81–90 of 107 posts
A lot of this sounds very different than other studies that have said small amounts of exercise have substantial benefits. I was always a little suspicious when they would say that you only need moderate exercise like walking because when you do vigorous exercise your blood vessels expand up to 3x diameter, keeping your arteries supple and elastic. You just don't get that by walking.
9-10 hours seems like a lot. That's very discouraging.
Walking, housework, gardening, etc are all classed as moderate for this purpose, whilst things like running or lifting weights are vigorous and count double.
So we're only talking about a couple of dedicated exercise sessions a week, on top of an hour of non-sedentary activities each a day.
> 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.
How wealthy are those who have time to spend 10 hours on exercise?
What it honestly comes down to is people absolutely love to make excuses, simple as.
> 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.…
Most of the people I see in the gym are sitting on the benches on their phone 9 minutes out of 10. I'm pretty sure going to the gym is not helping at all...
> 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.…
"exercise doesn't mean planned / scheduled exercise, like going to the gym." Most of the people I see in the gym are sitting on the benches on their phone 9 minutes out of 10. I'm pretty sure going to the gym is not helping at all...
Whether someone's effectively strength training/bodybuilding or not, which is the section I think you refer to—nobody reasonably believes that does anything significant for cardiovascular health, which is the topic being dicussed here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moderate is not vigorous. They mean being active and walking, etc.
The imprecise language in these studies often means people can interpret them in whatever way they want. This study defines moderate as "brisk" walking, suggesting that it's not just walking. Athletes live in their own bubble where "vigorous" means "maximal".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Does lifting weights count as vigorous though? Or strictly cardio? 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
In my own experience, no. Strictly cardio. The number of squats you'd have to do to constitue even five minutes of vigorous activity is practicably impossible.
Lifting weights could certainly count/classify as moderate activity though, just without as much 'bang for your buck' as dedicated aerobic exercise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Does lifting weights count as vigorous though? Or strictly cardio? 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