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

91–100 of 107 posts

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

#91

Post by jauntywundrkind »

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 think ebikes are amazing but it is more than a bit sad to me that less than half the people moving around in my neighborhood put in any energy. There's like two bicyclists under 25. Many many many scooters and ebikes.

Very torn on this one. I love it for them, but also, it seems super sad to me. I can't even really explain why it's so saddening.

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

#92

Post by unglaublich »

Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote: post #68
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.…

9 hours of moderate to vigorous seems like a lot. When I do vigorous (2 times a week HIIT) I cannot do vigorous the next day, my body clearly needs recovery. I can do moderate. But I wonder what scientists mean by vigorous at this point. I am starting to suspect I set the bar too high

Light and moderate are mostly just "activities of daily life" (walking, commuting), and vigorous is whenever you exercise explicitly (running, swimming, speed cycling, soccer, etc). So it's more like 9 hours of active movement, or 4.5 hours of exercise (40 mins a day).

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

#93

Post by antisthenes »

Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote: post #70
pimterry wrote: post #47

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 experience lifting weights helps you grow enough muscle to actually be able to do 600 minutes of cardio.

With small/insufficient muscle size, you simply run out of stored glycogen before you get tired cardiovascularly.

> 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

Proper exercise is absolutely a lifestyle change and a big commitment. Not only do you have to exercise several hours a week, but also eat healthier macros and fix your sleep to make sure most of the benefits stick and aren't wasted.

People try to half-ass it all the time by doing weird diets or going on 15 minutes walk during their lunch break, and yes it's better than nothing, but not by much.

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

#94

Post by Fire-Dragon-DoL »

antisthenes wrote: post #93
Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 experience lifting weights helps you grow enough muscle to actually be able to do 600 minutes of cardio. With small/insufficient muscle size, you simply run out of stored glycogen before you get tired cardiovascularly. > 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 Proper exercise is absolutely a lifestyle change and a big comm…

I don't understand how walking in the study is considerate moderate.

Like my heartrate for sure goes higher when lifting weights than when I walk. If I walk fast, it might get closer, but I am not that confident.

300 minutes of HIIT per week are equal to 10 HIIT sessions per week, I would argue that's outright impossible, the body cannot handle that, I don't think even an Olympic athlete can handle more than 3 times per week HIIT.

Vigorous might be possible, that's still 5 times 1 hour cardio sessions, on top of which you have to add 3 sessions of weight lifting for bone density, on top of which you have to add balance training and stretching.

There isn't enough time in a day to do that if you work, let alone if you have kids

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

#96

Post by j_w »

Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote: post #94
antisthenes wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience lifting weights helps you grow enough muscle to actually be able to do 600 minutes of cardio. With small/insufficient muscle size, you simply run out of stored glycogen before you get tired cardiovascularly. > 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 Proper exercise is absolutely a lifestyle change and a big comm…

I don't understand how walking in the study is considerate moderate. Like my heartrate for sure goes higher when lifting weights than when I walk. If I walk fast, it might get closer, but I am not that confident. 300 minutes of HIIT per week are equal to 10 HIIT sessions per week, I would argue that's outright impossible, the body cannot handle that, I don't think even an Olympic athlete can handle more than 3 times…

HIIT is far beyond vigorous.

Vigorous would be Z2/3 cardio, so like 120-160 BPM for most adults. Moderate would be Z1 90-120.

Once you are capable of doing cardio consistently in Z4/5 with HIIT and tempo training you really don't need to worry about "am I doing enough exercise."

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

#97

Post by j_w »

jerlam wrote: post #77
bitexploder wrote: post #16

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".

The easiest thing for people to do if they aren't confident about their level of stress (moderate vs vigorous vs maximal) is to wear a smart watch with a HR monitor. They aren't perfect (chest straps better yada yada) but you can see your HR zones and if you are in Z1 you are moderate, Z2/3 vigorous.

The language isn't that precise because a trained marathoner is doing 7 minute miles for two hours at 50% of the populations resting heart rate.

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

#98

Post by mancerayder »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #85
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.…

"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...

If you're doing heavy compound exercises like 3x5, 5x3 squats, you kind of need to wait three minutes in between! Even adding something in between like press or pullups is quite hard on the nervous system.

The people who walk 45m on the treadmill while watching a show, or people who sit around chit chatting, yes... A waste of space.

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

#99

Post by jerlam »

j_w wrote: post #97
jerlam wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

The easiest thing for people to do if they aren't confident about their level of stress (moderate vs vigorous vs maximal) is to wear a smart watch with a HR monitor. They aren't perfect (chest straps better yada yada) but you can see your HR zones and if you are in Z1 you are moderate, Z2/3 vigorous. The language isn't that precise because a trained marathoner is doing 7 minute miles for two hours at 50% of the popul…

I've got multiple wearables and they all seem to agree that normal walking does nothing for me. Barely increases my heart rate, not even Z1. Nor does "doing chores" which seems even more nebulous. But that's just a data point of one.

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

#100

Post by Fire-Dragon-DoL »

j_w wrote: post #96
Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how walking in the study is considerate moderate. Like my heartrate for sure goes higher when lifting weights than when I walk. If I walk fast, it might get closer, but I am not that confident. 300 minutes of HIIT per week are equal to 10 HIIT sessions per week, I would argue that's outright impossible, the body cannot handle that, I don't think even an Olympic athlete can handle more than 3 times…

HIIT is far beyond vigorous. Vigorous would be Z2/3 cardio, so like 120-160 BPM for most adults. Moderate would be Z1 90-120. Once you are capable of doing cardio consistently in Z4/5 with HIIT and tempo training you really don't need to worry about "am I doing enough exercise."

I mean, according to this study I would still need that. I can average 165 BPM (because I'm trained, used to average 175) and max 180 in a session. But that's all the cardio I get. I walk 20 minutes per day to bring the kids to school, and lift weight.

Weight lifting doesn't count, but I tested yesterday and I average 110 bpm during a workout (it's constant ups-and-downs). Based on that, it would count for moderate exercise.

The time investment is steep if we cannot count weight lifting, there is no escape.

Post reply on HN