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?

20 minutes doesn’t sound like much, I also think the pace is important.

I think for it to count as exercise they alway say a brisk pace.

@mellicauli

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.

Yes, obviously age comes in to it! And yes, I agree in some places it is so hard to walk!

I do 2 hikes per week up Wainwrights or up dale and don't consider myself 'very active' because work and DC and housework limits how often I can indulge myself walking up a mountain. DP runs/cycles or goes to the gym on top of our hikes, he is in much better physical condition than me. He is 'very active'. That definition would not encourage me to increase my activity, but I need to.

@bossox

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 agree 20 min per day brisk walking is maybe 'moderately active' but this is just 20 min walking labelled as 'very active'.

@gingerhills

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.

Not as far as I can tell.

@FourTeaFallOut

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.

Makes sense, I guess

Brisk walking is defined as at least 3 mph

Really? That seems painfully slow to me! When I am in "grumpy commuter mode" I can walk a mile in 13 minutes. More generally I cover a mile in about 14-15 minutes.

However, I have actually been doing a Strava challenge which is 4 x 20 minute walks a week to get people more active, although I usually walk for 30-40 minutes. It's good for me as I work from home so don't get the walks to the station etc. When I go into the office I do about 5 miles. However, I also run, swim and do a weekly outdoor fitness class.

A couple of years ago I read that a good way to kickstart health improvements is to walk 7000 steps a day, get 7 hours sleep and drink 7 glasses of water a day. It's achieveable (if you don't have sleepless babies!) and you can build on it. So don't discount the 20 minutes a day, it's a good foundation for more exercise (if you walk a bit faster than 3mph!)

@DespairingHomeowner

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!

This is not his advice it is that of the American heart association. One of their 'simple steps' is to be 'very active' which is defined as 22min walking per day according to the book.

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

Yeah, I think so. There will come a point when that twenty minute walk is boring but you have built a habit of going out, you might walk a little further or faster, you might get see more in your community you didn't pay much attention to when you just drove past and slumped on the couch. You might feel more a part of the community and join groups? Who knows? But nothing would change sat at home.

It is better than nothing but only just. It's a minimal amount and fairly sedentary.I walk 20 minutes to the gym most days then swim, keep fit classes or work out.
Two dogs walks a day, at least half an hour of walking each.

@soberfabulous

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.

That's great to hear. I've only just started it.

Isn’t it all relative though? In the UK where lost of people walk for the school run, to the shops and/or anything else it wouldn’t necessarily be seen as very active. But in America, where they don’t tend to walk on the school run etc 22mins of walking would be seen as very active.

@FourTeaFallOut

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?

Yes, I guess the first step is the hardest.

Actually, I think there might be some gulf between nothing and 20 minutes a day. Ask anyone incapable of doing 20 minutes a day.

I’m walking as part of my jobs so on the move a lot more than 20 mins a day. Walking my daughter to school and back twice a day is 20 mins!

22 mins of walking a day is categorically NOT very active.
It might be a huge amount for a particular individual and of course any amount of activity helps with heart health, but if anyone thinks they're very active cos they walk round the block every day they are kidding themselves.

@maxineputyourredshoeson

Isn’t it all relative though? In the UK where lost of people walk for the school run, to the shops and/or anything else it wouldn’t necessarily be seen as very active. But in America, where they don’t tend to walk on the school run etc 22mins of walking would be seen as very active.

Yes, but your heart won't take that into account and let you off!

There was a post on Reddit a while ago asking if in the uk a 20 minute walk was normal.
The poster had been listening to a true crime podcast from the uk where the presenter had said something like ‘she finished work at 5 and started the short 20 minute walk home.’ People from the uk were explaining that a 20 minute walk is nothing and Americans were explaining that for them it simply isn’t possible to walk to the shops etc because there aren’t the pavements.

Personally I do either 30 minutes HIIT and a 30 minute walk or 30 minutes of Pilates and a 50 minute walk each day. Still fat as all fuck though.

As people have said, based on Americans, that probably is very active.
I am in the UK, but when I was working an office job with a fairly long commute and long hours I would barely walk at all until the weekends: car - office - car - home
Now I probably walk about 2 hours a day: school run - dog walk - school run

In my mind a brisk walk is a 15 minute mile. This raises my heart rate. If I did 2 miles in 30 mins, I’d feel I’d had some exercise….that’s speaking as someone who doesn’t do much other activity.

So if I did this 5 times a week, I’d feel I’d done heart-raising activity regularly across the week.

The trouble is, it’s boring. If you’re dog walking or walking with a friend and chatting, you probably aren’t going at the pave necessary to raise your heart rate sufficiently.

Personally I find doing the same walk or 3 or 4 walks on rotation from my front door (and I don’t want to drive somewhere to add variety) quite tedious. It reminds me of Lockdown. However, when time is tight, given no prep or travelling is needed and it can be slotted into any available 30 mins, it’s a good option for those who can be disciplined.

@Satsumaeater

Brisk walking is defined as at least 3 mph

Really? That seems painfully slow to me! When I am in "grumpy commuter mode" I can walk a mile in 13 minutes. More generally I cover a mile in about 14-15 minutes.

However, I have actually been doing a Strava challenge which is 4 x 20 minute walks a week to get people more active, although I usually walk for 30-40 minutes. It's good for me as I work from home so don't get the walks to the station etc. When I go into the office I do about 5 miles. However, I also run, swim and do a weekly outdoor fitness class.

A couple of years ago I read that a good way to kickstart health improvements is to walk 7000 steps a day, get 7 hours sleep and drink 7 glasses of water a day. It's achieveable (if you don't have sleepless babies!) and you can build on it. So don't discount the 20 minutes a day, it's a good foundation for more exercise (if you walk a bit faster than 3mph!)

It is definitely a good start, absolutely! That 7/7/7 sounds good.

@FourTeaFallOut

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

Yeah, I think so. There will come a point when that twenty minute walk is boring but you have built a habit of going out, you might walk a little further or faster, you might get see more in your community you didn't pay much attention to when you just drove past and slumped on the couch. You might feel more a part of the community and join groups? Who knows? But nothing would change sat at home.

That is a really good way of looking at it.

It doesn't sound much but I have fibromyalgia and arthritis I'm only 49! Somedays I can only walk around the house and some days I can do a brisk hour long walk! 20 mins a day brisk walking sounds better than nothing. I guess I could say on my bad days i walk around the house for more than 20 mins but it's not the same as when I'm out with the dogs marching away x

It wouldn't be a lot for you if you walk it already but for some people who usually have have an inactive lifestyle, it might make a huge difference!

@maxineputyourredshoeson

Isn’t it all relative though? In the UK where lost of people walk for the school run, to the shops and/or anything else it wouldn’t necessarily be seen as very active. But in America, where they don’t tend to walk on the school run etc 22mins of walking would be seen as very active.

That could be it.