61–70 of 107 posts
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?
Walking briskly is 3. Moderate running is 6. These are just examples.
An hour spent at 3 MET is 3 MET hours.
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 human body evolved for that, and much more, you're not training 90 min per day at athlete level performance, you'll be fine... Of course if you run 10 hours per week with bad technique you're going to fuck your shit up, but you can easily alternate 60 min of gym/cardio every day with very little chance of injuries + an evening 30min "brisk" walk or 30 min of bicycle commute.
It's your body, do as you want, but chances are you exercise (way) too little, not too much
Cool, now combine this with being a parent of young kids in a 2-income family without any other assistance.
For anyone literally in this situation: start small and consistent. Your goal is not to pencil in 10 hours a week of cardio. Instead, try to do 30 seconds of the same calisthenics exercise with your child before work/school consistently for 6 months. Perhaps pushups.
Over time you'll find the 30 seconds grows because you want it to. You might learn that warming up with jumping jacks helps you do pushups more comfortably. You might watch videos with your child about pushup variations and incorporate them into your routine together. Perhaps invest a few $$ into small equipment to support activities you're already doing, like pushup handles. Or maybe an over-the-door pullup bar.
Your routine won't be "optimal" in the 600 minutes sense, but a suboptimal routine that you do consistently is infinitely better for you than an ideal routine you don't, and it can expand/contract based on your needs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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 The human body evolved for that, and much more, you're not training 90 min per day at athlete level performance, you'll be fine... Of course if you run 10 hours per week with bad technique you're going to fuck your shit up, but you can easily alternate 60…
This is questionable past the median age that humans had on evolutionary scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I guess the one interesting thing is that they only had accelerometer data, so i guess maybe this wouldnt undercount activity minutes the way my garmin does (i can do a lot before i cross 100bpm or whatever the threshold is).
It seems like a lot here depends on how you try to measure this activity. Garmin uses the hr mostly i think so basically most of my stepcount is ignored. Pure accelerometer data underrepresents resistance training and overrepresents relatively low energy fidgeting.
I feel like this is a garbage study tbh. Or a mid study with a garbage headline slapped on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 The human body evolved for that, and much more, you're not training 90 min per day at athlete level performance, you'll be fine... Of course if you run 10 hours per week with bad technique you're going to fuck your shit up, but you can easily alternate 60…
> The human body evolved for that, and much more This is questionable past the median age that humans had on evolutionary scale.
https://www.ucdavis.edu/blog/humans-are-born-run
https://www.kpax.com/news/a-wilder-view/a-wilder-view-why-hu...
> 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.…
Cool, now combine this with being a parent of young kids in a 2-income family without any other assistance.
It's difficult but where there's a will there's a way. I know plenty of parents who find time to get exercise in. And even if you don't hit ~600 minutes in a week, any amount of exercise is beneficial. Go for a run pushing your kids in the stroller (even more cardiovascular benefit than just running by itself tbh). Do a bunch of squats at home while cradling your toddler (it becomes funtime for them, like they're on…
Plus, going for a walk/run in the stroller with Dad has to be developmentally healthier than staring at a tablet on the couch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Because if you need to fit 560 minutes of cardio and then also fit weight lifting 3 times a week that's a lot of time working out