60-90 minutes of moderate exercise a day? Why?

[Gena 22]

This is a Weight Watchers spin-off thread, but I thought all of your fitness mommas could help me out with a little research and / or theories.

The newish WW recommendation is that to maintain weight loss people need to get in 28 activity points a week, which is based on some study's recommendation of getting 60-90 minutes of moderate exercise pretty much daily.

Moderate exercise is pretty hard core. For walking that equals about 4.5 miles an hour (or 13 1/2 minute miles.) I'm also using a rowing machine.

For a week I've done it, which was my first goal. I feel good, but this has kinda thrown me for a loop. It's a lot of time, a big commitment. If I continue, it'll change my body composition. Less body fat, more muscle. Which is cool, but I want to do something for a lifetime.

This is a lot of time out of my day. Not time away from my family, but time I could be relaxing, keeping a better house, etc. In a way I'd rather eat less and exercise less. It seems more sustainable. But the WW science is really good IMO, and so I'm with them for now anyway.

Tell me why I'd want to keep this pace up for a lifetime. 60 - 90 minutes a day, really? Anyone else keep to this?

[justthinkn]

It makes sense to me, b/c our bodies just aren't meant to be sedentary. I think 30-40m of on-my-own, intentional exercise is reasonable, then making up the difference by walking places, doing vigorous housework, roughhousing or dancing with DD...

[ryleigh'smama]

I think it makes sense too, to a degree. I spend about that amount of time daily doing something fitness related. I tend to not spend it on a cardio machine though. I lift weights, cross train, sprint, run, jog, hike, etc. What I do is forever evolving, I always lift a lot of weights and I tend to think that too much emphasis is put on constant cardio. But I think that the big point is, I love the way it makes me feel. I try to never do a workout that I hate. I change things up all the time. I can't imagine not doing it. I don't go to the gym every day...maybe 4-5 days a week. But on the days I don't go, I run outside, or hike, or go for a walk with a friend or my family. My kids love nature hikes, they can do it for an hour easily (ages 3 and 5) if we stop occasionally and look at a rock (Squats!).

Anyway, I don't think that long term anyone should HAVE to sit on a treadmill or elliptical for 60-90 minutes every day, unless of course they love it. I think that being active every day is important though, and I would even say that the recommendations aren't enough in some ways. I think that humans need to be vigorously active for a period of time once or twice a week as well.

[425lisamarie]

I don't really "time" my exercise. Maybe if I had a desk job and didn't move all day I would....

I'm a busy mom/housekeeper etc, adn I go to the gym 3 days per week. I workout HARD at the gym. The other days I walk, ride bikes, run with the kids, clean the house etc. Sometimes i do short bodyweight workouts at home with kettlebells, pushups, pullups.

[janasmama]

I don't think people need to excercise for that long daily or even more than 2x a week. I think it causes burnout. Look into high intensity training. High intensity doesn't mean it has to be hard on your body, it just means you do it faster and for a shorter duration. This speeds up your metabolism and sets you up to continue burning calories at a higher rate throughout the rest of the day. Plus you can spend half the time doing it so you are more likely to have success.

Let me know what you think about this and check out marksdailyapple.com. Look around it a bit and see what you find.

[Gena 22]

Metabolism is a mystery that I'm not sure I understand, even after some inquiry. Don't know if I believe that a period of high intensity work "speeds up your metabolism for the rest of the day." It might build muscle that burns more calories through the rest of the day. I think metabolism is short hand for a somewhat complex set of calculations that your body is going through. But put more simply, I think I believe that more muscle burns more calories, pretty much end of story. Yes a man burns more, a young person burns more, etc. But the man and the younger person have more muscle.

I'm reserving judgment on whether 60-90 minutes is a physical requirement for most of us. I've committed to getting it in at least 6 days a week for 100 days. So until Sept. 2 for me. I've gotten into rowing hard and long and my body's thrilled. I've got a history in water sports. Then I go for a 50+ min walk over most lunches. So, I've found a way to get the time in. And I'm working to some higher intensity workouts in there too. Once I get over my cold.

So, I'm still agnostic, but am leaning towards being a believer.

Looks like Mark's Daily Apple is an interesting site. Will look into it more. Thanks for the link, and the analysis.

[loudmama]

The fitness program that I have been working out with locally emphasizes interval training for the cardio. His belief is that it is more efficient & just as effective working out at at a moderate pace for longer. In a 45-50 minute class we do core training, interval cardio & weights. It kicks your butt, but then its done!

Something to think about...

L