Erwachsene sollten darauf abzielen, zwischen 560 und 610 Minuten pro Woche mäßiger bis intensiver körperlicher Aktivität nachzugehen, um das Risiko für Herzinfarkte und Schlaganfälle erheblich zu senken (drei- bis viermal höher als die aktuelle Gesundheitsempfehlung von 150 Minuten), so die Ergebnisse einer Beobachtungsstudie
560-610 minutes of exercise a week needed for substantial heart benefits
26 Kommentare
Who the heck measures in minutes per week?
For those who want to save themselves 2 seconds that’s 80-88 minutes a day.
Just say 85 minutes a day.
Can’t wait to figure out how to squeeze in 9-10 hours of exercise in this late stage capitalist hellscape called the USA
If I do as requested and put aside an hour and a half a day for exercise (almost 10% of my waking hours), is the life expectancy benefit I gain more than the time I lose doing the exercise?
What’s that? Exercise is healthy? No way!
Seriously though, Very few people have the time to exercise for an hour and 15 minutes every single day. All I see happening in pushing this news is people seeing the number, failing it, deciding that the smaller number isn’t worth it and not exercising at all. 150 minutes is a number that is actually manageable for the largest number of people and even according to this article DOES help cardiovascular health. I can’t imagine anyone has ever said that more wouldn’t be better. But we’re trying to help the most people without discouraging them. Pushing this research to deep into the discussion without a plan to actually ease the stresses and work hours on people’s lives is more likely to cause more people to stop altogether would be my guess.
The only reason I achieve this is because I work as a mailman.
I’m gonna gain 500lbs whenever I quit.
2 hours of vigorous exercise every weekday? In this economy?
Ill do a hour a day max thanks
I would do this if I don’t have to commute 3-4 hours day. I do 10-12 hour day hikes once or twice a month but my daily grind just doesn’t allow much exercise.
I think I’ll just die instead.
10 hours a week seems completely unsustainable for someone working a 9-5 job.
If you do this on top of your strength training (which you should) you approach the training amount some professional athletes, especially those that also have to train their specific sport, do.
Good luck.
All this is going to do is discourage people from excercising. 90 minutes of exercise a day is not realistic for 95% of the population.
What are they counting as moderate?
From TFA:
a week of moderate to vigorous physical exercise such as brisk walking, running or cycling.
That’s a weird definition of vigorous. None of those are really high intensity unless you’re sprinting or cycling up a mountain.
Looking at the [study](https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2026/05/03/bjsports-2025-111351) the basic conclusion seems to be that the optimal amount for cardiovascular health is the amounts above, which correlate to a >30% reduction in cardiovascular disease. The current guidelines yield 8-9% risk reduction. I think given that any widespread adoption of a consistent 90 minute per day exercise plan for most people is a non-starter, the current guidelines seems like decent guidance to me. I don’t think you would want to change the guidelines without some behavioral data on what real life people will actually do if you tell them they need to exercise 90 minutes a day for optimal cardiovascular health.
Seems like this basically selected for a subset of semi-serious British cyclists since that’s pretty much the only group that would hit that level of moderate to vigorous activity every week. I wouldnt have even hit this level during my 50 mile a week marathon training I was doing a few years ago.
Honestly, imma just die I guess
You might think this is spurious advice because no one in the past had time for this much exercise, but I got bad news for you, they all DIED
“Also, go back to your office and spend 90 minutes a day commuting.”
This is over an hour a day of vigorous/moderate exercise. WOW! I exercise every day and am in really, really good shape and i probably don’t consistently reach this goal. On running days, i only get to 45 minutes. My lifting days are about 90 minutes. What if I need a rest day?
This is extremely out of line with studies I’ve seen for example with VILPA.
> Compared with participants who engaged in no VILPA, participants who engaged in VILPA at the sample median VILPA frequency of 3 length-standardized bouts per day (lasting 1 or 2 min each) showed a 38%–40% reduction in all-cause and cancer mortality risk and a 48%–49% reduction in CVD mortality risk. Moreover, the sample median VILPA duration of 4.4 min per day was associated with a 26%–30% reduction in all-cause and cancer mortality risk and a 32%–34% reduction in CVD mortality risk.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-02100-x
Note that this is very intense exercise for a short duration.
I have seen a lot of studies though showing that low intensity exercise isn’t that beneficial.
10 hours a week!? Great but how.? That is practically a part time job. I feel like a god when I can manage 4-5 hours and I am actually in good shape. This is basically living to workout and skirting most other obligations.
Oh come on. This one of those recommendations that is so absurd as to be unhelpful. Might as well spend all future research efforts on reducing risk and treating outcomes through other means. Just give me the magic Ozempic-equivalent for heart disease/stroke.
Do they suggest I do the 90 minutes of exercise before my 9 hour shift or after?
And they don’t think that maybe the health benefits are not from the exercise, but from people who have more free time so that they can exercise?
Modern US life is incompatible with human health