New Guidelines: Exercise More, not Harder

yeah there are differnt opionions on this one, but I think the most overwhelming point is that exercising every day is paramount. Even if its just for 10 to 15 minutes it is so important to get out and do something

I completely agree that doing something is better than doing nothing -- but I also agree that some vigorous exercise is a good thing (once you're starting to get fit). I definitely see very different physical and mental benefits from doing cardio workouts than from enjoying a gentle stroll...

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Different "study" outcomes every 2 days are driving me crazy.
What happened to, it is better to work your butt off for 30 minuts then to walk for an hour? Umm, HIIT??
None of these people have any credibility anymore

Mike,

What is this 638 page report - is it for the National Research Council?

Kraus has research backing up his arguments, which are a little different than your description: his work indicates that the amount of time one exercises is more important than the intensity: see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12972442?dopt=Abstract and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12421890?dopt=Abstract for example.

Great post - I agree that it seems like they're just trying to sugar-coat exercise requirements rather than make legitimate recommendations. There's no question that a completely sedentary person should start with mild exercise, but these guidelines don't seem to leave room for continuing to build on your exercise routine.

Working out longer is a personal turn-off for me and if I have to put in more than 45 minutes, I won't do it. I'd much rather do it hard and end the suffering quickly than prolong it at an easier pace.

But looking at it from a health standpoint - hasn't it been shown that HIIT burns the belly fat faster than slow-go cardio? And doesn't fat around your belly put you at greater risk for heart disease and other health problems?

But either way, something is definitely better than nothing.

Like you said, its a good message to get people off of their butts. Walking is better than just lazying around watching tv all day. But to say that non vigorous exercise is better than vigorous is misleading. It depends on the persons body and abilities. It also depends on what your goals are. Adding some high intensity training and weight training can definitely have its benefits.

Why ANYBODY still listens to the Government's recommendations on diet or physical fitness is beyond me. They have been consistently wrong on just about everything since the beginning. No wonder either, as incompetence and mediocrity are what you get from the Government.

Ah, it's the same discussion and problem isn't it? You want people to do anything active, but really the best activity they can do is more intense and longer than 20 minutes. It's a catch 22...go with the hardcore research and scare them or go with a kind message and receive fewer benefits.

Although the fitness professional in me says go faster and work harder, the normal girl in me says do what you can. Anything is better than nothing! :)

Different training methods produce different results.

HIIT is not universally better than aerobic exercise. Yoga isn't better than pilates isn't better than circuit training isn't better than walking...

If someone has sat on the couch for years, intense training might actually be taking a walk around the block. Trying to sprint up hills just is not going to happen.

There is also the concern for the weekend warrior. Do nothing all week, play pick-up football on the weekend, sprint to make a tackle and keel over in the parking lot with a heart attack.

All aspects of physical fitness should be trained and maybe we should look at energy system training as a continuum. Start with low intensity aerobic activity, moved to moderate intensity aerobic and eventually graduate at high intensity anaerobic/lactic training

http://healthhabits.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/the-components-of-physical-fitness/

I hate that whole "walking a mile burns the same calories as running a mile." It's true to a point - there is a difference in calories, but I'll admit that it's neglible. However, what they don't add is this:

Walking a mile takes 15-25 minutes. Running one takes 8-12 minutes. So in the time you walked one mile, you could have run two and burned double the calories. If you are ONLY planning to do a mile, then by all means go ahead and walk it, but most people plan to work out for a set amount of time rather than a set distance, in which case you will burn more calories by running. Plus, even if you just run a mile and then sit on your butt and do nothing for the remainder of the time that you would have spent if you walked it, you will burn a few extra calories just from sitting and doing nothing. Over a period of time, the difference between running and walking a mile is more than negligible.

Of course, walking is easier to get into, and it's easier on the joints, but if it's possible for you to run, by all means do it!

I think it's a matter of personal differences. Just like everyone needs to find a diet to fit their lifestyle - they need to find an exercise program that fits their lifestyle (and any health related conditions they might have.)

The most important factor is that we all need to exercise because we have become to sedentary.

As a kid, I'd have to walk a few blocks to my friends - today kids are chauffered everywhere.

Most people won't walk a block to the store, walk their kids to school, walk to a friends - nope they hop in their car & go. (This might change with the gas prices!)

Back in the good ole days, parents would go outside and play ball with the kids, today they play video games.

Again, it's about moving ... and not staying still.

"Making exercise a habit is the cornerstone to continued success."

Hit the nail on the head there Mike H.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't worry too much about studies "miss," just DO something fun and mix it up -- short, long, hard, easy. Enjoy.

~Mike.

I spent a little time looking at Bill Kraus's own research. He's done several studies that show that the length of time one spends in exercise has a larger impact on various physical measurements than the intensity of the exercise. He's interested in, among other things, cardiovascular disease.

I'm not contradicting the posting or the comments here, but he does have clinical evidence that, for some health related issues, duration is more important than intensity.

Yeah, I agree that doing something is better than doing nothing, but I also think we as a nation are really good at coddling the sedentary lifestyle. Walking IS great exercise and it burns some calories, but I think it should be done in addition to at least SOME vigorously intense exercise so cardiovascular fitness levels can be improved. Although that sounds daunting to someone who's really sedentary, you don't have to do much to get your heart rate up appreciably when you are very obese. And as you improve your fitness levels, you can increase your activity levels accordingly.

I thing the big difference is in how you are walking vs. running/jogging. Racewalking can provide a lot more of a calorie burn than if you are jogging at a slow speed because racewalking is somewhat inefficient (doing it right makes you want break into a jog or run because it is easier on the body.

I forget who said it, but remember how fast you could walk when you're not allowed to run (think at the swimming pool, trying to get in line for the diving board)--that's the kind of walk that would probably burn as much as a slow jog, and be much easier on the body as well.

This study is part of a government initiative isn't it? It’s not unusual for information put out by a government to promote an idea to be not exactly true. This release is approximately true, and if it gets results then I’m all for it. People will build up to high intensity exercise in there own time without encouragement, the only need here is to get them started.

I never lost any noticeable weight until I mixed a little more taxing exercise with my diet change. I read once if you just concentrate on dieting you just become a smaller version of the -out of shape- person you became.

I didn't just want to be a smaller fatty, I wanted to define some shape and look like I used to and become healthier at the same time.

Eating better and exercising a little will give you more gains,inspiration and results.

I learned how to still leave the skin on my chicken and eat cake (which I refuse to give up) and get in shape by following a simple and easy plan.

In 2002, the National Academies' Institute of Medicine recommended that all adults and children perform at least 60 minutes DAILY of moderate-intensity exercise such as brisk walking, cycling, or swimming. For most sedentary Americans, that goal was unrealistic, and at least a few people just gave up on trying to get fit.

From my own literature review, I believe you can get 80% of the full health benefit of exercise by doing half of what the Institute of Medicine recommended. If you want the full 100%, go for it. But 80% is not bad.

-Steve Parker, M.D.

In my own experience I was suprised at how easier it was to do a hard workout after I had lost a chunk of weight. Many people have a mental video of "The Biggest Loser" competition in their heads as they start their exercise/diet regime. If that is too intimidating, then permission to start out easy and increase intensity as weight-loss occurs might be the right way to go.

Inspired by a previous article and discussion on this site (about high intensity vs. low intensity exercise) I began adding 2-minute running segments to my dog walks--basically running on the flat portions of our route. That helped me overcome a weight-loss plateau, and I now find that I want to run much further/harder than I should due to my 50-year-old, much-abused-in-previous-life knee joints. I could not have started out my healthy new lifestyle by running, but it seemed like a natural progression after 3 months of walking. I would hope that sedentary folks who begin an active lifestyle will begin to feel so good and be so inspired by their progress that they would also want to increase the intensity or amount of time they exercise. I find that consistency really has been the biggest factor for me, and the more weight I lost and the better I felt, the more I enjoyed my workouts and looked for ways to improve them.

everyone has something to say on this when in reality, fitness means nothing - healthy, sustainable lifestyle (for life being the key) is the most important thing. A healthy lifestyle is a wholistic approach, one that is always undermined by these studies. Eating or exercising a certain way will not give you a healthier body for life unless there are lifestyle habits in place that are sustainable for life. Take the average overweight person that is sedentary and tell them they need to radically change how they eat and move and see how sustainable it is for that person. Tell the same person if you decrease --- in your diet by ..% and increase --- by this percentage (for example pop/water) then that is a sustainable habit for life. Once that overweight person changes that habit, then move on to the next. Walk 1/2 block to work instead of parking right out front. These small steps lead to the greater goal of overall health. Small steps are mainainable and the person mentally goes from "I'll never be fit so why bother" to "hey that wasn't as hard as I thought, I am ready for the next step (literally or figuratively). Health is not one thing; it is everything and it starts with a person's mindset.

I think that the overall message is to promote daily exercise. When someone who is looking to start exercising it can be very disouraging to read that they need to be doing high intensity exercise to get the most out of it. I think it's a good way to get people to start exercising and to keep doing it. I personally try to start slowly like they suggest, but progressively try to increase intensity.

In my opinion the Government wants to urge people to do any exercise at any rate. For beginners even walking a mile would be challenge and jogging or running is absolutely unachievable when you start to exercise for the first time.

I have lots of friends who speak with me on the topic "how to start to exercise at the most effective way" (understand lose more fat) and it is always the same. As they get more familiar with exercises, they confidence grow and they start to experiment with different ways of doing exercises. Some of them discover that alternating high intense workout with long lasting workout is better for them. Other discover that hard strength training is the most efficient for them.

I agree that it depends what you want to accomplish is the key to chose the proper way of doing exercises. And when you start to exercise you certainly don't know what is good for you, than you slowly start to discover new things about their bodies.