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.
So you run anywhere from 15-28 miles a week plus additional days of weight training and you would have to NCREASE your weekly exercise time to get the 7 hours/week (1 hour/day) that the JAMA article recommends????? You must be a fast runner...
Keep in mind that the JAMA paper cites (1 hour/day) as an average not that EVERY exercise session needs to be an hour long...
Well, who cares what you think? The JAMA paper needed to define what was going to constitute moderate exercise and those were the parameters they defined for it. It is what is it is---not sure what your point is here (again).
If I add up all my exercise time it does not equal 7 hours per week. Clearly some days the time I spend is greater than on other days.
No one needs to care what I think. Just like I don't have to care what the JAMA says. Isn't it great to live in the USA?
I run 5-7 miles typically 3-4 days a week and then do weight training a couple others. All I said was that I personally don't have the time to increase my daily exercise to an hour and what I'm doing is working for me.
What you're doing is beyond what the average person does. Most expert guidelines are with the average person in mind, the average person being someone who has a desk job and doesn't exercise. Even if you gave them an hour to exercise, the average person couldn't run 5-7 miles. More like 3 miles.
I agree, for most women, adding an hour of exercise to the work day just isn't possible. Most women probably get close to an hour of moderate exercise scattered throughout the day, but the study shows you need to elevate your heart rate for a solid continuous hour to be effective. And most women just can't do that.
Because we're also supposed to get a solid eight hours of sleep a night.
And eat slower to improve digestion and cook healthy made-at-home meals which consumes several more hours of the day.
And spend quality time with our families because it is important to our children's development and to our emotional health to have good relationships, taking up a few more hours of the day.
Add to that time for incidental things like showers and getting dressed and running errands and commuting time....our days our full even if we aren't working.
What I'll never understand is why people reject recommendations they think are unrealistic. If a panel of experts told me to eat 20 servings of fruits and vegetables per day, I would not cry out "that's unrealistic." What I would do is try to get as close to meeting that recommendation as I could. Even if I only managed half of that, I'd feel good knowing that I did my best. It's the same with exercise. If you really can't find an hour per day, then just aim for as close as you can. I think a lot of people see a figure like 1 hour and just throw their hands in the air and say "I can't do that much so I'm not gonna bother."
What I'll never understand is why people reject recommendations they think are unrealistic. If a panel of experts told me to eat 20 servings of fruits and vegetables per day, I would not cry out "that's unrealistic." What I would do is try to get as close to meeting that recommendation as I could. Even if I only managed half of that, I'd feel good knowing that I did my best. It's the same with exercise. If you really can't find an hour per day, then just aim for as close as you can. I think a lot of people see a figure like 1 hour and just throw their hands in the air and say "I can't do that much so I'm not gonna bother."
I think people get exasperated with the constant recommendations. Who amoung us could really comply with all the studies and advice?
Not to mention the fact more than one study has been touted as the "answer" only to be refuted later. For example, women are still confused about whether hormone replacement is good or bad! Is coffee OK or not? What about red wine? Who knows.
I think your attitude of "if I do even half", I'm doing OK is a good one.
I don't agree with the JAMA study that house work, gardening or strolling the dog around the block so he can poop is exercise. Yeah, it's not sitting on your butt either, but IMO calling those activities "exercise" is a strench.
I TOTALLY agree with you here. NONE of those things should be considered exercise unless you are my 95 year old grandmother and need to get up and moving. But if you are under 70 years old, there is NO WAY those things should be considered exercise.
There are some exercise that can be done that take 5-10 minutes (or less) like the Crossfit exercise "Fran".
This is done as fast as possible with 21-15-9 set reps of 95 pound squat thrusters then pullups. My personal best on this is just over 5 minutes. So take into account 5 minutes of actual workout and 10 minutes of warm up and stretching after and its a total of 25 minutes of intense workout.
Point is, if the INTENSITY levels (and nutrition) are where they should be in your workout, 30 minutes is really all you need.
Why are people so reluctant to exercise? The human body was designed to move, not sit for long periods. Even if you don't have a weight problem, there are plenty of reasons you should be exercising everyday. I get so tired of people who think the only reason to exercise is to lose weight and that if you can lose weight without having to exercise, then you should do that.
I can only speak for myself in answering this question. Despite the fact that our bodies were made to move, that does not necessarily mean that we enjoy that kind of activity. Besides, when you say this, you neglect to mention that the moving involved was out of necessity and not choice. When running from a saber toothed tiger, or chasing down an antelope or walking long distances to seek food or shelter were not what you would call optional.
I'm sure that when Ogg and Mogg were well fed and not fending off some larger carnivore bent on having THEM for dinner, they were more than content to sit quietly around the campfire, playing "slap and tickle" or just kicking back on their fur lined pallets thinking about what humans think about. I am confident that in time of plenty they grew a little lazy and maybe even a tad portly. Just because the Discovery channel never shows a fat homosapein does not mean that it did not happen.
I think people get exasperated with the constant recommendations. Who amoung us could really comply with all the studies and advice?
Not to mention the fact more than one study has been touted as the "answer" only to be refuted later.
I've never felt overwhelmed by it. I'm pretty good at tuning out the "noise". We're all bombarded with the same information overload and it's not just in the area of health. We experience this is almost every part of our lives. I'm constantly given recommendations on how to invest my money. Do I follow every piece of advice I've been given? No. I take what I agree with and try to focus on a few things at a time before making it more complicated. Same with health recommendations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson
I can only speak for myself in answering this question. Despite the fact that our bodies were made to move, that does not necessarily mean that we enjoy that kind of activity. Besides, when you say this, you neglect to mention that the moving involved was out of necessity and not choice. When running from a saber toothed tiger, or chasing down an antelope or walking long distances to seek food or shelter were not what you would call optional.
I'm sure that when Ogg and Mogg were well fed and not fending off some larger carnivore bent on having THEM for dinner, they were more than content to sit quietly around the campfire, playing "slap and tickle" or just kicking back on their fur lined pallets thinking about what humans think about. I am confident that in time of plenty they grew a little lazy and maybe even a tad portly. Just because the Discovery channel never shows a fat homosapein does not mean that it did not happen.
20yrsinBranson
I never suggested that the type of physical activity prehistoric man engaged in wasn't done out of necessity. The point is that, genetically speaking, we're not significantly different than our caveman ancestors. Their bodies evolved in a way that made it possible for them to hunt and gather food in order to survive. We sit at desks all day. It would be like buying a car with a V8 engine and only driving 10 MPH. And BTW, scientists have studied modern hunter-gatherer tribes and found they do engage in play. The fact that the Discovery Channel doesn't show any fat cavemen doesn't prove anything one way or the other. I've never bought into the idea that you have to disprove something in order to rule it out. Science is about proving things, not the opposite.
Really, JAMA? Don't women have enough to juggle already? I don't have another 30 minutes in my day since your recent study also decided I need to sleep more. Unless you can figure out a way to make a day more than 24 hours, SHUT UP!!
What in the world? Why are you getting so pissed at JAMA for? It's just a scientific journal that reports the work of medical scientists. It's research data, not a guideline for how others should live their life. It is written in scientific jargon and is mainly meant for other scientists to critique and analyze. It's no different than the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) or any other scholarly journal in fact. This article was NOT done by JAMA (actually no study is), this study was done by Dr. I-Min Lee from the Harvard Medical School. All JAMA does is compile research articles from different universities around the world. If NEJM had gotten the article first, or had some extra pages that month (whichever the case), it could have easily published it instead.
If there is anyone you want to get mad at, get mad at Harvard! Or better yet, get mad at the wall street journal for constantly reporting every study that comes out and reporting such studies as irrefutable facts.
If there is anyone you want to get mad at, get mad at Harvard! Or better yet, get mad the wall street journal for constantly reporting every study that comes out and reporting such studies as irrefutable facts.
That IS the problem.
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.
The JAMA paper needed to define what was going to constitute moderate exercise and those were the parameters they defined for it. It is what is it is---not sure what your point is here (again).
