Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I’m asking out of pure curiosity since I do both moderate and vigorous exercise. But if you had to choose between say 2.5 hours a week of vigorous aerobic exercise (HR near the upper end of target range) or 5 hours a week of moderate exercise (HR near middle of target range), which would you choose?Which do you see as “healthier” and why?
Current guidelines for exercise amount per week is a minimum of 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity (2.5 hours) or 75 minutes (1.25 hours) of vigorous aerobic activity.
So either option is good (and doing more is even better). Pretty much a matter of preference if for some reason you could only do one or the other. I would choose 5 hours since I like to do more than less, could break that into 1 hour sessions on the bike or elliptical. If resistance training is not included on this, then I would lift weights as well into the week, four times per week.
Me personally, I strictly limit the amount of high-intensity exercise I do. The benefits are definitely there, but it is also quite taxing on my old, weak body.
- anaerobic (sprints)
- near anaerobic (top of target range for age)
- long slow distance (able to carry on a conversation)
- max strength (a few reps, near the max of what you can do)
- Moderate strength (many reps)
- Flexibility
- Balance
You don't need to do moderate exercise if you simply live an active lifestyle. We do need small amount of high intensive exercise because it is this type that is the most beneficial for the heart. The ability to go to intense and then slowly ease down. People who only does moderate exercise will not see any huge health improvement because they don't stress the heart enough.
It is also very bad for longevity to constantly run or exercise for a very long time. As some doctors say you only have a certain amount of heartbeats in a lifetime. Why waste it all on running or long intensive exercises.
The longest living people do not need to exercise frequently. They live an active social lifestyle and that is enough.
Me personally, I strictly limit the amount of high-intensity exercise I do. The benefits are definitely there, but it is also quite taxing on my old, weak body.
You don't need to do moderate exercise if you simply live an active lifestyle. We do need small amount of high intensive exercise because it is this type that is the most beneficial for the heart. The ability to go to intense and then slowly ease down. People who only does moderate exercise will not see any huge health improvement because they don't stress the heart enough.
It is also very bad for longevity to constantly run or exercise for a very long time. As some doctors say you only have a certain amount of heartbeats in a lifetime. Why waste it all on running or long intensive exercises.
The longest living people do not need to exercise frequently. They live an active social lifestyle and that is enough.
Yes. When you say “small amount” of high intensity exercise, what do you mean? Also, when you say it is very bad for longevity to constantly run or exercise for a long time, do you include hiking? Are all day hikes (with breaks) considered dangerous too?
Also, my mother is 85, never exercises and is in good health. My mother-in-law is 92, still in great health and she only takes moderate walks a few times a week. But I really like to exercise. It felt so wonderful when I start my program last year and still feels great most of the time.
I’m asking out of pure curiosity since I do both moderate and vigorous exercise. But if you had to choose between say 2.5 hours a week of vigorous aerobic exercise (HR near the upper end of target range) or 5 hours a week of moderate exercise (HR near middle of target range), which would you choose?Which do you see as “healthier” and why?
I would say the vigorous exercise is preferable, if the rest of your body can handle it, because it improves/maintains VO2 max more so than moderate exercise.
I no longer do the high intensity stuff, just moderate for me (lifting and light cardio). I think back in my prime I'd do a mixture of both and it served me well. Just like anything in life, moderation is the key. Don't do too much (or too little) of either and you'll probably remain injury free for longer periods of time.
Yes. When you say “small amount” of high intensity exercise, what do you mean? Also, when you say it is very bad for longevity to constantly run or exercise for a long time, do you include hiking? Are all day hikes (with breaks) considered dangerous too?
Also, my mother is 85, never exercises and is in good health. My mother-in-law is 92, still in great health and she only takes moderate walks a few times a week. But I really like to exercise. It felt so wonderful when I start my program last year and still feels great most of the time.
My grandfather walked five miles a day religiously from the time he was about 60-80. After that, he had some health problems related to chemo and radiation, but my guess is that these days he would not even have been subjected to that treatment at age 80.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
