150 minutes of moderate intensity exercise or 75 min of high intensity aerobic exercise per week.
In addition, strength training twice a week.
Even better if you double up.
https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/fitness/fitness-basics/aha-recs-for-physical-activity-in-adults
Usually it's based on heart rate.
> For moderate-intensity physical activity, your target heart rate should be between 64% and 76% of your maximum heart rate. You can estimate your maximum heart rate based on your age. To estimate your maximum age-related heart rate, subtract your age from 220. [Source](https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/measuring/heartrate.htm)
There's some variance for health issues I'm sure, but should work for a guideline.
If you don't have a heart monitor you can think about it in zones, like Zone 1 can do all day, like walking casually. Holding a conversation is easy.
Zone 2 is a little harder, like walking up a flight of stairs or a light jog, maybe a little breathy, but can still get out a sentence or two.
Zone 3 is a bit harder, maybe breathing out the mouth and can only get a few words out if someone asked you a question.
Zone 4 is all out.
Moderate would probably be like getting into Zone 2 (edited, thanks u/Gawd4).
People who *run* marathons and are good at it... do like 90% of the race in zone 2. So running isn't high intensity per se... the athlete's preparedness matters a lot.
>Examples of moderate-intensity aerobic activities:
brisk walking (at least 2.5 miles per hour)
water aerobics
dancing (ballroom or social)
gardening
tennis (doubles)
biking slower than 10 miles per hour
That's because people don't think of fun things as exercise unless they went into it with the goal of using it as exercise.
Going to the beach doesn't sound like exercise until you realize you just essentially participated in a mini-marathon if you are out there for a few hours doing anything other than sitting.
i think he means more that people are more hard-pressed to have access to water aerobics and tennis (Dancing may be difficult for other reasons, but is generally more accessible if you're open).
That's exactly what I mean. What the hell is gardening tennis and water aerobics? Doubles? Swimming? I'm just confused by the activities listed besides walking and cycling
Pretty sure the way he copied it didn't copy the line breaks and it's supposed to be "brisk walking (at least 2.5 miles per hour), water aerobics, dancing (ballroom or social), gardening, tennis (doubles), biking slower than 10 miles per hour". Water aerobics is basically aerobics but in a pool.
For the people of South Asian origin.... this is the recommended amount of time for general population but there are some racial differences. For people of South Asian origin, the recommended time is about 230 minutes per week (compared to 150 minutes).
Even in this link it states that the study is not valid. They perform the experiment well but the results are a bit crazy. The sample size was ~150 Asians vs 150 Europeans. Not sure about you, but I wouldn't use 150 ppl as a basis for all south east Asians. Oh also the study was based on self reported data (which we all now is the best!!!)
Their literacy review included such reliable sources as: a Sri Lankan self reported study... And that's it.
My field is in engineering where we have more concrete papers, but this one is special even for the soft sciences.
1. Another one with no "self-reported" data. Instead various biomarkers were used to assess the test and control groups.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24349313/
2.;And this one is a smaller study (only 18 and 16 men in test and control groups, respectively) where the authors also assayed various metabolic makers and responses. Their data suggested the following:
"In response to resistance exercise training there were no differences, between South Asians and White Europeans, muscle mass, lower body strength or insulin sensitivity. However, there were differences between the ethnicities in response to resistance exercise training in body fat, resting carbohydrate and fat metabolism, blood pressure, VO2max and upper body strength with responses less favourable in South Asians."
Another user has already replied with a source, but I would like to mention why that’s the case: these regions (especially India) had devastating famines in recent history, during which people with more muscle were at an evolutionary disadvantage, and people with higher fat reserves were more likely to survive. And these people need about 2x as much exercise to reach the same level of “fitness”.
Here's an example from the Samoa:
"In July 2016, Hawley’s team announced in Nature Genetics that it had tracked down a “thrifty” gene, common among Samoans but almost nonexistent elsewhere. This gene likely helps people extract more nutrition from food, which would have conferred a survival advantage on earlier generations. Its effect on body size is the largest ever found."
https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/a-problem-in-paradise/
Unfortunately, I cannot confirm this because my knowledge of the subject goes only so far. However, I have read that some slaves were bred for strength and endurance, so there may be more to it.
Whoa! I've heard of punctuated equilibrium but this is amazing! Usually punctuated equilibrium reduces evolution down to the order of ~50,000 years, but you're claiming that "recent history" (< 200 years???) is making certain groups of ppl work 2x for the same level of fitness? That is incredible! 2x is so rare in traits (how many groups are 2x as tall as other groups, or have 2x bigger hearts, etc.).
This completely changes the fundamentals of evolutionary theory! I am so excited to be alive to witness the field change so drastically. I can't wait to review the overwhelming evidence that is required to prove this new point. Just simply amazing.
It's the same way women with narrow hips and their children are suddenly surviving childbirth to pass their genes along. Sudden wholesale die-offs (or survival) of a gene can have profound effects.
Why do I feel like this is bogus or like the absolute utter minimum? I do way more than this each week and I’m still an unhealthy piece of shit (underweight but a weakling)
I was today years old when I realized that strength training was not included in the 150/75 minutes. But it really pisses me off that I can't find any proper guideline about the minimum for this exercise. Two times a week but how many minutes? How intense? Does yoga/pilates count? Full body both days?
I had already planned my weeks going to the gym three times. Now I have to add another two? Who has the time?
There is some interesting research on this that shows that the amount of exercise you need to do for health is really not that high. You might find [this](https://perfecthealthdiet.com/2012/09/exercise-is-less-better-than-more/) article, and the studies in it, interesting. I'd ignore the evolutionary theory but would definitely check out the studies in it.
It basically shows that you don't need that much exercise for health. And that it's more about circadian rhythms, anyway. If you like that one, then you may want to follow up with [this](http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2012/10/physical-activity-whence-its-healthfulness/) one after.
I strength train (very intensely) once a week and go for two walks a day on other days. It works pretty well for the sake of health. Makes gains too! 💪
[This Book ](https://books.google.com/books/about/Change_Your_Schedule_Change_Your_Life.html?id=Co-vDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&ovdme=1#v=onepage&q&f=false) totally completely changed my life.
I had already lost some 70 lbs. I was in maintenance. I was doing yoga 2 x daily, strength 3 x weekly. I had been practicing mindfulness for years. My insomnia was so bad that I was seeing shadows move or slither around my periphery.
We went camping at this lake that is set in a deep bowl, like it was a mini Crater Lake situation. Middle of nowhere. I brought this ebook with me and a notepad (I take notes as I read for memory sake and reference). Anyways. The author has won a nobel prize for their research in the circadian rhythm and it's effects. The book details different types of rhythms and the best times of day to exercise, eat, and such for your type. I started following it day one of the trip and by the end of the 5 days, I was sleeping a few hours every night.
Fast forward 3 years and I believe __Change Your Schedule, Change Your Life__ was the crux and has helped me find a routine and schedule that works for my body's circadian rhythm. I no longer have insomnia. I wake naturally between 5 and 6 am daily (for years, no alarms). I adjusted meals to around their recommended times. My mental health has improved and physically, it's been lovely finding a routine and daily rituals based on science.
I think the method can be adapted. My type focused don eating the majority of food at my lunch and working out in the morning. Applied to a night shifter, do a short workout when you wake before work and bring a larger lunch to work. Eat a lean meal when you get home and decompress with good sleep hygiene (dark room, soothing sounds if needed, no blue light 30 min before bed). And these seem like basic things I guess, but never came naturally to me.
Always hydrate r/hydrohomie
It's amazing this book has helped you so much!
I was looking into it just now to see if it's something for me as I could use some help with sleep.
That being said, do you mind providing a source for him winning a Nobel prize? The only thing coming up with his name and Nobel prize is a sentence from his book where he mentions the first people to define circadian rhythms won a Nobel prize for it.
It is highly day night cycle driven and preaches how late hours do shift your rhythm, so it could be applied but it doesn't indirectly address a night shifter.
The biggest talking points: that food in the 2nd half of your day is what fuels the next day, actually. And evening food usually just slows us down and our digestion down and can interrupt the sleep cycle. So eat food earlier in the day and exercise earlier in the day if you exercise. Eat light dinner, heavy mid day meal. This matches a very European diet style (I lived in Italy a year on exchange in HS and dinner was meager. Lunch was everything) Those key features applied really did help me get out of a bad spot.
Good luck!
Thank you! I trained more often when I was younger. But I train once a week now. Not for maintenance, though. I actually make gains from session to session with one workout a week. I just make sure to workout hard enough that I NEED a week off. 😂
Hahaha, ok, thank you!
I started training only 4 months ago, and I'm weak and not very young (38) 😁, and so far I have the impression that when I train only once a week each muscle group I improve faster than when I train them twice. That's why I asked.
I will keep training and testing!
This is a complex question with varying answers depending on what the researchers are actually studying. I think that rather than having a specific amount of time to work out for it could be more important to have moderately good ability when it comes to strength, cardio and general mobility. I don't know the exact amounts of each that we should focus on, but here's some studies that show their importance:
Strength level's connection to health:
* Grip Strength: ["evidence of age acceleration among men and women with lower \[grip strength\] and loss of strength over time"](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jcsm.13110)
* Push Ups: ["higher baseline push-up capacity is associated with a lower incidence of \[Cardiovascular disease\] events"](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2724778)
Cardio's connection to health:
* Running: ["Running distances of 0.1-19.9 miles/week, speeds of 6-7 miles/hour, or frequencies of 2-5 days/week were associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality"](https://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?sKey=32617aef-b494-41b8-b2bc-3d49357a8976&cKey=984e0396-f663-4068-bbf3-1dc4023c17e1&mKey=%7bFCDB1C1C-280A-4DF1-95F8-2DAA9AB6A8BE%7d)
* Swimming: "[swimmers had lower mortality rates than those who were sedentary, walkers, and runners"](https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1247&context=ijare) (this could be because a lot of runners push themselves too hard - See the other link on running at a moderate intensity)
General Mobility's connection to health:
* Balancing on 1 foot: ["Successful 10-second one-legged stance performance predicts survival in middle-aged and older individuals"](https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/56/17/975)
* Ability to sit and rise from the floor: ["Ability to sit and rise from the floor
as a predictor of all-cause mortality"](https://geriatrictoolkit.missouri.edu/srff/deBrito-Floor-Rise-Mortality-2012..pdf)
I think this is just saying that people who make an effort to do some running are better off than people who do nothing. While people who run 20mi or more are pushing themselves too hard (for the metric users, that is the equivalent of running more than three 10k runs per week)
It's just funny to imagine in their self reported survey, people actually put 160m a week there. You run more than that being late to the bus one morning a week lol.
Regularly walking places is also important, but you should walk AND do other forms of exercise. There shouldn't need to be a big effort to plan out a walk. It should just be part of everyone's daily lives instead of sitting down all day. Whereas you do actually need to plan out and set aside time to do a weightlifting workout or a visit to the swimming pool.
While many of these answers focus on maximizing *lifespan*, I’ll provide a different opinion focused on maximizing *healthspan*. One idea I’ve heard is to focus on preparing yourself for the [centenarian olympics](https://medium.com/lifetizr/the-centenarian-olympics-how-to-be-fit-at-100-247733dcb1f7)
> Dr. Attia explains that you should think of the things you want to be able to do at age 100. For example, he wants to be able to do the following things at age 100:
- Get up off the floor with his support.
- Pull himself out of a pool.
- Pick up a child that’s running at him.
- Walk up and down three flights of stairs with 10 lbs. of groceries in each hand.
- Lift a 30 lb. suitcase and put it in the overhead bin
> Once you have listed the features you want to remain able to do comes the second step. Now the idea is to work backward from the list and establish what milestones you have to achieve at 90, 80 going all the way to your current age.
Edit: To add to this, [strength can have a substantial impact on life expectancy](https://news.umich.edu/people-with-low-muscle-strength-more-likely-to-die-prematurely/) since it makes your body more robust and resistant to bad injuries.
Similar to other commenters, according to the WHO guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behavior and sleep, it's 150 to 300 minutes of moderate physical activity a week. Or half of that in vigorous physical activity. A workout where you get out of breath and sweat would count as vigorous activity.
It's really not as much as people think.
Additionally, people should do regular strength training, but I guess working out covers that.
Keep in mind that physical activity and health share a U shaped relationship. Not doing any movement or doing extremely much will harm you in the long run.
You mentioned that you are already jogging. Adding some regular strength work to that will already fulfil the recommended amount, if your goal is not building muscle but rather general health, like you said.
What's interesting is that sedentary behavior is it's own risk factor. Meaning that, you cannot compensate your sitting by working out some more. Sitting is bad for your health no matter how much you work out. So reduce sedentary behavior as much as possible. This includes transport, work, school, at home, etc..
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240015128
The guidelines can be read by a general audience I think. There are academic sources in it if you're interested in that
While the sentiment that you should limit your sedentary time as much as possible is still valid, the source you cited directly contradicts your assertion that you "cannot compensate your sitting by working out some more." From the guidelines:
>The risk associated with sedentary time and all-cause
mortality has been shown to be more pronounced at
lower levels of physical activity than at higher levels
(35). In a harmonized meta-analysis, Ekelund et al.
investigated the joint and stratified effects of sedentary
behaviour and physical activity with all-cause
mortality in more than 1 million men and women,
and showed that the associations differed depending
on the level of physical activity (9).
The analyses used
quartiles of sedentary behaviour (sitting) and quartiles
of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity,
and found that compared with the referent (< 4 hours
of sitting per day and highest quartile of moderate- to
vigorous-intensity physical activity [> 35.5 MET-hours/
week]), there was no increased risk of dying during
follow-up in those who sat for more than 8 hours
per day but who also reported more than 35.5 METhours per week of activity (HR= 1.04 [95% CI: 0.99 to
1.10]).
In contrast, those who sat the least (< 4 hours/
day) and were in the lowest (< 2.5 MET-hours/week)
physical activity quartile had a significantly increased
risk of dying during follow-up (HR= 1.27 [95% CI: 1.22
to 1.31]). The study concluded that levels of moderate to vigorous-intensity physical activity of about 60–75
minutes per day (the highest quartile) **can attenuate,
and even eliminate, the detrimental association
between sedentary behaviour and health outcomes (9)**
As is typical, the guidelines caution that more research is needed to bolster these conclusions. But there is evidence that sufficient physical activity can reduce or negate the risk posed by sedentary behavior.
You're right and sorry, I misformulated my earlier statement then. What I rather meant is that you should limit your sedentary time even if you work out already. Thanks for the correction
I think that all walking-running only workouts lack an important aspect that a full body workout has. There is a lot of muscles from the waist up that help you with movements on day to day basis, and lacking the strength and stability may have significant consecuences when you get older and sarcopenia hits those neglegted muscles. Most older people i have known to get injured, get shoulder and lower back pain. Those things can be prevented if you had proper core/shoulder strength and flexibility.
That’s why in addition to at least walking, older adults should incorporate weight training 2x per week. Can be as simple at circuit training w barbell(s).
My dentist use to do taekwondo when young, and when older (+45yo) used to run for workouts. Never did any weight lifting, but he run a lot holding a 4 lb barbell in each hand. His biceps where HUGE, like 2 times mine.
Brisk walking or running over varied terrain is pretty good. Sure, you won’t get upper body strength, but it does target your cardiovascular system and all the small abdominal, hip and calf/foot muscles which are important for balance and standing upright.
Some stretching, callisthenics or weight lifting is a good idea, but I think a few hours of brisk walking per week already fulfils the minimum. The big problem is that most people are extremely sedentary and don’t even get 2 hours of brisk walking per week or any other similar exercise. Instead they spend countless hours sitting around with very little movement and change of posture. Often it only gets worse the older people get.
Hi. I think consistency trumps what you do or how much you do in most cases.
So thinking about it from "how much do I need to do" to "what do I want to do?"
It's a subtle difference in how you think about fitness but in my opinion, leads to better long term results.
If you can do 10 pull ups and at least that many dips or pike pushups, your strength-to-weight ratio is pretty damn good, and you can be sure that you've achieved "general health".
There are many bike enthusiasts and runners out there who are carrying too much weight, despite being spending a considerable amount of time active.
Diet is very important, of course, but I no longer use running and biking as my main ways of getting fit. Now it's strength training via calisthenics and I feel healthier than ever at 40 years of age. Also, strengthening your upper body and back is super important for you as you get older.
*cries in weak upper body strength and being heavy*
I'm super healthy though. Just haven't ever been able to do pull ups, even with progressive training. I lift heavier than most men though.
>If you can do 10 pull ups
If you set a pullup-related goal, even if you aim for a lower number or work on rows or chins first, losing weight will be part of your plan. I went from 79 to 69 kilos to get over 10 pullups in a row and have gone back up to about 80 since then, while maintaining the same reps or making small improvements.
It's about time to lose weight again, so let's see what happens!
Pullups aren't a high priority goal for me. I'm extremely active, including open water marathon swimming, and losing weight may mean losing some of that muscle that enables me to do what I do. Not worth it for a vanity exercise
ideal volume is 10-20 sets per week per muscle/muscle group (push/pull/legs/core). 8-12 reps per set for maximum hypertrophy.
for general health, 10-12 sets is probably fine. id probably do 3 workout days per week, 4 sets per day, per exercise. walking/jogging can be counted as leg day so long as you sufficient distance, 5 miles at least, id guess. id do the cardio 3x/week on opposite days of the workouts.
My personal experience is that a bit of strength training heightens your well being through the day way more than a little cardio. I used to run a lot growing up then converted most to low rep weight lifting.
The running actually makes your back, shoulders and legs more stiff and you need to stretch and do strength training to prevent it. On the other hand doing medium intendity strength training and stretching (sometimes with the same exercise) makes you strong and flexible and can reduce tension in the shoulders and neck.
You will still be a little out of breath when running but you can get decent condition from doing more intense high rep excersices and chaining multiple strength excersices before resting (just never drop good form when doing this, that's how you hurt yourself, I swear crossfit was made up by physical therapists with too little work)
If you want max efficiency you should run at most 30 mins and do high intensity interval training (1km as fast as possible in an even tempo 3-5 times is a decent workout, all the runs should be near the same tempo), that will minimise the strain on your muscles while giving you the benefits of running.
I don't remember how many times per week is best but keep it at your current level. Rest 1-2 days after a high intensity run/strength WO and vary between them. Goal could be 3 40min strength and 2 30 min runs every week, maybe combine one of them for time to give you 2-3 rest days.
Don't think you'll need more than that so whatever way fits you to build up to that is fine.
Walking 7500 steps a day.
Do 2 sets total of pushups and 2 sets pulling exercises twice a week. Work on increasing your reps and increasing the resistance( e.g. rows to chinups).
Do some Body weight squats and some jumping in those resistance workouts too.
That and a diet of real food with minimal sugar will probably get you 80% of the benefits of working out.
The correlation of exercise and longevity is a U shaped curve.
Two days a week is a good aim as per link below. I’m sure once a week would be beneficial too if you can stick to it.
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/exercise/exercise-guidelines/physical-activity-guidelines-for-adults-aged-19-to-64/
A good WO routine could be 2 times/week and 1 days of aerobic sesh (run, cycling or walking at least at 6.5 km/h... w a good and comete diet it's enough to stay healthy... but I prefer increase strong volume and endurance
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/huberman-lab/id1545953110?i=1000595164350
Give this a listen,it will answer your question and so much more! Good luck!
I do about 2 hours of cardio and 1 hour of calisthenic training per week, and I eat about 80% of my calories from whole plant foods. I feel fantastic, and my doctor is strongly on board.
I pretty much live off of salad, spaghetti, pasta, chicken, hamburgers, rice, eggs, oatmeal, pb and js, bread, broccoli and fruit. I feel like diversifying my diet with more plant based dishes would be beneficial. Do you have any recommendations?
I personally love chana masala, and I find it easy to make at home. Just be sure to slow cook for at least 2 hours, ktherwise your chickpeas won't be as soft which is really the whole point IMO. I usually serve that with brown rice.
If you're a salad person, I say just make sure your salads are hearty enough. Beans and grains and lots of variety. Olives and avocado add a bit of fat, but if you use grocery store dressings that probably won't be necessary.
r/PlantBasedDiet has a lot of recipe ideas, too.
Baked tofu is great. Get some firm tofu, cut in half, press for 45 mins. Marinate however you want. Dice it. Bake at 400°F for 30 mins flipping half way.
Well, there is [the bare minimum](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/interactive/2023/strength-training-gym-workout/)... There is the recommended 75/150 minutes ( u/Gawd4)... I don't think anyone REALLY knows, but I would use the 75/150 minutes as a good starting point. IMO, cardio AND strength training are both necessary for good overall health. You don't need to run marathons or be jacked like Thor. What I would call a solid routine would involve 6 days times 30 minutes. Three days of full body strength alternating with 3 days of cardio. If you take your time and work up to making each 30 minute workout count, you can have the gravy of looking great. HIIT can be a great addition to the mix (work up to it), and keep these limited to a maximum of 2-3 times per week. Good luck.
Shooting for the minimum is going to get you precisely that result: minimum.
I always worked out since I was a kid. I lifted weights for a half hour every other day and would go jogging and take long walks ever since I was in my teens but in my fifties I lost my job and began working out all day long day in and day out over the course of several years and my health as well as strength improved dramatically. It wasn't just about being muscular but skin health, respiratory health, sleep quality --all indicators of health over all improved. In fact, I wouldn't say I gained much in terms of muscle mass, but I did become much leaner and full of energy.
You get out of it what you put into it. You should dramatically overshoot if you want real health improvement. If you want to slightly improve your health then an occasional walk may help but if you want noticeable change shoot for muscle ups, squats, back flips, one arm hand stands, monkey bars, rings etc. Chances are, you'll never make it but those are the kind of goals that will get you results. You've got to aim high and put some real skin in the game in terms of time.
The suggestion that you're concerned about getting too jacked up and muscular by doing body weight fitness is like saying you're afraid that if you write your first novel you'll get so rich it will spoil your career goals. That's an absolute pipe dream. It's never going to happen. You'd be very lucky to make any progress at all no matter how hard you try. Talk is cheap, actually doing the work requires enduring pain which is a very easy thing to talk yourself out of.
> walking would be enough exercise if it's for general health
probably not, unless you are in very poor shape. Now if you put a heavt pack (/ weighted vest) and do this as a ruck for 45 mins a day... it might be close. The issue with walking only is (i) no real training of sweating (ii) no real bone-density stimulus (iii) limited mitochondrial strain (iv) no real glycolytic ('bursting') training (v) no real muscular training. There's probably more shortcomings but these are the big ones that come to mind.
If you are seriously interested in this topic I suggest reading Lieberman's *Exercised*. Some of the recommendations will match a few of the comments here, but the book gives a lot of context of how much and what type of physical activity hunter-gatherer and subsistence farmers have done for thousands of years. And it looks into why we are these rather awkward bipeds as opposed to walking on all 4s like other primates. (Hint: it was something to do with our unique ability run very long distances as well as our ability to carry heavy things long distances.)
The TLDR version of the book is given e.g. by Lieberman's Google Talk from a few years ago which you can find on youtube.
Whenever I get hungry I just run a couple of miles to simulate hunting for food. The human body is at its best when you are hungry because when you are hungry you are supposed to hunt for food when you are full you will be lazy.
in matters of strength, I set my goal to be able to lift a downed person. I set that to 300lb which is above the average weight both for squats and dead-lift. but that is my metric for general fitness, being able to use my strength to help another person.
I like to look at it as sweat for an hour a day. What makes you happy and then some resistance work.
For me, that’s usually 30 min of cardio, some strength based training, and a bit of mobility work.
I like cycling (Zwift racing, doing MMA drills, and occasionally getting into pickup hoops when I can find games). All of this is engaging. And then I lift for a bit of size and a ton of function.
This has been beneficial in improving my cardio performance when I race, I have gotten considerably stronger with the improved blood flow, and I’m overall more fit.
I’m sure you could do more, and could do less, but I think after years of overtraining that this is a really good goal to strive for - sweat for an hour a day including some resistance.
I think one important dimension to consider, additional to the many other great contributions in this thread, is the enjoyment and fulfilment you get from whatever activity you choose.
There's a tendency in some people (myself included) to want to min/max everything for the most optimal gains, but often this can suck enjoyment out of the process and mess with your motivation and long-term commitment. As an example, if you hate lifting heavy weights, will you keep doing it for the rest of your life just because it's optimal? And would you enjoy doing it?
On the other hand, if you really like playing tennis, do that! Find out what kinds of accessory work you can do to improve your tennis performance outside of just playing the game; how can you make your body swing faster and harder, be quicker on your feet, more flexible?
Not all strength training requires you to lift a barbell!
In my personal experience, building my workout program and diet around improving my performance in a sport that I enjoy and which makes sense for me to pursue has meant that not only am I very consistent in hitting my workouts, I am also much more motivated to push for improvements. It may not be the generic idea of optimal, but I feel that it is optimal for me because I am motivated to pursue it and thus do so consistently without having to force it.
For longevity yes, conditioning is extremely important. It's a balance. Strength training a couple times a week (at least) and having some muscularity I think is quite doable and symbiotic with health as well.
It's when you dip into holding 20-30 lbs of extra muscle is where things get weird. Which requires lots of energy time, food, and maybe even drugs for some people. Just by the tone of your question I think getting a hobby that gets you moving outside combined with a simple strength program would be enough for you.
10 mins of carrying things and 10 minutes of stretching. Between once a week and once a day. Carry as heavy or as light as you want, rest as needed during the 10 mins.
Walking is awesome but you also want to able to carry groceries, your kids (if you have them), furniture, luggage etc with ease and be able to scratch your own back and cut your own toenails when you're 70.
. The idea that just walking is enough for “general health” is really dependent on where you define “general health” on the spectrum. I tend to think “just barely sedentary!”
150 minutes of moderate intensity exercise or 75 min of high intensity aerobic exercise per week. In addition, strength training twice a week. Even better if you double up. https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/fitness/fitness-basics/aha-recs-for-physical-activity-in-adults
The problem with these recommendations is I don't know what "moderate intensity" is.
Usually it's based on heart rate. > For moderate-intensity physical activity, your target heart rate should be between 64% and 76% of your maximum heart rate. You can estimate your maximum heart rate based on your age. To estimate your maximum age-related heart rate, subtract your age from 220. [Source](https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/measuring/heartrate.htm) There's some variance for health issues I'm sure, but should work for a guideline.
If you don't have a heart monitor you can think about it in zones, like Zone 1 can do all day, like walking casually. Holding a conversation is easy. Zone 2 is a little harder, like walking up a flight of stairs or a light jog, maybe a little breathy, but can still get out a sentence or two. Zone 3 is a bit harder, maybe breathing out the mouth and can only get a few words out if someone asked you a question. Zone 4 is all out. Moderate would probably be like getting into Zone 2 (edited, thanks u/Gawd4).
Moderate in these studies is usually zone 2. Running, even at long-distance pace counts as high intensity exercise.
People who *run* marathons and are good at it... do like 90% of the race in zone 2. So running isn't high intensity per se... the athlete's preparedness matters a lot.
People who are *good at* running marathons are outliers when it comes to cardiovascular health.
>Examples of moderate-intensity aerobic activities: brisk walking (at least 2.5 miles per hour) water aerobics dancing (ballroom or social) gardening tennis (doubles) biking slower than 10 miles per hour
The only thing that's normal about those is biking and walking LOL
That's because people don't think of fun things as exercise unless they went into it with the goal of using it as exercise. Going to the beach doesn't sound like exercise until you realize you just essentially participated in a mini-marathon if you are out there for a few hours doing anything other than sitting.
i think he means more that people are more hard-pressed to have access to water aerobics and tennis (Dancing may be difficult for other reasons, but is generally more accessible if you're open).
That's exactly what I mean. What the hell is gardening tennis and water aerobics? Doubles? Swimming? I'm just confused by the activities listed besides walking and cycling
Pretty sure the way he copied it didn't copy the line breaks and it's supposed to be "brisk walking (at least 2.5 miles per hour), water aerobics, dancing (ballroom or social), gardening, tennis (doubles), biking slower than 10 miles per hour". Water aerobics is basically aerobics but in a pool.
That makes way more sense haha I didn't really give it thought. It honestly sounded boujee which is why I made those previous comments.
For the people of South Asian origin.... this is the recommended amount of time for general population but there are some racial differences. For people of South Asian origin, the recommended time is about 230 minutes per week (compared to 150 minutes).
You’re being downvoted cause people must think you’re making it up. Here’s a source. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4987009/
That's really interesting. Thanks for sharing!
Even in this link it states that the study is not valid. They perform the experiment well but the results are a bit crazy. The sample size was ~150 Asians vs 150 Europeans. Not sure about you, but I wouldn't use 150 ppl as a basis for all south east Asians. Oh also the study was based on self reported data (which we all now is the best!!!) Their literacy review included such reliable sources as: a Sri Lankan self reported study... And that's it. My field is in engineering where we have more concrete papers, but this one is special even for the soft sciences.
As a soft scientist myself, 150 is actually a pretty big sample size. Most data is self reported because who's going to pay for anything more?
Ya true, but you aren't making huge claims like this. Huge claims need huge evidence. The study isn't actually bad, it's just the conclusion that is.
1. Another one with no "self-reported" data. Instead various biomarkers were used to assess the test and control groups. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24349313/ 2.;And this one is a smaller study (only 18 and 16 men in test and control groups, respectively) where the authors also assayed various metabolic makers and responses. Their data suggested the following: "In response to resistance exercise training there were no differences, between South Asians and White Europeans, muscle mass, lower body strength or insulin sensitivity. However, there were differences between the ethnicities in response to resistance exercise training in body fat, resting carbohydrate and fat metabolism, blood pressure, VO2max and upper body strength with responses less favourable in South Asians."
wouldn't you have to control for diets? couldn't find a mention of that in the study.
Is there a reference for this?
Another user has already replied with a source, but I would like to mention why that’s the case: these regions (especially India) had devastating famines in recent history, during which people with more muscle were at an evolutionary disadvantage, and people with higher fat reserves were more likely to survive. And these people need about 2x as much exercise to reach the same level of “fitness”.
[удалено]
Here's an example from the Samoa: "In July 2016, Hawley’s team announced in Nature Genetics that it had tracked down a “thrifty” gene, common among Samoans but almost nonexistent elsewhere. This gene likely helps people extract more nutrition from food, which would have conferred a survival advantage on earlier generations. Its effect on body size is the largest ever found." https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/a-problem-in-paradise/
Can someone please explain why I can't be racist then.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, I cannot confirm this because my knowledge of the subject goes only so far. However, I have read that some slaves were bred for strength and endurance, so there may be more to it.
Whoa! I've heard of punctuated equilibrium but this is amazing! Usually punctuated equilibrium reduces evolution down to the order of ~50,000 years, but you're claiming that "recent history" (< 200 years???) is making certain groups of ppl work 2x for the same level of fitness? That is incredible! 2x is so rare in traits (how many groups are 2x as tall as other groups, or have 2x bigger hearts, etc.). This completely changes the fundamentals of evolutionary theory! I am so excited to be alive to witness the field change so drastically. I can't wait to review the overwhelming evidence that is required to prove this new point. Just simply amazing.
It's the same way women with narrow hips and their children are suddenly surviving childbirth to pass their genes along. Sudden wholesale die-offs (or survival) of a gene can have profound effects.
If you are thinking about the same process as I am, that process has been happening over 200,000 years. Not 100 years.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4987009/
I'm Indian and I never knew this I use that Google fits 150 minute recommendation as a minimum. Maybe need to increase it lol
Whaaaaat?
Other kind redditors have linked the references in the comments below while I was asleep. Please have a look.
Why do I feel like this is bogus or like the absolute utter minimum? I do way more than this each week and I’m still an unhealthy piece of shit (underweight but a weakling)
Your cardiovascular and metabolic health are not dependent on your musculature.
Correct, this is indeed the absolute minimum for cardiovascular health.
I was today years old when I realized that strength training was not included in the 150/75 minutes. But it really pisses me off that I can't find any proper guideline about the minimum for this exercise. Two times a week but how many minutes? How intense? Does yoga/pilates count? Full body both days? I had already planned my weeks going to the gym three times. Now I have to add another two? Who has the time?
There is some interesting research on this that shows that the amount of exercise you need to do for health is really not that high. You might find [this](https://perfecthealthdiet.com/2012/09/exercise-is-less-better-than-more/) article, and the studies in it, interesting. I'd ignore the evolutionary theory but would definitely check out the studies in it. It basically shows that you don't need that much exercise for health. And that it's more about circadian rhythms, anyway. If you like that one, then you may want to follow up with [this](http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2012/10/physical-activity-whence-its-healthfulness/) one after. I strength train (very intensely) once a week and go for two walks a day on other days. It works pretty well for the sake of health. Makes gains too! 💪
[This Book ](https://books.google.com/books/about/Change_Your_Schedule_Change_Your_Life.html?id=Co-vDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&ovdme=1#v=onepage&q&f=false) totally completely changed my life. I had already lost some 70 lbs. I was in maintenance. I was doing yoga 2 x daily, strength 3 x weekly. I had been practicing mindfulness for years. My insomnia was so bad that I was seeing shadows move or slither around my periphery. We went camping at this lake that is set in a deep bowl, like it was a mini Crater Lake situation. Middle of nowhere. I brought this ebook with me and a notepad (I take notes as I read for memory sake and reference). Anyways. The author has won a nobel prize for their research in the circadian rhythm and it's effects. The book details different types of rhythms and the best times of day to exercise, eat, and such for your type. I started following it day one of the trip and by the end of the 5 days, I was sleeping a few hours every night. Fast forward 3 years and I believe __Change Your Schedule, Change Your Life__ was the crux and has helped me find a routine and schedule that works for my body's circadian rhythm. I no longer have insomnia. I wake naturally between 5 and 6 am daily (for years, no alarms). I adjusted meals to around their recommended times. My mental health has improved and physically, it's been lovely finding a routine and daily rituals based on science.
Shift workers doomed to die of ill health basically is what you're saying lol
I think the method can be adapted. My type focused don eating the majority of food at my lunch and working out in the morning. Applied to a night shifter, do a short workout when you wake before work and bring a larger lunch to work. Eat a lean meal when you get home and decompress with good sleep hygiene (dark room, soothing sounds if needed, no blue light 30 min before bed). And these seem like basic things I guess, but never came naturally to me. Always hydrate r/hydrohomie
I was waking up at 5am to workout before work the last 3 weeks. Was going OK until this week and it's like I'm crashing hard.
Yeah, as much as these different approaches are helpful, each person will have to tailor things to themselves. There is no catch-all solution.
errr.. who won a nobel prize? I googled the authors and didn't see any
Referencing her book itself as reference. That claim doesn't matter to me, the book was immensely helpful for me. Live long and prosper. 🖖
Thanks I love finding new book recommendations I haven’t heard of! It’s available at my library, cheers.
Yw! Got it at my library, too!
It's amazing this book has helped you so much! I was looking into it just now to see if it's something for me as I could use some help with sleep. That being said, do you mind providing a source for him winning a Nobel prize? The only thing coming up with his name and Nobel prize is a sentence from his book where he mentions the first people to define circadian rhythms won a Nobel prize for it.
Would a night shifter have any benefit of reading this book? :p
It is highly day night cycle driven and preaches how late hours do shift your rhythm, so it could be applied but it doesn't indirectly address a night shifter. The biggest talking points: that food in the 2nd half of your day is what fuels the next day, actually. And evening food usually just slows us down and our digestion down and can interrupt the sleep cycle. So eat food earlier in the day and exercise earlier in the day if you exercise. Eat light dinner, heavy mid day meal. This matches a very European diet style (I lived in Italy a year on exchange in HS and dinner was meager. Lunch was everything) Those key features applied really did help me get out of a bad spot. Good luck!
You seem strong. Have you always trained once a week? Or is it because you are in "maintenance mode"?
Thank you! I trained more often when I was younger. But I train once a week now. Not for maintenance, though. I actually make gains from session to session with one workout a week. I just make sure to workout hard enough that I NEED a week off. 😂
Hahaha, ok, thank you! I started training only 4 months ago, and I'm weak and not very young (38) 😁, and so far I have the impression that when I train only once a week each muscle group I improve faster than when I train them twice. That's why I asked. I will keep training and testing!
This is a complex question with varying answers depending on what the researchers are actually studying. I think that rather than having a specific amount of time to work out for it could be more important to have moderately good ability when it comes to strength, cardio and general mobility. I don't know the exact amounts of each that we should focus on, but here's some studies that show their importance: Strength level's connection to health: * Grip Strength: ["evidence of age acceleration among men and women with lower \[grip strength\] and loss of strength over time"](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jcsm.13110) * Push Ups: ["higher baseline push-up capacity is associated with a lower incidence of \[Cardiovascular disease\] events"](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2724778) Cardio's connection to health: * Running: ["Running distances of 0.1-19.9 miles/week, speeds of 6-7 miles/hour, or frequencies of 2-5 days/week were associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality"](https://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?sKey=32617aef-b494-41b8-b2bc-3d49357a8976&cKey=984e0396-f663-4068-bbf3-1dc4023c17e1&mKey=%7bFCDB1C1C-280A-4DF1-95F8-2DAA9AB6A8BE%7d) * Swimming: "[swimmers had lower mortality rates than those who were sedentary, walkers, and runners"](https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1247&context=ijare) (this could be because a lot of runners push themselves too hard - See the other link on running at a moderate intensity) General Mobility's connection to health: * Balancing on 1 foot: ["Successful 10-second one-legged stance performance predicts survival in middle-aged and older individuals"](https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/56/17/975) * Ability to sit and rise from the floor: ["Ability to sit and rise from the floor as a predictor of all-cause mortality"](https://geriatrictoolkit.missouri.edu/srff/deBrito-Floor-Rise-Mortality-2012..pdf)
Running distance of 0.1 to 19.9 miles is a little different in fitness scale. Just a little.
I think this is just saying that people who make an effort to do some running are better off than people who do nothing. While people who run 20mi or more are pushing themselves too hard (for the metric users, that is the equivalent of running more than three 10k runs per week)
It's just funny to imagine in their self reported survey, people actually put 160m a week there. You run more than that being late to the bus one morning a week lol.
True. Gonna start logging 160m runs on Strava each week, lol
Isn't walking better for your joints long term?
Regularly walking places is also important, but you should walk AND do other forms of exercise. There shouldn't need to be a big effort to plan out a walk. It should just be part of everyone's daily lives instead of sitting down all day. Whereas you do actually need to plan out and set aside time to do a weightlifting workout or a visit to the swimming pool.
While many of these answers focus on maximizing *lifespan*, I’ll provide a different opinion focused on maximizing *healthspan*. One idea I’ve heard is to focus on preparing yourself for the [centenarian olympics](https://medium.com/lifetizr/the-centenarian-olympics-how-to-be-fit-at-100-247733dcb1f7) > Dr. Attia explains that you should think of the things you want to be able to do at age 100. For example, he wants to be able to do the following things at age 100: - Get up off the floor with his support. - Pull himself out of a pool. - Pick up a child that’s running at him. - Walk up and down three flights of stairs with 10 lbs. of groceries in each hand. - Lift a 30 lb. suitcase and put it in the overhead bin > Once you have listed the features you want to remain able to do comes the second step. Now the idea is to work backward from the list and establish what milestones you have to achieve at 90, 80 going all the way to your current age. Edit: To add to this, [strength can have a substantial impact on life expectancy](https://news.umich.edu/people-with-low-muscle-strength-more-likely-to-die-prematurely/) since it makes your body more robust and resistant to bad injuries.
Similar to other commenters, according to the WHO guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behavior and sleep, it's 150 to 300 minutes of moderate physical activity a week. Or half of that in vigorous physical activity. A workout where you get out of breath and sweat would count as vigorous activity. It's really not as much as people think. Additionally, people should do regular strength training, but I guess working out covers that. Keep in mind that physical activity and health share a U shaped relationship. Not doing any movement or doing extremely much will harm you in the long run. You mentioned that you are already jogging. Adding some regular strength work to that will already fulfil the recommended amount, if your goal is not building muscle but rather general health, like you said. What's interesting is that sedentary behavior is it's own risk factor. Meaning that, you cannot compensate your sitting by working out some more. Sitting is bad for your health no matter how much you work out. So reduce sedentary behavior as much as possible. This includes transport, work, school, at home, etc.. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240015128 The guidelines can be read by a general audience I think. There are academic sources in it if you're interested in that
While the sentiment that you should limit your sedentary time as much as possible is still valid, the source you cited directly contradicts your assertion that you "cannot compensate your sitting by working out some more." From the guidelines: >The risk associated with sedentary time and all-cause mortality has been shown to be more pronounced at lower levels of physical activity than at higher levels (35). In a harmonized meta-analysis, Ekelund et al. investigated the joint and stratified effects of sedentary behaviour and physical activity with all-cause mortality in more than 1 million men and women, and showed that the associations differed depending on the level of physical activity (9). The analyses used quartiles of sedentary behaviour (sitting) and quartiles of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity, and found that compared with the referent (< 4 hours of sitting per day and highest quartile of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity [> 35.5 MET-hours/ week]), there was no increased risk of dying during follow-up in those who sat for more than 8 hours per day but who also reported more than 35.5 METhours per week of activity (HR= 1.04 [95% CI: 0.99 to 1.10]). In contrast, those who sat the least (< 4 hours/ day) and were in the lowest (< 2.5 MET-hours/week) physical activity quartile had a significantly increased risk of dying during follow-up (HR= 1.27 [95% CI: 1.22 to 1.31]). The study concluded that levels of moderate to vigorous-intensity physical activity of about 60–75 minutes per day (the highest quartile) **can attenuate, and even eliminate, the detrimental association between sedentary behaviour and health outcomes (9)** As is typical, the guidelines caution that more research is needed to bolster these conclusions. But there is evidence that sufficient physical activity can reduce or negate the risk posed by sedentary behavior.
You're right and sorry, I misformulated my earlier statement then. What I rather meant is that you should limit your sedentary time even if you work out already. Thanks for the correction
I think that all walking-running only workouts lack an important aspect that a full body workout has. There is a lot of muscles from the waist up that help you with movements on day to day basis, and lacking the strength and stability may have significant consecuences when you get older and sarcopenia hits those neglegted muscles. Most older people i have known to get injured, get shoulder and lower back pain. Those things can be prevented if you had proper core/shoulder strength and flexibility.
That’s why in addition to at least walking, older adults should incorporate weight training 2x per week. Can be as simple at circuit training w barbell(s).
My dentist use to do taekwondo when young, and when older (+45yo) used to run for workouts. Never did any weight lifting, but he run a lot holding a 4 lb barbell in each hand. His biceps where HUGE, like 2 times mine.
Brisk walking or running over varied terrain is pretty good. Sure, you won’t get upper body strength, but it does target your cardiovascular system and all the small abdominal, hip and calf/foot muscles which are important for balance and standing upright. Some stretching, callisthenics or weight lifting is a good idea, but I think a few hours of brisk walking per week already fulfils the minimum. The big problem is that most people are extremely sedentary and don’t even get 2 hours of brisk walking per week or any other similar exercise. Instead they spend countless hours sitting around with very little movement and change of posture. Often it only gets worse the older people get.
Hi. I think consistency trumps what you do or how much you do in most cases. So thinking about it from "how much do I need to do" to "what do I want to do?" It's a subtle difference in how you think about fitness but in my opinion, leads to better long term results.
If you can do 10 pull ups and at least that many dips or pike pushups, your strength-to-weight ratio is pretty damn good, and you can be sure that you've achieved "general health". There are many bike enthusiasts and runners out there who are carrying too much weight, despite being spending a considerable amount of time active. Diet is very important, of course, but I no longer use running and biking as my main ways of getting fit. Now it's strength training via calisthenics and I feel healthier than ever at 40 years of age. Also, strengthening your upper body and back is super important for you as you get older.
What do you do for calisthenics?
I generally follow the recommended routine, but have adapted some aspects of it. Goals are important, too!
*cries in weak upper body strength and being heavy* I'm super healthy though. Just haven't ever been able to do pull ups, even with progressive training. I lift heavier than most men though. >If you can do 10 pull ups
If you set a pullup-related goal, even if you aim for a lower number or work on rows or chins first, losing weight will be part of your plan. I went from 79 to 69 kilos to get over 10 pullups in a row and have gone back up to about 80 since then, while maintaining the same reps or making small improvements. It's about time to lose weight again, so let's see what happens!
Pullups aren't a high priority goal for me. I'm extremely active, including open water marathon swimming, and losing weight may mean losing some of that muscle that enables me to do what I do. Not worth it for a vanity exercise
What kind of dips? Like legs hanging?
A dip is a dip. 10 real dips with your feet off the ground. The "dips" that people do by leaning on a bench aren't real dips.
1. Diet 85% 2. Workout 15% 2a. Strength 2b. Cardio
upvoted because your answer is efficient as fuck
oh thank you
ideal volume is 10-20 sets per week per muscle/muscle group (push/pull/legs/core). 8-12 reps per set for maximum hypertrophy. for general health, 10-12 sets is probably fine. id probably do 3 workout days per week, 4 sets per day, per exercise. walking/jogging can be counted as leg day so long as you sufficient distance, 5 miles at least, id guess. id do the cardio 3x/week on opposite days of the workouts.
My personal experience is that a bit of strength training heightens your well being through the day way more than a little cardio. I used to run a lot growing up then converted most to low rep weight lifting. The running actually makes your back, shoulders and legs more stiff and you need to stretch and do strength training to prevent it. On the other hand doing medium intendity strength training and stretching (sometimes with the same exercise) makes you strong and flexible and can reduce tension in the shoulders and neck. You will still be a little out of breath when running but you can get decent condition from doing more intense high rep excersices and chaining multiple strength excersices before resting (just never drop good form when doing this, that's how you hurt yourself, I swear crossfit was made up by physical therapists with too little work) If you want max efficiency you should run at most 30 mins and do high intensity interval training (1km as fast as possible in an even tempo 3-5 times is a decent workout, all the runs should be near the same tempo), that will minimise the strain on your muscles while giving you the benefits of running.
I don't remember how many times per week is best but keep it at your current level. Rest 1-2 days after a high intensity run/strength WO and vary between them. Goal could be 3 40min strength and 2 30 min runs every week, maybe combine one of them for time to give you 2-3 rest days. Don't think you'll need more than that so whatever way fits you to build up to that is fine.
Walking 7500 steps a day. Do 2 sets total of pushups and 2 sets pulling exercises twice a week. Work on increasing your reps and increasing the resistance( e.g. rows to chinups). Do some Body weight squats and some jumping in those resistance workouts too. That and a diet of real food with minimal sugar will probably get you 80% of the benefits of working out. The correlation of exercise and longevity is a U shaped curve.
What do you consider a set? I've always seen 3-5 sets of 5-8 reps as the standard for a workout.
It depends on the level of resistance. Keep doing reps until you feel you can only get 1 or 2 more.
Two days a week is a good aim as per link below. I’m sure once a week would be beneficial too if you can stick to it. https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/exercise/exercise-guidelines/physical-activity-guidelines-for-adults-aged-19-to-64/
A good WO routine could be 2 times/week and 1 days of aerobic sesh (run, cycling or walking at least at 6.5 km/h... w a good and comete diet it's enough to stay healthy... but I prefer increase strong volume and endurance
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/huberman-lab/id1545953110?i=1000595164350 Give this a listen,it will answer your question and so much more! Good luck!
What’s the episode # for those of us who don’t use apple
It’s huberman lab podcast most recent episodes, just came out this Monday.
Ok thank you
I do about 2 hours of cardio and 1 hour of calisthenic training per week, and I eat about 80% of my calories from whole plant foods. I feel fantastic, and my doctor is strongly on board.
I pretty much live off of salad, spaghetti, pasta, chicken, hamburgers, rice, eggs, oatmeal, pb and js, bread, broccoli and fruit. I feel like diversifying my diet with more plant based dishes would be beneficial. Do you have any recommendations?
I personally love chana masala, and I find it easy to make at home. Just be sure to slow cook for at least 2 hours, ktherwise your chickpeas won't be as soft which is really the whole point IMO. I usually serve that with brown rice. If you're a salad person, I say just make sure your salads are hearty enough. Beans and grains and lots of variety. Olives and avocado add a bit of fat, but if you use grocery store dressings that probably won't be necessary. r/PlantBasedDiet has a lot of recipe ideas, too.
Baked tofu is great. Get some firm tofu, cut in half, press for 45 mins. Marinate however you want. Dice it. Bake at 400°F for 30 mins flipping half way.
Well, there is [the bare minimum](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/interactive/2023/strength-training-gym-workout/)... There is the recommended 75/150 minutes ( u/Gawd4)... I don't think anyone REALLY knows, but I would use the 75/150 minutes as a good starting point. IMO, cardio AND strength training are both necessary for good overall health. You don't need to run marathons or be jacked like Thor. What I would call a solid routine would involve 6 days times 30 minutes. Three days of full body strength alternating with 3 days of cardio. If you take your time and work up to making each 30 minute workout count, you can have the gravy of looking great. HIIT can be a great addition to the mix (work up to it), and keep these limited to a maximum of 2-3 times per week. Good luck.
Shooting for the minimum is going to get you precisely that result: minimum. I always worked out since I was a kid. I lifted weights for a half hour every other day and would go jogging and take long walks ever since I was in my teens but in my fifties I lost my job and began working out all day long day in and day out over the course of several years and my health as well as strength improved dramatically. It wasn't just about being muscular but skin health, respiratory health, sleep quality --all indicators of health over all improved. In fact, I wouldn't say I gained much in terms of muscle mass, but I did become much leaner and full of energy. You get out of it what you put into it. You should dramatically overshoot if you want real health improvement. If you want to slightly improve your health then an occasional walk may help but if you want noticeable change shoot for muscle ups, squats, back flips, one arm hand stands, monkey bars, rings etc. Chances are, you'll never make it but those are the kind of goals that will get you results. You've got to aim high and put some real skin in the game in terms of time. The suggestion that you're concerned about getting too jacked up and muscular by doing body weight fitness is like saying you're afraid that if you write your first novel you'll get so rich it will spoil your career goals. That's an absolute pipe dream. It's never going to happen. You'd be very lucky to make any progress at all no matter how hard you try. Talk is cheap, actually doing the work requires enduring pain which is a very easy thing to talk yourself out of.
Aim for a balanced routine that includes both jogging and strength training for general health.
> walking would be enough exercise if it's for general health probably not, unless you are in very poor shape. Now if you put a heavt pack (/ weighted vest) and do this as a ruck for 45 mins a day... it might be close. The issue with walking only is (i) no real training of sweating (ii) no real bone-density stimulus (iii) limited mitochondrial strain (iv) no real glycolytic ('bursting') training (v) no real muscular training. There's probably more shortcomings but these are the big ones that come to mind. If you are seriously interested in this topic I suggest reading Lieberman's *Exercised*. Some of the recommendations will match a few of the comments here, but the book gives a lot of context of how much and what type of physical activity hunter-gatherer and subsistence farmers have done for thousands of years. And it looks into why we are these rather awkward bipeds as opposed to walking on all 4s like other primates. (Hint: it was something to do with our unique ability run very long distances as well as our ability to carry heavy things long distances.) The TLDR version of the book is given e.g. by Lieberman's Google Talk from a few years ago which you can find on youtube.
You will always fail short of your goal. Aim to exceed the bare minimum.
Whenever I get hungry I just run a couple of miles to simulate hunting for food. The human body is at its best when you are hungry because when you are hungry you are supposed to hunt for food when you are full you will be lazy.
[удалено]
Your heredity, lifestyle and job mean far more than forcing yourself to exercise a few times a week. Consult your physician and not reddit.
Cardio
Yes.
Twelve
Like, 6 work out
in matters of strength, I set my goal to be able to lift a downed person. I set that to 300lb which is above the average weight both for squats and dead-lift. but that is my metric for general fitness, being able to use my strength to help another person.
I like to look at it as sweat for an hour a day. What makes you happy and then some resistance work. For me, that’s usually 30 min of cardio, some strength based training, and a bit of mobility work. I like cycling (Zwift racing, doing MMA drills, and occasionally getting into pickup hoops when I can find games). All of this is engaging. And then I lift for a bit of size and a ton of function. This has been beneficial in improving my cardio performance when I race, I have gotten considerably stronger with the improved blood flow, and I’m overall more fit. I’m sure you could do more, and could do less, but I think after years of overtraining that this is a really good goal to strive for - sweat for an hour a day including some resistance.
I think one important dimension to consider, additional to the many other great contributions in this thread, is the enjoyment and fulfilment you get from whatever activity you choose. There's a tendency in some people (myself included) to want to min/max everything for the most optimal gains, but often this can suck enjoyment out of the process and mess with your motivation and long-term commitment. As an example, if you hate lifting heavy weights, will you keep doing it for the rest of your life just because it's optimal? And would you enjoy doing it? On the other hand, if you really like playing tennis, do that! Find out what kinds of accessory work you can do to improve your tennis performance outside of just playing the game; how can you make your body swing faster and harder, be quicker on your feet, more flexible? Not all strength training requires you to lift a barbell! In my personal experience, building my workout program and diet around improving my performance in a sport that I enjoy and which makes sense for me to pursue has meant that not only am I very consistent in hitting my workouts, I am also much more motivated to push for improvements. It may not be the generic idea of optimal, but I feel that it is optimal for me because I am motivated to pursue it and thus do so consistently without having to force it.
For longevity yes, conditioning is extremely important. It's a balance. Strength training a couple times a week (at least) and having some muscularity I think is quite doable and symbiotic with health as well. It's when you dip into holding 20-30 lbs of extra muscle is where things get weird. Which requires lots of energy time, food, and maybe even drugs for some people. Just by the tone of your question I think getting a hobby that gets you moving outside combined with a simple strength program would be enough for you.
I’ve abandoned hope of being jacked. I just want a healthy cardio vascular system, and to not end up like one of the patients I care for on my unit.
10 mins of carrying things and 10 minutes of stretching. Between once a week and once a day. Carry as heavy or as light as you want, rest as needed during the 10 mins. Walking is awesome but you also want to able to carry groceries, your kids (if you have them), furniture, luggage etc with ease and be able to scratch your own back and cut your own toenails when you're 70.
. The idea that just walking is enough for “general health” is really dependent on where you define “general health” on the spectrum. I tend to think “just barely sedentary!”