To think I'm getting enough exercise?

[Whatsnewwithyou]

I got a fitbit and then I got a dog. I walk the dog (brisk walk) for about 45 minutes to an hour a day. The fitbit tracks this as "active minutes". Is this enough exercise? By enough I mean according to guidelines that say you need to do about half an hour of exercise per day.

I used to go to the gym 3 times a week and feel miserable while using the elliptical trainer or treadmill or doing a cardio class. Now I'm allegedly getting more exercise but it doesn't "feel" like exercise as I'm not miserable. AIBU to just keep walking the dog and give up the gym?

I do Body Balance, yoga and Body Pump.

Yes, I was about to say that I think they recommend you do strengthening and conditioning on all the big muscle groups, at least twice a week, as well as getting in 75 minutes (vigorous) - 150 minutes (leisurely) aerobic exercise per week.

I only know this as I happened to look it up last night to see if I was on the right track.

Yoga is great for all over strengthening, I have found in the past. I also do one of davina McCall’s DVDs for core, arm and leg strengthening. It’s called fit in 15. Also 30 day shred is good.

lljkk I don't think anywhere does it say you should reduce your METs as they get older, just that because you're lest objectively fit due to age decline, you will not be able to produce the same output.

Because METs are not based around relative to fitness, but relative to actual output. So running for 1 hour and 15km will produce more METs than running for 1 hour and 10km, even though the fitness side which is much more related to your own individual physiology may be the same. The age related decline in performance is real.

Of course if you were never fit when you were 30, you could easily be doing more when your 50, but that is why the METs go down.

I would be quite surprised if an increase of 50 to 90 bpm actually was enough to produce the 3 METs, especially as it's actually likely 60 to 90 (standing resting HR is generally higher than seated) so I would say it's very light exercise. But of course to actually know how many METs would require lots and lots of other information.

I read somewhere that METs were relative to the individual's own resting output. So no reason for them to change at all with age, if that was true Maybe not?

Someone posted that crash diets reduce metabolism, NHS says that's due to muscle wastage but being muscle bound or wasted away makes hardly any difference to how much you can eat; it's the exercise you do to stay muscle bound that matters.

I read somewhere that METs were relative to the individual's own resting output. So no reason for them to change at all with age,

Your resting requirements don't change anything like the degree your maximum does, there's a small decline in resting with age, but there's a much larger decline in maximum. Your base rate will decline 1-2% per decade after 40, your VO2max (which will directly correlate with the maximum METs you can do for anything longer than a few minutes) will decline 5-10% per decade.

Differences in BMR will indeed make almost no difference to how much you can eat, but that's because 1 MET will be only in the order of 50 calories per hour, so even a 10% change in BMR will only be a small biscuit per day.

So you're saying that 1 MET for a 20yo = like 4MET for an 80yo, but the scale doesn't reflect that, so the response is to adjust MET expectations?

or wait... there's a limit to how many METs any person can do at all (per whatever time period), and also dependent on age, is that what Sir Fred meant?

Yes, there's a maximum limit on the MET's you can do.

A 30 year old average 65kg woman could do maybe 4mets for 5 hours, giving them a maximum 25mets.

A 30 year old doped up 65kg elite cyclist could do maybe 20 for 5 hours, so that's five times the amount despite not much difference in basal rate.

As the cyclist came off the dope, and lost fitness, their base rate wouldn't change much unless they changed muscle mass, but their maximum would decline. Equally if the woman trained, they might see a slight increase in base rate, but they'd see a big increase in maximum performance.

METs are not really for the athlete who actually comfortably produces over 50 a week in exercise alone, they're more for people to use as a reckoner to see how the non-exercise contribution might be - walking / gardening etc.

In terms of fitness benefit of the activity, a 4 MET for an 80 year old would certainly be a lot more intense activity than a 4 MET of a 20 year old, and whilst 1 MET would never be training for anyone, it could well be that a 1.5 MET for an 80 year old is as beneficial as a 4 MET for a 20.

@Whatsnewwithyou walking won't help you improve your muscular strength and flexibility.

Why don't you do the resistance/strength classes at the gym instead? And get one of the instructors to give you a program for weights?

My old fitbit used to register dog walking as active. My new Garmin doesn't and I suspect Garmin is right. Hr of 85ish is not that high.

I looked up the METs... there's a standard value for everyone, not dependent on age or sex. So that's why fewer required for old people. Doing same thing (eg., 1 hour run at 5mph is a lot more effort for a short 80yo woman than a tall 20yo guy), yet there's only on MET value whether 80yo or 20yo).

If I have heart issues and my heart rate cam be at 150 lying down does that mean I'm exercising lying down on a fitbit? sometimes when I stand can be 180 without my heart meds. I need to get a fit bit it will think I'm some fat burning guru.

Thanks bluebug45 I probably will go do some strength classes at the gym once our dog is a little older - at the minute I don't want to leave her except when I can't help it (i.e. work). I tried kettlebells at home one and put my back out so I won't be doing that again, I think gym us the way to go to be safe.