AIBU to think 20 min walking a day is not 'very active'

[UndertheCedartree]

I am reading a book called 'How not to die' by Michael Gregner. In it he talks about the 'Simple 7 steps' the American Heart Association says help cut your risk of Heart disease.

One is being 'very active'. This is defined as 22 minutes walking per day. I was pretty surprised by that. I walk more than that myself daily but don't consider myself very active, atall. I'm trying to get much healthier. Is that all I really need to aim for? Is there something I'm missing?

@XmasElf10

I have a dog so walk 45 minutes a day on a bad day, 75 on a normal day and a few hours (2 or 3) on a good day. 20 minutes would be very little for me. Mostly the only people I are working routinely every single day are other dog walkers… we should live forever

Yes! And those on the school run!

Doesn't sound very active to me, more moderate. I do that at least plus 2 hours of zumba per week and a set of exercises daily but I still wouldn't say I was very active. Playing tennis or similar 3 times a week would be very active for me.

Shame it's not that simple!

Is it so that inactive people don't feel overwhelmed by the everyday definition of "proper" exercise and decide not to bother at all? Twenty minutes of walking is available to the least motivated able bodied person and might be the first step to a healthy lifestyle.

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

You might not feel like it's a workout but it is. I have the same extra weight. Our bodies are constantly hauling about 4/5 extra stones- it's making our bodies work hard even if it doesn't feel that way.

Yes, that's true. But I suppose it doesn't feel hard like a work out and I don't get out of breath just walking slowly for 20 minutes.

20 min a day of walking is really nothing, and personally I don't find walking to be much exercise unless it's a couple of hours or includes hills.

@Fizbosshoes

That is my walk and back to the station every day and I don't really think of it in terms of exercise. I usually am walking briskly (at least on the way there) because I leave it to the last minute to leave for the train!

Oh yes, being late is great for your heart!

20 mins a day would be an active day for my 90 year old Mother! I feel so sorry for Americans. The way their society is set up is for cars. You often try and walk from a hotel to a mall 10 minutes away and it's like taking your life in your hands, no proper pavements or going across 4 lanes of traffic with no pedestrian crossing.

@Submariner

Isn't the point he's making that 20 minutes walking per day is not enough? That's not what he recommends.

To be fair I haven't read the book but I use his website and on there he says: "I recommend 90 minutes of moderate-intensity activity, such as brisk (four miles per hour) walking or 40 minutes of vigorous activity (such as jogging or active sports) each day."

Yes, he is. He doesn't think that is 'very active'. But I was interested as to why the American heart association consider 20 min walking a day 'very active'. Maybe even a little exercise has a big effect on the heart. I've only just started the book. I'll have a look on the website too.

I'm just questioning if a 20 min walk would be 'very active

Well, no, it's not.

Surely you know that?

Many here are benchmarking others against themselves. So to a regular runner/swimmer/gym bunny 20 mins a day is like going to sleep!

The guidelines are there for a reason, to encourage people to be active, and that guidance says 150 minutes per week will do it.

That is very encouraging for those who might baulk at the levels of activity some people have, and realise that no, I don't have to do it at that level at all to get my heart rate up and feel better. If 20 mins per day was not enough, we would know all about it!

Too many younger folk are dropping dead during sports and other activities that it can frighten people off being very active too.

Do what you feel is ok for you, but try for the minimum as guided.

I can tot up 16-20 minutes each day on our exceptionally short school run. 4-5 minutes each way. It's a brisk walk because I'm striving to get there in time

It's not my "exercise" I'm a distance runner although I did miss those regular bursts of incidental movement in lockdowns and found it hard to replicate. It's an achievable starting point for someone who spends their life on a chair/ in a car/ in bed, but it's not much to be actually fit.

There's a lot of people who spend a decent amount of time walking and grossly overrate their fitness achieved by shuffling around at 2mph. Movement is no bad thing, but getting your heart rate up is vital for good heart health.

@DrSbaitso

Yes, I understand but is it enough to significantly lower your risk of heart disease? It just said walking not brisk walking.

If it's intended as an attainable and non-scary first goal for a very very unfit person then yes, because it's likely to be the first step towards making even more change. If 20 minutes of normal walking or equivalent is a rarity for you, you'll probably find it does elevate your heart rate.

Yes, that's a good point. But I wonder why they call it 'very active'. I mean if I thought I was already being 'very active' I wouldn't necessarily feel I needed to do more. If it was 'moderately active' I might want to aim for more?

Do they mean 22 mins on top of the walking in the normal course of the day? A lot of Americans get straight in their cars and drive everywhere - no walking to local shops, walking to school, walking to the station for the commuter train to work etc.

Yes but presumably the American heart Association has the job of improving heart health, so they might find they get more results to move people towards health by keeping the bar low rather than dangle a vision of exercise that is beyond the people they are trying to reach.

In the same way our government/ charities encourages the population just to drink less and not give it up completely because the vast majority of people will tolerate a nudge but ignore a sermon.

@FourTeaFallOut

It's a fuck tonne better for your health than not moving for 20 minutes a day. As for whether it is very active, I mean it seems an unlikely definition but it must be very active relative to some scale with lower values otherwise it's meaningless. Is it very active compared to the number of active minutes for the typical American?

Maybe that is it.

The 7 steps' included things like being a normal weight, normal blood pressure, not smoking etc. Apparently out of about 2k Americans who were tested only one person passed all 7 steps'. I think though once you are overweight it has knock on effects on your blood pressure etc.

I think that’s a minimum of 22 minutes taking into consideration people having active daily activities. It’s really not a lot.
I’m trying to lose a bit of weight at the moment so I’ve upped my daily step count to 15,000 but normally my target is 10,000 to maintain my weight.

@WorraLiberty

I think the people saying 'it's better than nothing' are missing the point.

Even 5 minutes is better than nothing but that doesn't make someone 'very active' either.

If 20 minutes is considered 'very' active, it's a pretty low bar.

That was what I was trying to say! You've worded it better than me!

Are you misinterpreting something?

His exercise recommendations are much higher than that (90 min ‘moderate’ exercise, like walking brisk enough to get your heart rate up OR 40 min intense exercise like HIT, weights etc). I’ve linked him on Twitter but it’s also in his books

mobile.twitter.com/nutrition_facts/status/1319020671289229313?lang=en-GB

Maybe this was just a suggestion to get the totally inactive started? But no, I don’t think many people would consider that v active/enough to be healthy

The 90/40 min advice is more like it, but not something everyone wants to hear!

How Not to Die is a brilliant book. I absolutely loved it and made lots of changes to my diet based on it. I feel so much better.

I mean if I thought I was already being 'very active' I wouldn't necessarily feel I needed to do more. If it was 'moderately active' I might want to aim for more?

I don't know...maybe the bulk of effort is getting people off the couch and then people build their own definitions of being active?

I thought the key thing was to be doing activity which raises your heart rate and to be doing it regularly - every day or most days for a decent period of time.

Walking briskly will raise the heart rate for lots, who who aren’t terribly active. So for them, 20 mins if this every day could be pretty decent.

For someone who already does much more, I suspect this wouldn’t raise their heart rate, so wouldn’t really count.

I can't see how the average doesn't walk more than 20 mins a day just going about daily life. I wouldn't consider it active nevermind very active. More like the bare minimum.

@JinglingHellsBells

I'm just questioning if a 20 min walk would be 'very active

Well, no, it's not.

Surely you know that?

Well, that's my opinion. But obviously not that if the American heart association.

I suppose for me it's like when you need help to get healthier. And you go and speak to a health professional and what they tell you to do, you're already doing and maybe more. It's not really helpful to have the bar so low.

@FourTeaFallOut

Is it so that inactive people don't feel overwhelmed by the everyday definition of "proper" exercise and decide not to bother at all? Twenty minutes of walking is available to the least motivated able bodied person and might be the first step to a healthy lifestyle.

Yes but if that first step is already 'very active' would you bother with a second step? Just musing.