 107 posts

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

#51

Post by JimDabell »

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.

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.

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

#52

Post by bzmrgonz »

wow, that's a lot of time... I wonder if we can offset that time by doing one HIIT exercise a week. there's a group of people trying to crank up SPRINTING-SATURDAYS as a thing on youtube (sprintingproject). I like the idea because the body has 6 days to recover, there's no way to cause damage with 6 day recovery.

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

#53

Post by Tade0 »

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 have two kids and recently I started cycling to work. I can get maybe half the new recommended number on a good week. That apparently translates to a 20% reduction.

Upon reading the article:

> The average age was 57 years and 56% were female and 96% were white.

My take is that all this study says is that's kind of late to try to tackle this problem in one's 50s. That being said it's nice to know that I could maybe get a 30% reduction if I were to start spitting my lungs out at this age doing 10h of intense cardio.

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

#55

Post by nickburns »

jere wrote: post #46
bryanlarsen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Consider the speed/vigor with which one does something, whatever it might be. It can be quite the range.

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

#57

Post by hyperpape »

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.

Heart health isn't the only mechanism by which exercise could affect mortality.

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

#58

Post by skeeter2020 »

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).

example: Calgary is currently debating removal of the free fare zone for the DT transit line. It's like 10 blocks of straight, flat walking but you hear things like "nobody will go out for lunch and support downtown businesses if we get ride of this!" Currently it's mostly used by homeless people to stay warm in the winter.

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

#59

Post by bryanlarsen »

jere wrote: post #46
bryanlarsen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The study specifically includes walking in their list of exercises. You probably do want a mix of exercises -- 90 minutes of vigorous exercise a week is a standard recommendation, but 10h a week of vigorous exercise is probably contraindicated for the average 57 year old in the study.

Walking is good exercise for anybody who is out of shape.

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

#60

Post by otherme123 »

commandlinefan wrote: post #15
giwook wrote: 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.

Nowadays exercising might mean walk at decent pace. People acts like they are asking you to run 90 minutes daily at marathon record pace, when they are actually saying to walk briskly for trips less than a mile, or take the stairs instead of the elevator.

Only a few people take benefit from running heavier than 5 km (3 miles) in 30 minutes every other day. The rest of you exercise should come from anything that is not driving or browsing the web.

Post reply on HN