Is a daily 7-minute workout enough? I perform it at a very high intensity (40 jumping jacks, 16 push ups).
https://archive.nytimes.com/well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/0...
https://archive.nytimes.com/well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/0...
If your lungs are burning and you're about to collapse after 30 seconds of activity the intensity is about right.
Do 30 seconds high intensity, then 90 seconds low intensity (don't sit down or stand still), repeat 8 times.
Rowing and sprinting works really well.
https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/measuring/heartr...
I’m 180bpm-ish as a 45 year old male, I get that trying to cycle uphill as hard as I can and can sustain it for some minutes.
They say the equation is 220bpm minus your age, so you should be able to go a bit higher.
Maximum heart rate is also sport dependent. For an equivalent level of fitness, maximum cycling HR is often about 10bpm lower than maximum running HR. This is because running engages more muscles and doesn't restrict breathing as much.
(And for what it’s worth, my max heart rate is the same when cycling or running, within a small margin of error. I’ve never thought to ask anyone if it’s the same for them - I will do now!)
Just want to clarify, I mentioned 160-170 bpm as a regular workout I do where I do not feel anywhere near max (I have seen my heart rate get above 190 while running).
I was replying to this:
> For 80-85% of maximum pulse rate...
> If your lungs are burning and you're about to collapse after 30 seconds of activity the intensity is about right.
And saying that going at 160-170 (above 80-85% according to rule of thumb) for a prolonged period of time, I feel none of those symptoms.
https://marathonhandbook.com/how-to-calculate-max-heart-rate...
Note that wearable fitness trackers that use wrist optical heart rate sensors often don't give accurate readings on such tests so it's best to add a chest heart rate sensor.
"Since HRmax varies by individual, the most accurate way of measuring any single person's HRmax is via a cardiac stress test. In this test, a person is subjected to controlled physiologic stress (generally by treadmill or bicycle ergometer) while being monitored by an electrocardiogram (ECG). The intensity of exercise is periodically increased until certain changes in heart function are detected on the ECG monitor, at which point the subject is directed to stop. Typical duration of the test ranges ten to twenty minutes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate#Maximum_heart_rate
I think it might be dangerous for some people to seek out max heart rate without a doctor present.
Just put on your heart rate monitor, get warmed up, and then sprint as fast as you can until you collapse, most easily done by sprinting uphill. Note your maximum heart rate recorded.
I think watching this Ted might be helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6U728AZnV0
With up to 45 minutes of daily exercise you see an improvement. After that there is a period where more exercise has negligible impact and only at the extreme upper end to you see a decline. But even people running regular marathons have lower risks than couch potatoes, you need to get really extreme before it’s an issue.
from https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a20806916/excessive-exerci... :
“First, low exercise is a much more prevalent problem for our society than is excessive exercise. Second, the maximal health benefits of exercise typically occur at quite low levels. More exercise may burn more calories and improve athletic performance, but probably does not lead to better health outcomes.
“Three, in keeping with what Ben Levine said in his Circulation Commentary in 2014, I do not believe that we should go overboard to frighten athletes who want to compete in vigorous endurance sports like marathons and triathlons.”
Lavie also pointed out two new exercise studies in JAMA Internal Medicine....
When mortality rates were adjusted for exercise levels, the researchers found the lowest rate among those who exercised about three to five times the amount recommended by federal guidelines (i.e., 150 minutes per week of moderate exercise, or 75 minutes of vigorous exercise like running). However, the increased benefit of working out three to five times more than the guidelines was modest, the researchers wrote.
More importantly to serious runners, there was no evidence of harm at ten or more times the recommended minimum.
Another JAMA Internal Medicine paper looked at mortality rates in relation to moderate vs. vigorous exercise. In other words, what’s the proof for the federal government’s guideline showing vigorous exercise is roughly twice as good per minute as moderate exercise (75 minutes vs. 150 minutes)?
The conclusion, based on an analysis of 204,000 Australians aged 45 to 75: The current federal guidelines likely underestimate the value of vigorous exercise. The Australian results showed an inverse relationship between vigorous exercise and mortality rates.
A swing with good form works your entire body. 100 reps once or twice a day literally takes 2-4 minutes. Do it after hitting start on the microwave.
HIIT isn't necessarily high-impact.
You will think of every excuse known to man to avoid doing it.
Something like 90% approaches what you're talking about, maybe being sustainable for 15 minutes or so, but that 5% makes an enormous difference.
From what I can tell 220-age seems to be a rough population calculation - sort of like BMI.
It is a starting point, but fit individuals increase their max heart rate and should take a stress test.
But it's far less than ideal.
Unfortunately, long, low intensity cardio (zone 2 on the order of 4 hours per week) is also incredibly important for longevity and health. You also ideally should be doing some kind of real strength training (e.g. barbells) for 1-3 hours per week for long term well being. A good maximum strength building program is usually going to require 30-60 minutes 2-3x a week. Muscle mass degradation is one of the most significant factors affecting quality of life in later age. You mitigate this decline by a) maximizing your potential in your youth and b) doing consistent maintenance work in your middle to late age.
Again, something is always going to be better than nothing. Sadly, our current society doesn't really allow for people to get an adequate amount of exercise, at least for many white collar workers with families.