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?

On average according to my phone which is only carried when out - my kids think I should get a Fitbit to include housework - alleges I average 5.1 miles a day which I’m surprised by.

The people saying it’s better than nothing are missing the point. Of course it’s better than nothing, but that isn’t what the book is saying. The fact is that 22 minutes walking per day is not “very active”. It’s moderately active at best.

@Fridafever

I believe the biggest bang for buck in terms of better health outcomes is quite a surprisingly small amount of activity versus nothing at all. It’s quite an important message to get out there because it’s very manageable and there are certainly people doing nothing because they’ve failed at being properly sporty/ active.

It’s obviously not very active in the commonly understood sense though.

Yes, I don't remember the details, but some research came out recently about that. Apparently there are really huge benefits to walking 20 min a day versus less. Above that, there are additional benefits of course, but this threshhold is really important.

I always find it strange the way on Teen Mom they just drop their young children off at school in a car. They don't even get out the car to see them in or for the teacher to see they have picked up their DC.

I agree with the PP that the thing that makes the biggest difference is starting to exercise. If someone goes from zero to 20 mins 5 times a week, the gain is bigger than those who already exercise get from boosting the length or the intensity of their exercise. There are diminishing returns after a certain point.

Those poo-pooing a brisk 30 minute walk which covers 2 miles as being nothing are probably those who exercise much more regularly and intensely. Great for them. They might be healthy and fit. Probably the thing that makes the biggest difference to them though is that first stretch of exercise too.

The majority are never going to do 2 hours a day in the gym. Those who do 2 hours or 3 hours in the gym shouldn’t be condescending about lesser amounts of exercise.

Isn’t the book about becoming MORE healthy and reducing your risks substantially, not about what being in absolute peak physical health involved and looks like. Most people have no desire to be elite athletes. Many people can improve their overall health by a few seemingly basic (but often hard to implement and stick to) changes.

Some people fool themselves. They think that ambling along with the dog whilst reading on their phone for 20 mins means they’ve exercised. That’s absolutely not the same as a brisk and purposeful walk which raise the heart rate.

@Chouetted

It's not exactly nothing - it's a mile a day (or more) . And it's achievable.

I used to walk three miles a day, but frankly, taking an entire hour out of my day was too much. 20 minutes is far less likely to leave me chasing my tail for the rest of the day.

Oh, yes it is definitely something! It is doing activity and yes, would be achievable for many. I'm certain it is much better for your health than doing nothing! But would you think you were 'very active' if you walked a mile or just over a day? I'm not even saying people need to be 'very active'. 'Lightly active' or 'moderately active' could be fine and obviously depends on the person's circumstances

@WombatChocolate

I agree with the PP that the thing that makes the biggest difference is starting to exercise. If someone goes from zero to 20 mins 5 times a week, the gain is bigger than those who already exercise get from boosting the length or the intensity of their exercise. There are diminishing returns after a certain point.

Those poo-pooing a brisk 30 minute walk which covers 2 miles as being nothing are probably those who exercise much more regularly and intensely. Great for them. They might be healthy and fit. Probably the thing that makes the biggest difference to them though is that first stretch of exercise too.

The majority are never going to do 2 hours a day in the gym. Those who do 2 hours or 3 hours in the gym shouldn’t be condescending about lesser amounts of exercise.

Isn’t the book about becoming MORE healthy and reducing your risks substantially, not about what being in absolute peak physical health involved and looks like. Most people have no desire to be elite athletes. Many people can improve their overall health by a few seemingly basic (but often hard to implement and stick to) changes.

Some people fool themselves. They think that ambling along with the dog whilst reading on their phone for 20 mins means they’ve exercised. That’s absolutely not the same as a brisk and purposeful walk which raise the heart rate.

According to the OP, the book says 22 minutes walking is very active. It isn’t. If 22 minutes per day is very active, what is an hour of walking a day? Because plenty of people do that if they have dogs and they don’t work. Are they elite athletes?!

@TravellingFrom

Come on. Most people do NOT do 20 mins of walking a day. Most people struggle to go over the 5k steps a day.

What he is doing is encouraging people to move because the majority of people do not do as much walking/exercise as that.
You can argue as much as you want that it’s not a lot, it’s not being active etc… that’s not the point of his recommendation.

Just like the 5 a day is basically what you can hope most people will achieve. It doesn’t mean that 5 a day is enough or that eating 5 bananas a day is ok. It’s just what is achievable for most.

Really? I find that surprising. Not saying you are not right.

He actually thinks it is far too little. My point is not that the American heart association are wrong to suggest it but are they right to class it 'very active'.

It's not 'very' active. It's definitely 'active' and better than nothing. A local fitness trainer around here recommends a half hour walk daily. I do 30-40 minutes after work. I don't have time to get to a gym and back and I don't like running.

@TravellingFrom

Btw for me the 20mins walking a day is the same sort if advice than saying use the stairs rather than the lift, park a bit further from the supermarket door and go down the bus one stop before yours.

I always find that advice annoying. As I always use the stairs etc. That's not why I'm overweight!

@pawpaws2022 - would you never walk up to the shop, or walk your DC to a club etc. in the evening? I'm not saying you should but surely not everyone who works sitting down does no walking in the evening?

@TheMoth

I don't walk 20 minutes a day. I drive for 45 minutes or so, then stand a lot. I do a lot of pacing around classrooms (and walking between them), but never 20 minutes consistently. I run 15k a week and do 2 gym classes, which keeps me slim.

I think that trump's the walking! But don't you do any walking in the evening after work?

@UndertheCedartree I'm confused by your assertion that it doesn't mean 'brisk walking' and only walking? A quick Google of the AHA guidelines will tell you that moderate activity does in fact mean brisk walking.. Mind, they also say at least 30 minutes 5 days a week so I guess the writer has altered things slightly. <a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/%40wcm/%40fc/documents/downloadable/ucm_448770.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjCzaLI0a_2AhXCiVwKHWbZC4cQFnoECCAQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2KIgK6LuWdgXzR4996BjE2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Link to AHA guide

@Difficultcustomer

I think we need to benchmark against ourselves. I’m no where near as active as I could be. I’ve put on weight and less when even the little activity since wfh.

I would just about manage 20 minutes in one go. I have cerebral palsy, but should do more. What I mustn’t do is make an unrealistic goal to immediately walk 40 minutes briskly every day.

Maybe they should encourage people to walk 5minutes more a day every day or quicker so we build from wherever we are. Some of you are well beyond needing to add distance or intensity but those of us who need to don’t go mad with a resolution.

Oh, I completely agree, you need to build up gradually. I'm doing C25k which is great for that. I would think we should start being 'lightly active' before building to 'moderately active' or 'very active'.

I struggle to do 20 minutes a day tbh. I work 8.5 hours with an hour commute. Spent 4 hours doing heavy digging in the garden today though and am planning on doing a 10k run tomorrow.

Depends on a lot of factors. If you normally sit on your backside every day then yes, a 22 minute walk will be more beneficial than current lifestyle choices. However I think it is important to define what kind of walk that means. I know so many people who think "oh I went for a 45 minute walk today so I can have a slice of cake" when that walk was a snail pace meander. On the other hand, a fast pace with hills for 22 minutes a day will really help and it won't put strain on joints.

@RoastedFerret

Apparently in the UK the average person does 90mins of moderate exercise a week. 25% do 30mins. Moderate would be fast walking. So as much as people want to say 'Americans' and shake their heads that's very active compared to the average British person.

I think the thing that people are saying ‘Americans’ at is the idea of walking for just 20 minutes counting as exercise rather than just getting somewhere.

It’s better than nothing I suppose, but wouldn’t be enough for me to feel fit - but I’m just used to more, I’m a runner, I have 15,000 steps a day minimum, more on run days, and couldn’t do that in 20 minutes. It’s definitely better than nothing and especially if in addition to walking around generally, so a deliberate brisk extra 20 minute walk.

Well I think it's quite a low bar, but as PPs have said, compared With nothing, it is v good.

I am very fit and run and swim for longer than that several times a week.

I used to use a fitbit to measure my walking. I'd walk my DS to school, with the dog and then go for a walk. Later on I'd walk into town to shop (not every day) and then I'd go and pick up my son, with the dog. I think I run up over 10,000 steps daily, easily. Week-ends weren't a cop out as I'd use that opportunity to go further with the dog, even if it meant a car ride to somewhere more interesting but then I'd do a 2 hr walk at least. Of course you have the winter/summer variances but overall, if you keep that up year in, year out - you're going to be reasonably fit. I think steady and consistent wins the day.

For the majority of people 20 mins brisk walking a day would be a huge increase on their current activity levels in many areas.
To me it wouldnt be very active tho.

[quote UndertheCedartree]@pawpaws2022 - would you never walk up to the shop, or walk your DC to a club etc. in the evening? I'm not saying you should but surely not everyone who works sitting down does no walking in the evening?[/quote]
No DC. And not usually. Finish work at 6, cook tea, shower, cleaning. I shop online ATM as CEV so don't tend to go to shops

@Walkingalot

As for the American connection, I was stopped in America by Police - for walking. They questioned what I was doing, where I was going etc. I just said 'a walk'. They looked at me like I was crazy, lol.

That is just like 'The pedestrian' short story by Ray Bradbury. No one walks any more, they are all home watching TV.

I used to work with Americans - lots of them. And many commented that I would say, 'It's just a short walk from here,' meaning 10-15 mins, 20 max, when to them a 'short walk' was 2 minutes.