"Scientists analysed physical activity records from more than 80,000 people and found that the risk of heart disease fell 30% in women who clocked up 250 minutes of exercise each week. In contrast, men needed to reach 530 minutes, or nearly nine hours, a week to see the same effect."
Does anyone have further research on the limits of exercise health benefits? Previously I've only understood running as largely tapering off benefits past ~300 minutes or 30 miles / week, and more than that is just speed, really. Don't want to put an extra 4 hours a week of time into something for just race times.
I'm not sure about running specifically (nor this mapping of 5 hours to 30 miles, since depending on your capability as a runner, 5 hours could mean 50+ miles), but cyclists, x-country skiers, triathletes[0] etc rack up more than 5 hours a week, and they are the ones with the massive VO2 maxes, in comparison to the runners who have to suffer from the mechanical impact of running.
[0] as a former wanna-be triathlete, I'd run 2x2 hours a week, swim 2x2 hours a week, cycle 2x5 hours a week. That's probably minimal to be able to complete an ironman, and I'm sure the sub 9 hour folks are putting in twice that, which would be 18 hours[1] to 36 hours of training a week.
[1] that's why I stopped; I figure I can spend about 10-12 hours a week on "fun" exercise including social stuff. Triathlon training on the other hand is very solo intensive.
my intuition says that interval running is the best regime for this, and most time efficient (like 15 mins per session: 6x30sec sprints + 6x2m jogging)
"Scientists analysed physical activity records from more than 80,000 people and found that the risk of heart disease fell 30% in women who clocked up 250 minutes of exercise each week. In contrast, men needed to reach 530 minutes, or nearly nine hours, a week to see the same effect."
Does anyone have further research on the limits of exercise health benefits? Previously I've only understood running as largely tapering off benefits past ~300 minutes or 30 miles / week, and more than that is just speed, really. Don't want to put an extra 4 hours a week of time into something for just race times.
I'm not sure about running specifically (nor this mapping of 5 hours to 30 miles, since depending on your capability as a runner, 5 hours could mean 50+ miles), but cyclists, x-country skiers, triathletes[0] etc rack up more than 5 hours a week, and they are the ones with the massive VO2 maxes, in comparison to the runners who have to suffer from the mechanical impact of running.
[0] as a former wanna-be triathlete, I'd run 2x2 hours a week, swim 2x2 hours a week, cycle 2x5 hours a week. That's probably minimal to be able to complete an ironman, and I'm sure the sub 9 hour folks are putting in twice that, which would be 18 hours[1] to 36 hours of training a week.
[1] that's why I stopped; I figure I can spend about 10-12 hours a week on "fun" exercise including social stuff. Triathlon training on the other hand is very solo intensive.
> they are the ones with the massive VO2 maxes
my intuition says that interval running is the best regime for this, and most time efficient (like 15 mins per session: 6x30sec sprints + 6x2m jogging)
[dead]