Just been listening to an ABC Radio National interview with a Dr Lennart Veerman. Very interesting.
He says that to reduce the risk of chronic diseases people should be doing up to five times the amount of exercise recommended by the World Health Organisation.
The podcast isn't up yet but is well worth a listen when it is;
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... ow/7718036
The guts of the story in this article;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-10/a ... nd/7711562
Fat chance this'll gain any significant ground.
Exercise: Do 5 Times More than WHO recommendations
Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
- Tim
- Posts: 2945
- Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:02 pm
- Location: Gippsland Lakes
- RonK
- Posts: 11508
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: If you need to know, ask me
- Contact:
Re: Exercise: Do 5 Times More than WHO recommendations
Postby RonK » Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:32 pm
Covered in ABC evening news bulletin.
Dumb - it will discourage more than it encourages.
Dumb - it will discourage more than it encourages.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22160
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
- Location: Tempe, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Exercise: Do 5 Times More than WHO recommendations
Postby mikesbytes » Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:22 pm
That's putting the exercise levels up where we are. It's setting the bar too high.
If for example we built up the exercise of an inactive person to 3 runs a week of 30 minutes each, how close would that get that previously inactive person to what 6 hours of running a week would achieve?
If for example we built up the exercise of an inactive person to 3 runs a week of 30 minutes each, how close would that get that previously inactive person to what 6 hours of running a week would achieve?
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?
-
- Posts: 572
- Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:13 pm
Re: Exercise: Do 5 Times More than WHO recommendations
Postby madmacca » Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:22 pm
Studies and articles like this show why academics should be not let out of the ivory towers and anywhere near public health policy without careful pre-vetting. And journalists NEVER.
There is a world of difference between:
"Gains accumulated up to 50 to 70 METS per week"
and
"People need to do 5 times as much as WHO guidelines" [of 10 METS per week]
As with most things, more is better when it comes to exercise, but there are diminishing returns. The increase in public health will be much greater in getting the other 57% of Australians to go from 0 to 10 METS, than in trying to get people to go to 50 METS.
If Prof. Veerman can't understand that to get people to do something initially uncomfortable (like regular exercise) the message needs to be clear, consistent and REALISTIC, I wish he would !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!.
macca
(I don't mean to dispute his findings, just disagree with the implications for public health).
There is a world of difference between:
"Gains accumulated up to 50 to 70 METS per week"
and
"People need to do 5 times as much as WHO guidelines" [of 10 METS per week]
As with most things, more is better when it comes to exercise, but there are diminishing returns. The increase in public health will be much greater in getting the other 57% of Australians to go from 0 to 10 METS, than in trying to get people to go to 50 METS.
If Prof. Veerman can't understand that to get people to do something initially uncomfortable (like regular exercise) the message needs to be clear, consistent and REALISTIC, I wish he would !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!.
macca
(I don't mean to dispute his findings, just disagree with the implications for public health).
- Mulger bill
- Super Mod
- Posts: 29060
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
- Location: Sunbury Vic
Re: Exercise: Do 5 Times More than WHO recommendations
Postby Mulger bill » Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:52 pm
+As many as you like.RonK wrote:Dumb - it will discourage more than it encourages.
Talk about pouring a gallon of vinegar when a tsp of honey would suffice.
Tell Joe Couchernaut that ten minutes ride on paths to the park, feeding the ducks for a while then riding home every few days will help him get fit or tell him that he'll need Beach Rd Metrics 3 times a week and a Kinglake or Donna every weekend to not die horribly within x years and human nature will plump for the easy most of the time.
First goal should ALWAYS be to get people off their arses. Once they're moving and feeling some benefit is the time to recommend a going a bit harder
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
London Boy 29/12/2011
- biker jk
- Posts: 7001
- Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Exercise: Do 5 Times More than WHO recommendations
Postby biker jk » Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:07 pm
Interesting timing with the release of a report that Britons are underestimating their calorie consumption by up to 50%. Helps explain the divergence between rising obesity rates and falling apparent calorie intake.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065
- cyclotaur
- Posts: 1782
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:36 pm
Re: Exercise: Do 5 Times More than WHO recommendations
Postby cyclotaur » Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:09 pm
The study just states what most otherwise inactive people would need to do to make up for the more or less idle modern western lifestyle. Anyone I know that is reasonably fit and able and not (much) overweight in fact does this recommeded level of activity.
It certainly adds up and makes sense to me. I ride - 150-200kms per week, which takes me 7-10 hours, pretty much right within the range recommended by the study and at the required intensity. Apart from that I don't move about too much, besides some local walking. I'm probably a few kgs over ideal weight still, but I've never been healthier anytime in the last 25 years than I am now.
The only period in my life I've been truly unfit, overweight and less than healthy I actually was still meeting the WHO guidelines but was way below past (and current) activity/intensity levels.
It certainly adds up and makes sense to me. I ride - 150-200kms per week, which takes me 7-10 hours, pretty much right within the range recommended by the study and at the required intensity. Apart from that I don't move about too much, besides some local walking. I'm probably a few kgs over ideal weight still, but I've never been healthier anytime in the last 25 years than I am now.
The only period in my life I've been truly unfit, overweight and less than healthy I actually was still meeting the WHO guidelines but was way below past (and current) activity/intensity levels.
2023 Target: 9.500kms/100,000m
My old blog - A bit of fun
"Riding, not racing...completing, not competing"
My old blog - A bit of fun
"Riding, not racing...completing, not competing"
-
- Posts: 10316
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Exercise: Do 5 Times More than WHO recommendations
Postby Nobody » Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:25 pm
It may be one way, but it's not the best way. The best way to avoid or reduce the effects of most chronic diseases is with a whole food, plant based (WFPB) diet.Tim wrote:He says that to reduce the risk of chronic diseases people should be doing up to five times the amount of exercise recommended by the World Health Organisation.
Also this study's results suggest that the optimum amount of exercise for running is 1 - 2.4 hours per week at an average pace. More time and especially more intensity was not beneficial (results below).
Results chart
Full text article
So, like many subjects, it comes down to who you get your information from.
- mikesbytes
- Super Mod
- Posts: 22160
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
- Location: Tempe, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Exercise: Do 5 Times More than WHO recommendations
Postby mikesbytes » Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:37 am
Activity and Nutrition go hand in hand, you need both to be ahead of the game.
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?
- simonn
- Posts: 3763
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:46 am
- Location: Sydney
Re: Exercise: Do 5 Times More than WHO recommendations
Postby simonn » Fri Aug 12, 2016 10:49 am
Just remember that this is journalists talking science, and they are pretty average at it (and probably somewhat proud of the fact that their scientific literacy age is < than high school age).
The key part/point of the study is:
the study found health gains accumulated up to the levels of 50 to 70 MET hours a week.
"That's the equivalent of 15-20 hours of brisk walking or 6-8 hours of running [a week]."
and
"Activity levels for optimum health need to be able about five times the currently recommended levels."
The who guidelines are not for "optimum health." They are for what a couch potato might consider doing.
On another note, cyclists (and runners) also need to so some strength training. Weedy inflexible upper bodies (particularly backs!) are not going to do much good for your long term health. Cycling is great for cardio, endurance and leg strength (to a point), but not much else. There is a lot of recent evidence that doing strength training + HIIT is probably the best for health (although this does not help with endurance at all, as I, the recent father of two, has found out).
Anyway, a rant on journalists and science....
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... em_FBP|abc
Prime example of Science reporting fail by the ABC (sadly).
The whole article is basically made up for a sensationalist headline. From the audio ~1:23 (http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/.../10/rnd_ ... 1_1825.mp3)
ABC poses the question:
"So this study says that in theory being smarter than a man is fine but when it comes to actually meeting smart women in real life, dating them, men find find intelligence unattractive. Why is this?"
The reply is
"It's a bit of a ... You're barking up the wrong tree. It's not that men find intelligence unattractive. It's that men prioritize other traits in their mates, so if the have someone who is attractive and intelligent and smart etc then they feel like they have won the lottery. But for men their priority in the mating system and their mate preferences is to find someone who is physically attractive."
In other words, the journalists entire premise was wrong yet it is still published...? Really?
The key part/point of the study is:
the study found health gains accumulated up to the levels of 50 to 70 MET hours a week.
"That's the equivalent of 15-20 hours of brisk walking or 6-8 hours of running [a week]."
and
"Activity levels for optimum health need to be able about five times the currently recommended levels."
The who guidelines are not for "optimum health." They are for what a couch potato might consider doing.
On another note, cyclists (and runners) also need to so some strength training. Weedy inflexible upper bodies (particularly backs!) are not going to do much good for your long term health. Cycling is great for cardio, endurance and leg strength (to a point), but not much else. There is a lot of recent evidence that doing strength training + HIIT is probably the best for health (although this does not help with endurance at all, as I, the recent father of two, has found out).
Anyway, a rant on journalists and science....
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... em_FBP|abc
Prime example of Science reporting fail by the ABC (sadly).
The whole article is basically made up for a sensationalist headline. From the audio ~1:23 (http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/.../10/rnd_ ... 1_1825.mp3)
ABC poses the question:
"So this study says that in theory being smarter than a man is fine but when it comes to actually meeting smart women in real life, dating them, men find find intelligence unattractive. Why is this?"
The reply is
"It's a bit of a ... You're barking up the wrong tree. It's not that men find intelligence unattractive. It's that men prioritize other traits in their mates, so if the have someone who is attractive and intelligent and smart etc then they feel like they have won the lottery. But for men their priority in the mating system and their mate preferences is to find someone who is physically attractive."
In other words, the journalists entire premise was wrong yet it is still published...? Really?
Jump to
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Cycling Brands
- Cannondale
- Garmin
- Giant
- Shimano
- Trek
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
Brought to you by Bicycles Network Australia | © 1999 - 2024 | Powered by phpBB ®
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.