http://www.hngn.com/articles/137948/20151008/heart-health-30-minutes-exercise-enough-healthy.htm I would recommend if you were to do more cardio, make it something low impact like a stationary bike, swimming, or elliptical machine so you don't kill your joints in your quest for heart health.
Yes, I read an article on that report - it will probably make many quit altogether, when it would have been better had they just shut up and let folks do at least something healthy without thinking that they are getting no good from it - which isn't true.
Also if you run it is better for your joints to avoid running long distance on asphalt i.e. roads and sidewalks. Our bodies are not designed for that. Running in nature or on a track (low impact surface) is where it's at for your long term joint health. I thought regular cycling was low impact, doesn't have to be stationary?
Of course, I was just saying that because that's what I did yesterday. I think it's the lazy man's cardio. I just watch TV and pedal.
@Congrelous I used to want to be a spinning instructor, hahah man I remember you liked a post about it I had under an old journal and username. Stationary bikes are better than treadmills imo.
I feel like I get all the benefits of any other cardio, but none of the muscle and joint strain that I have to wait like 3 days to recover or something. It really is weird. I don't usually do that much cardio, but when I do, it feels like my brain is just flooded with oxygen.
i've gone for a walk everyday for the past year since starting nofap. Its a start, I'm also working out 3x a week, i'll push it up to about 5 times a week...i've noticed easier breathing and greater capacity, but to hear this now - this is really discouraging! my initial reaction was of dread. That i'm not enough - any suggestions for at home activities I can do to meet this quota? I used to play 2 hours of football everyday in my teens, I wish i continued!
Yeah I already feel uneased, I did 40 mins of exercise today with a 20 min walk in the morning and it's disheartened me. It's ludicrous. I should be feeling proud not like i'm not doing enough...But we are here to optimise ourselves i'll find a way to reach that quota i guess.
Do what you've been doing and be happy with it. In six months they'll be coming out and saying that too much exercise leads to heart attacks or something.
Indeed the proof in the pudding is in feeling good i guess, and these reports should come with disclaimers about context, its subjective from person to person,
The concept seems pretty sound to me. It's dose dependent. So very obviously, the more cardio you do between 5-7 hrs a week, the healthier you are. Thinks we've already known. You can probably do HIIT instead of a basic cardio work out if you're not already doing that. If you're not smoking, obese, or completely sedentary, I don't think anyone's going to fault you.
There are definitely cardiologists who share this exact opinion. Too fast for too long each we can indeed damage the heart over time. This tends to show up at more extreme levels of physical activity, but it is very much worth noting (moderation once again). I may be the only one, but I say it is about time the 30 minutes per day notion is legitimately questioned. I live every day and watch those around me achieve deteriorating health due in large part to inactivity. They grow significantly wider as they years progress. My minimum activity level tends to be about an hour per day and in an anecdotal sense, I find that 1-2 hours per day is pretty decent and definitely not too much. Quality of life for me is significantly better with more than 30 minutes of daily activity and it is well worth the effort to get there (I tend to have a great deal of natural energy though).
I noticed an energy boost and increased mood with 1 hr as opposed to 30 min. I would prefer it to be moderate pace as opposed to high intensity. That seems to be the most natural state biology would deem healthy. I thought it was going to be hard, but then I did it for a couple of days --- not hard at all. A good investment.
Yes, and not to mention the damage we can do to our skeletal systems if we run them into the ground by overly working out - punishing the body too much in the name of heath will take its toll. I work for a medical journal in which the editor-in-chief a few years back, a PhD in physical exercise and a poster boy of the same in his own life, suddenly and unexpectedly died of a heart attack, stunning all his colleagues, top cardiologists from around he world.
It's not an old wives tale when more than 3 people I personally know have ruined knees as a result of either sports or a job that required a lot of walking. Cartilage is not a renewable resource in the body. If you damage it, it's gone, unless you get it replaced surgically. I don't mean this to say that joints can't be strengthened, but it probably has to be done systematically and not haphazardly. These people I knew two of them were in track and one of them checked meters for the city. I don't think that these "mandatory activities" (in that you have to do what the coach/boss tells you to) allow for sufficient recovery time to prevent damage. It's just ankle, knee, and hip to the ground, every day. As for people who die from heart attacks, my psychobiology teacher said "the first symptom of cardiovascular disease is death". When you're in your general practitioner's office, you don't get your C-reactive protein levels checked, you don't usually get your hormone levels checked, you don't get an electrocardiogram, etc. Blood pressure and pulse alone are not great indicators of absolute cardiovascular health, but a sufficient measurement for most people that don't fit the exception. All of us could have an underlying condition that hasn't been identified yet because it hasn't been tested for.
I have stretchy ligaments in my knees so I do 30 min on a stair stepper to straighten the joints ad make myself sweat like a frog. This is one of those ridiculous things, naturally your heart will be healthier the more exercise it gets. Telling the world that 30 min isn't enough is really not helping anyone because it frustrates most of the people who were on the fence (which is also most of the people). I haven't seen the study, but I doubt it is longitudinal and of a significant duration to account for the possibility that the people in the study may have already had the onset of heart disease. Also heart disease isn't the only way to go, working out damages the fibrous tissue in your muscles causing them to replicate faster and increasing your risk of cancer... The moral of the story is that scientists have once again proven that you cant escape getting old, and eventually I will die.
You have to present your data the way it reads if you do a study. Something is or it is not. That's science. "During the study, data from 370,000 people who had been tracked as part of 12 different studies were analyzed by scientists at the University of Texas. " That is not an insignificant sample size, nor is the journal an insignificant source of research. "Walking 30 minutes a day as recommended in the physical activity guidelines, may not be good enough - significantly more physical activity may be necessary to reduce the risk of heart failure,' said Jarett Berry, author of the research paper" Nor is any conclusion any one trend study or meta analysis absolute, like say, findings in a physics journal. It is conclusions that we can derive from great numbers of people. Averages. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2015/09/18/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.015853.abstract PA is physical exercise, HF is heart failure.
@Congrelous I grew up in the medical field, so I understand what your saying, I was trying to make the point that this information has a high potential to have negative consequences, not that they did the study. In addition, even with the large sample size, they lack the duration. Since duration for heart disease is generally +40 years in development unless they started in the 70's there is high propensity of error and alternative cause. I'm not saying it is incorrect, just that it is presented in a way that is likely to frustrate people
For older people I can definitely see that. The damage is more progressed, more potential to exacerbate an existing condition. But, again, you can't not publish your findings because it might distress people. You literally can't, too much work and grant money on the line.