SubscribeGuide to Exercise: Do You Really Need to Break a Sweat?
Health experts tend to agree that to be healthy, you need to exercise. But as soon as the questions get more specific, the experts get a lot more quarrelsome. One of the biggest debates: do you really have to do vigorous, sweaty, aerobic exercise for good health?
In their recently updated Physical Activity Guidelines, the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association took on this as well as other important questions. (The quick answer? Yep, looks like for optimal health, you may have to hit the showers after your workout.)
The authors explained that the guidelines haven't changed all that much since they were last issued in 1995. But then they went ahead and snuck in some new requirements. The full report contains a lot more information, including supporting studies and reasons for their recommendations.
But here are the basics (for healthy adults 18-65):
- Do some Aerobics: Thirty minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity five days a week; or 20 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic three days each week. Alternatively, you can mix and match and do some combination of these.
And "moderate" exercise, for example, is brisk walking, while "vigorous" is jogging. (Note: "Surfing the Web," or "Walking Down the Hall to Visit the Vending Machines" or even "Energetically Shaking a Martini" did not make the list).
- Add some Strength Training: At least two non-consecutive days a week. (More specifically: 8-10 exercises using the major muscle groups, done on two non-consecutive days, with 8-12 reps of each exercise resulting in "willful fatigue.")
- More is Better! They suggest you exceed the minimum recommendations if you can for additional health benefits.
- But you can add up Short Bouts of Exercise. They suggest a minimum of 10 minutes for each "bout."
Sound reasonable? Well, not everyone agrees, according to this article. The World Health Organization is content with a minimum of 30 minutes of gentle exercise each day. And Dr. David Haslam, of the National Obesity Forum, was skeptical about the requirement that people do two weight training sessions each week. His view: "I'd rather see healthy habits built into daily life - gyms aren't a sustainable habit for all."
(Dr. Haslam has apparently never heard of those stretchy exercise bands, barbells, or other creative ways people have found to do twice weekly muscle strengthening at home).
While it would be nice to think that we could get all the health benefits of vigorous aerobic exercise and resistance training by just going about our daily activities, I'm not surprised that the Guidelines say otherwise. But then I already do all this stuff because of similar recommendations in the past.
What do you all think of this? Reasonable? Excessive? Not Enough?
I think the recommendations are reasonable. I easily do more than this just as part of my routine by walking to work and doing strength exercises using hand weights at home. I have never belonged to a gym (mainly because I would rather exercise in the fresh air, never mind the fact that this also saves me a lot of money).
The only extra exercise I conciously add in to my weekly routine is a couple of jogs and a bike ride or two, for which I only need to find an extra couple of hours a week all-in.
ReplyIn my opinion and experience i think you need about 45 to 60 minutes of practicing, either running or fitness, until your body starts to "burn" unwanted fat.
ReplyI think these are good recommendations, except that most people will find a hard level sustaining that level, at least at first, for one reason or another. It seems like when the recommended minimums are set so much higher than what a lot of people are doing, or can fit into their routine without stopping to change clothes and shower, many will give up entirely.
My recommendations: work out hard (if you can), work out often (if you can), choose movement over lack of movement, and pick tangible fitness goals. When you hit those goals, pick new, higher ones. Vague and a lot more ambitious for some than others, sure. But that's the point. Everything does help, and one step builds on another.
ReplyI think one of the things the AHA should have encouraged quite a bit more than they did is to just incorporate movement into your daily life. On the brisk walking front, you can do that in your everyday life and schedule. When I go to school, I have to drive, but I park in the furthest parking lot, come in from the back and grab the first spot I see. It saves time and a bit of gas, and means I have to walk further. And I walk quickly, faster than some people jog. Learn to take the stairs, walk when you have a group of errands that are nearby, and in some of your spare time, work in running and strength training, etc. If people would begin to do that, it would at least begin to make some difference.
So personally, I agree with the WHO. Gyms are expensive and they support a mentality that separates exercise from everyday life. Thus why some people going to the gym scrounge for the nearest parking spots, even when they are about to go exercise.
Reply"(Note: "Surfing the Web," or "Walking Down the Hall to Visit the Vending Machines" or even "Energetically Shaking a Martini" did not make the list)."
See, but you're listing two extremes there. I know that walking around the sidewalk instead of cutting across the grass isn't exactly going to build up the exercise karma, but I walk a good mile or two to the train station and back every day. Obviously, for the sake of my co-workers I can't really get the sweat flowing, but I still consider this better than, say, driving in or taking the subway from the train station. (And to clarify, I still ride my bike or walk briskly a few mornings a week, and I don't use my city strolls as an excuse to eat more.) I firmly believe that it's more about fitting motion in where it's possible, and finding time to MAKE it possible.
ReplyI checked out the companion article that has the recommendations for people 65 and older. For these people they modified their recommendations in two ways:
* In strength training, use less weight and more reps
* Add two ten-minute sessions a week of flexibility/balance training
Hard to argue with, but hard to imagine being gratefully embraced either.
ReplySome really good points you all are making about the importance of including lots of daily walking that is easier to fit into a busy life than a trip to the gym! And all those ten minute walks can really add up over time.
However, I think there are people out there who magnify the little bit of incidental walking they do in their own minds and think they're covered, even if it only adds up to a few minutes a day. And I do believe that for OPTIMAL health, rather than more "doable" minimums, it's really best to include some strength training and aerobic activity. But there are obviously lots of different opinions on this!
ReplyThe recommendations are good for maintenance, but you must do more if your goal is weight loss. No simple way around it, to loose weight you have to workout hard and keep the calories under control.
Replyi dont think you need to break a sweat necessarily. i think its more about getting your heart rate up, which leads to sweating.
ReplyI'd like some more guidance on the strength training. I feel the cardio element has been talked to death, but not so much with strength training. Maybe because I'm a woman? Talking with friends and family, I hear more about doing crunches than actual strength training and am pretty clueless about it other than pilates class.
ReplyNic,
I did myself some bad damage strength training with a well-meaning friend (I'm a hammerhead, which is relevant). So... if you can afford it, I'd recommend at least starting out with a trainer.
I started using a trainer earlier this year. I wish I had done this years ago. My trainer has a degree in physical training, and is an elite triathlete, so she's helped me a lot with core strength, balance, and opposing muscles to help keep me injury free.
I see plenty of women at my gym doing strength training (my gym is no meat market, either). There's even a gym nearby that has a weight room set aside only for women (I hear it's nice, too), So, look around at gyms to find one that has the kind of people you'd like to work out around.
Reply(Note: "Surfing the Web," or "Walking Down the Hall to Visit the Vending Machines" or even "Energetically Shaking a Martini" did not make the list).
I'm glad they're specific about what constitutes "exercise". I've always found it odd that some health magazines offer the calories counts of daily tasks(like washing dishes) implying that these = fat burning activities.
ReplyThere are many paths to fitness. (I recently blogged about this in a compelling case against cardio, if anyone is interested in investigating high-intensity exercise pros and cons further. http://marksdailyapple.com/case-against-cardio)
ReplyWhen I gegan to try to get in shape, I made a goal of just getting the exersize in. I started off with 2 days of strength taining. I do a fairly consistant 3X a week now. When I added a morning run, my goal was to get up twice in the first week. I run 4-5 days a week now. This was all hard at first, but now it's habit to get up when the alarm goes off at 3AM instead of hitting snooze about 3 times. My current goal is to increase my yoga practice from 3-4 times a week to 6-7 times. I work 40+ hours a week and attend college, so I'm as busy as most people. I just make the time for fitness 30-60 min at a time.
By the way, does anyone know where yoga lies on the scale of exercize intensity?
ReplyI think breaking a sweat is critical. I'm not an expert, but I think of sweating as a way of detoxing the body.
Reply1 hr = 257 calories burned
ReplyThe math is simple, the more calories you burn during exercise the more you can intake and still lose/maintain weight. Muscle mass burns more than fat (higher metabolic rate) So, in general I think you need to exercise (aerobic)at least 3 x per week 20 min per day to maintain "current" good health and anything above this improves health. If you maintain the proper exercise heart rate you will sweat.
ReplyI think most people can probably manage to squeeze 30 minutes of a good, sweaty workout into their day. I started off my exercise routine with walking 4 miles a day (I wasn't in SUCH bad shape that walking was that hard, but 4 miles really made me get my heart rate up). On days I didn't have time to walk, I did a Tae Bo tape. As I got more used to the amount of exercise I was doing, I found I had to work harder to get my heart rate up. I think this is where a lot of people get stuck...they figure they're "burning fat" by strolling around the block, when in reality they aren't burning nearly as much as they think. The recommendations should be modified to say that you should increase your intensity as your heart gets used to the amount of activity you're doing.
ReplyGood recommendations *thumbs up!*
Except... I'm not sure about having older folk use less weight and more reps for strength training. More reps can lead to overuse injuries in tired joints, especially on the isolation movements most likely performed by the older population (curls vs. chin-ups, for instance).
What I might do when I get older, is focus on bodyweight exercises. Push-ups, chin-ups, dips, inverted rows, one-legged squats and one-legged deadlifts.
All are compound exercises and less likely to lead to joint deterioration from over-use. They will insure that I can still move my body weight, while the one-legged lower body exercises are big time balance and coordination strengtheners.
(If I couldn't do the one-legged leg exercises at some point, I'd switch to dumbbell squats and stiff-legged deadlifts.)
ReplyInteresting stuff Mark. I do believe a combination of cardio/strength is optimal for most people most of the time. It certainly depends on the individual though and you would have to further quantify the frequency, intensity and duration at which people are exercising at these given intensities. I agree that too much emphasis has been placed on prolonged cardio, but for the average unfit person, building a stronger heart and more cardiorespiratory stamina can never be underestimated. Wind sprints are not an option for the unfit.
Great site you have! I'll try and check in more often.
ReplyI agree with your sentiments here Kailash. There has been a paradigm shift in the industry as to how seniors would benefit most optimally with strength training. Once they have a good adaptive base, I don't see anything wrong with a senior training more in the strength spectrum (3-6 reps, 2-4 sets) this of course barring any pathology that would render this kind of training contraindicated.
I train seniors with faster movements and add strength phases because seniors NEED this type of training stimulus to help with daily tasks such as lifting.
ReplyI agree. It's a sign of exerting effort. I believe that exercising without breaking a sweat is like not doing it at all.
ReplyI don't think you have to break a sweat, if you walk 1 or 2 hours and do light weight training you're bound to be improving your overall fitness. Now, if you are planning to run a 5K or something then I believe that's a different thing all together.
Lots of places in Europe all they do is walk around and eating normally and they out live us.
http://www.weightbusters.blogspot.com
ReplyI think it's very reasonable. We know that exercise is a physical activity. Thus sweat should be involved before we can consider it as an effective exercise.
ReplyQuito,
Thanks for the advice. I've been thinking about getting a trainer for a while now. I also am working out with a well-meaning buddy! I should take your advice, you get what you pay for right?
ReplyYou might check out books by Miriam Nelson (one of them is "Strong Women, Strong Bones"). She is a proponent of strength training for women and older adults for overall health and, for women, to fight against osteoporosis. Her focus is on moderate strength training.
While I agree with the truth behind the proposal that one needs to break a good sweat when one exercises, there are some folks who just don't sweat. I have a friend who can run 6 miles at a decent pace and stay dry. I, on the other hand, can run 3 miles in 16° weather and come home dripping.
ReplyOne more comment: It seems to me that the ideal is a combination of cardio and strength training. They not only complement each other but work different parts of the body. I realize that some strength training only proponents say that one can get cardio benefit from circuit training but I'm not convinced that most people can or will work hard enough to get a real benefit. At the other extreme, while walking or running work some muscles, neither build strong core or upper body muscles.
Replythis article is cool but u people are stupid
Replyno the math isn't this simple- it all depends on where the calories come from. A calorie is a unit measure of energy but only in a lab environment. Protein yields 4 cals per gram in a lab but in your body protein is not used as a source of energy in the presence of muscle glycogen (carbs). Its the actual amount of energy yielding carbohydrates that determines weight loss success. 25g of carbs will easily fuel 1 hours exercise
It also depends on the energy system your body is using during exercise. Weights is anaerobic (muscle contraction without oxygen) fat metabolism requires oxygen- you may burn 600 calories doing a weights circuit but very little of that will come from fat stores.
you need both correct exercise structure and an individualized nutrition plan that is low enough in energy-yielding carbs to maximize weight loss. One without the other will cause initial weight loss only.
Reply