2.2 hours of moderate to vigorous activity per day?
Lifting only takes like 5 minutes of actual movement per day. Guess I need to go play some basketball because walking one hour a day plus calisthenics just won't cut it.
Lifting only takes like 5 minutes of actual movement per day. Guess I need to go play some basketball because walking one hour a day plus calisthenics just won't cut it.
It doesn't need to be all at once nor does it need to be dedicated exercise. You probably get some of this in your week as it is. If it helps, the link lists a slew of moderate and vigorous activity.
https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/physical/pdf/pa_intensity_t...
Do kids still play running games at school? Football--uh, soccer? Tag? British bulldog[1]?
A half-hour walk each way should be negligible.
Also, kids frequently play by sprinting and then relaxing, and then sprinting, relaxing, etc. It's only boring adults who do steady state cardio like a long walk.
That's an interesting observation, I'd never noticed that but you're right. There was always something uncanny to me about high school teams for cross-country running but I could never put my finger on it.
Soccer, karate, judo, whatever.
2.2 hrs lines up pretty well with surveys I have seen on r/fitness.
I just started doing about that much (half walking, half weights) 2 months ago, and the results are pretty amazing.
It isn’t a given that endurance exercise is good for us (I mean, it probably is, but no more good than any other form), it is a given that humans have good stamina because we needed to eat though, that’s surely the only real conclusion we can extract?
Saying that we need a minimum of two hours walking per day is not based in any kind of fact at all. It is entirely assumption.
Exercise, yes, exercise for two hours or more per day, who knows?
Sure. At least we now have a sample size of 1 to extrapolate from.
> You can't prove that ...
Dude, open your eyes, look around you, seeing 70%+ of people having a beer belly at 30 isn't normal, it isn't healthy, most people don't even hit the bare minimum recommendations, I don't need a mathematical proof, it's all here in front of us
The way I (intuitively) understand it is that we’ve been selected through generations to deal with certain situations well. Like endurance running. But when we get thrown into novel in the evolutionary sense situations, all bets are off. And it turns out that things work worse. For perhaps all kinds of possible reasons: maybe the baseline metabolism that hunter-gatherers had 20,000 years just because of their exact kind of activity levels turned out to be optimal for all kinds of biological functions as a sort of side effect.[1]
Another potential example is sleeping. In my experience I feel better in my muscles after sleeping on a hard surface. If you try to lay on your side on the floor you will feel like you are either stretching or massaging your muscles, or both. And maybe this low-intensity impact on the muscles throughout the night is necessary for some biological process? Contrast that with memory foam mattresses. Now if we were “designed” intentionally (tens of thousands of years ago), the designer would not have to worry about the biological implications of our bodies staying almost still on a soft surface for hours at a time. The best we would have is the ground, ranging from a soft, grassy meadow to just hard and sandy.
It’s like our bodies are constantly are subjected to conditions that no process (evolution) ever had to deal with (on an evolutionary scale).
[1] Now it could be that if we both undershot and overshot this baseline we could get in trouble. But it seems hard for most people to overshoot for some reason.