Some questions just never go away.
- Are we alone in the universe?
- What is the nature of consciousness?
- How much exercise should I really get each week?
Conventional advice from convention health sources says that at least 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous exercise per week is important to maintain health. The CDC (the good-old-fashioned one, based on real health studies) says so here.
And it turns out almost half of adults in the US get that amount. Which is better than previous studies showed.
But wait– there’s new research out there telling us in no uncertain terms that we were wrong.
I know. I mean, we’ve written so many blog posts about how small intervals of physical activity, whether in short bursts or in longer increments, are a huge boost to health and well-being.
But all those things I said, all the things we said… this is not enough.
THIS IS NOT ENOUGH
According to a study published in the British Medical Journal last week, the 150-minute amount is more of a minimum threshold than a top-end goal for adult fitness. Here’s what Outside Magazine had to say about the study:
The researchers analyzed data from 17,088 participants in the UK Biobank, a large biomedical dataset and research resource, between 2013 and 2015. Study participants, with an average age of 57, wore an activity tracker on their wrist for seven consecutive days to record their normal activity levels.
During a follow-up of the participants after nearly eight years, 1,233 cardiovascular events (heart attack and stroke) were recorded. People, regardless of fitness level, who got 150 minutes of exercise each week had a nine percent reduction in cardiovascular event risk.
But to achieve substantial protection from cardiovascular events—defined as more than a 30 percent reduction in risk—the participants needed to log between 560 and 610 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous exercise a week. This works out to about nine to ten hours of weekly exercise. Just 12 percent of people in the study hit those numbers.
Right. So, if we don’t measure up, are we just doomed? One of the researchers hastily responds no, every type and amount of movement counts.
[Senior researcher on the study] Ziheng Ning also says it’s important to avoid looking at exercise as a pass/fail threshold. “Instead, think of it as a continuum: more movement generally produces greater protection, and fitness level matters,” he says.
What are we to make of this? There have already been a bunch of criticisms and responses to the published study. Among the objections are these:
- the study collected data for only one week for participants, potentially not accounting for variation in exercise patterns
- the participant group was largely white and able-bodied, so not applicable to the general population
- this was an observational study, so no causation could be concluded
But the bigger objections were from health and fitness professionals who argued that the notion of “optimun” is relative to a baseline, and these vary for a lot of reasons and at different times in one’s life. Also, other studies show modest but significant health benefits for all sorts of physical activities, in all sorts of amounts and durations.
For my money, I don’t think activity or fitness is a continuum, where we slide forwards and backwards. Instead, I think we dip in and out, try on something for size, take a new sport out for a spin, chill out, loll about, dance around, and feel the occasional spring in our step. It’s about finding a cadence that works with the playlist our lives are running at the moment.
What’s your cadence this week/this month/this year/this decade/this life? I’d love to hear what you’re up to.
Discover more from FIT IS A FEMINIST ISSUE
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I guess I have two thoughts about the new research–assuming it’s correct. First, I always worry about the gap between public health messaging and the truth. The truth isn’t always very motivational, and so public health messaging can skirt around it. My fave example is that we often overplay in public health messaging how much individual control we have over our health, setting genetic determinants aside. That’s b/c we want people to exercise the control we do have–not smoke, get enough sleep, eat well, move lots, be social etc. So this might be just another one of those cases. 150 minutes a week is a reasonable goal, lots of people can manage that, and so we stick with that for our public health messaging, b/c better outcomes overall. Second, while it’s reasonable to think we all care about health and longevity, I don’t think we’re all maximizers. Whenever I watch those videos by the guys–always guys–who get up at 4 am to exercise with grim determination and drink green smoothies and never stray from their dietary macros, I find myself thinking that that’s no way to live. Who wants more of that? I could reasonably know the truth about how to maximize my lifespan and say no. And some people might feel that way about 90 minutes of exercise a day. These stories are often billed as “we all need 90 minutes of exercise day” but they downplay the conditional, yes, 90 minutes, if you want to achieve the following health goal….Anyway, great post. Thanks!