- 1/week strength training focused on large muscle groups.
- 12,000 steps per day walking (HIIT excluded).
According to his reading of the literature, this gives you the best bang for your buck in terms of all-cause mortality avoidance. Most of the studies in this area are correlational, not randomized controlled trials, so it's hard to be sure. But I can vouch for his diligence in trying to get to the bottom of this. I've been following his program since January with reasonably good results over my already-active baseline.
His website is https://www.unaging.com/, and honestly it's a bit hard to recommend because he's definitely playing the SEO game: the articles are often repetitive of each other and full of filler. And the CMS seems janky. (I would tell you to find his older articles before he started optimizing for SEO, but, it seems like the CMS reset all article dates to today.) But, if you have patience, it might be worthwhile.
Wikipedia puts the "preferred walking speed" around 3 miles per hour, so that would be 2 hours of walking per day. So with 8 hours of sleep, 8 hours of work, 2 hours of walking, 1 hour of hygiene, 1 hour of commuting, and 2 hours for meals, you'd still be left with 2 hours of personal time to do all your extracurriculars like cleaning, parenting, spousing, hobbying, shopping, repairing things, etc.
You are neglecting the optimizer approach of working while walking; etc. Also, hygiene during the commute - just shave and brush your teeth on the bus. And sleeping while bathing is a real time saver.
> you'd still be left with 2 hours of personal time to do all your extracurriculars like cleaning, parenting, spousing, hobbying, shopping, repairing things, etc.
In what way is parenting an extracurricular activity?
3mph is a pretty slow stroll - 5 or 6mph is more normal for purposeful walking on the flat - so it’s more like 1:10 of walking, which could take the form of a 35 minute walk somewhere, and a 35 minute walk back.
As for cleaning, repairing things, parenting, shopping - those are all things which can readily incorporate walking and physical activity.
I get about 6000 daily steps from my commute[0] plus about 2000 from miscellaneous movement around the house and office. The extra 4000 are pretty easy to fill in with a lunchtime walk and some housework.
I don't think most people are going out and just walking for an hour and a half every day. A couple I know like to go for a walk with their morning coffees, for example. They've added walking into something they'd be doing anyway. Other people own a dog, or take their kid to the park each day, or do some other regular activity which integrates walking.
[0] 3000 each way, which is 2km and takes me about 20 minutes at a moderate-to-fast walking pace.
12k steps is about 2 hours. It helps a lot to have a walking pad (basically a mini-treadmill), and possibly standing desk.
I do 45 minutes of Anki per day on the walking pad, and then if walking around the city hasn't gotten the other 1.25 hours, I can fill the rest with watching TV on the walking pad.
You can get 3k-4k steps easily just by moving a bit more during your day. The other 8k can be done in an hour walk. You can jog as well if you're short on time but it's probably nice to spend an hour outside every day anyways?
[Loads up Fitbit]
Yesterday, I did 15,686 steps which it reports as 6.5 miles.
I always aim to get above 10K.
Due to an illness I currently have digestive problems, so I walk (stroll, rather) after eating as it provides relief.
I allow an hour after breakfast and also after the evening meal to do somewhere between 3K and 5K steps. This is at home. It’s not tedious as I listen to podcasts, audiobooks, talk radio, or music. As someone else mentioned, if you do it on a walking pad you could watch video. The rest of the steps stack up naturally as you go about your daily business.
Then jog that much in zone 2. I’ve done exactly that, replaced 10K steps a day with < 30 mins jogs if I can’t hit the target for any reason (I work from home so it happens quite often unless I’m mindful about moving).
“Ideal” outcome here is likely a lot more time investment than the 95%ile-effectiveness “good enough” outcome; and in any case, an effective exercise prescription is as personally specific - perhaps even more so - than many pharmaceutical ones, to account for physiology, morphology, age et cetera.
For example my knees are too old for shuttle runs or whatever the intended HIIT might otherwise be, but I can happily go do 500W hill efforts on the bike.
The walking is the only true daily exercise commitment here, and 10k steps is a classic goal. Close enough for me would be reinterpreting this as "walk about an hour a day".
Otherwise, I think once-a-week HIIT and once-a-week strength training sounds very reasonable and easy to maintain for just about anyone.
An hour is only 5k, maybe 6k steps for me (I'm sure it varies by individual). 12k is two hours of walking minimum, six or seven miles, which is a pretty big chunk - I did that much in college walking to class, and when I briefly lived in a city, but no way I'm getting that in on a daily basis out here in the suburbs.
I'm pretty sure steps count when you get up and go to the toilet...
When I did my masters, we were in a Chemistry wet lab 8 hours a day and during the first month I would come home completely exhausted. I realised later that this was because I wasn't used to being on my feet all day walking around even though it didn't feel like I was being active shuffling from machine to machine, fume hood to sink etc
So much depends if you work remote or not. Before covid, I would hit 10k steps with just a 30 minute walk after work because the office involved so many cumulative steps.
Since going remote, it is very difficult with a 60 minute walk. Walking 90 minutes after work is not going to happen so I just focus on my nutrition all the more now.
I work remote and live in a very car-centric suburb. I still somehow average about 10k steps a day with just daily chores and errands.
Maybe I should thank my parents for raising me the way they did because there's zero effort on my end other than the desire to take breaks outdoors, keep things clean indoors, and eat well. On that last point I try to cook most of my meals with fresh ingredients and enjoy shopping in person instead of delivery or pick up.
There's a difference between aerobic and anaerobic exercise. For many people, that manifests as walking being different from running. Which "zone" your heart rate is in (as compared to your maximum heart rate for your age group) tends to be a good indicator of which kind of exercise you're doing. It's important to do both kinds of exercise, with an 80/20 rule being pretty commonly followed.
The 80/20 rule is kind of bullshit unless you're a professional endurance athlete. People who are only exercising a few hours per week will probably benefit from spending more than 20% of that time in higher intensity zones.
Combine it with other commitments: walk the dog, do small-scale shopping (walk to the store and back), have a lunch break in a few minutes of walk from your office, etc.
This is, of course, most easily done in a proper walkable city. Elsewhere biking around could work, probably.
Even if you don't live in a particularly walkable area, about 5k of those steps would come naturally even to a young-ish sedentary person in the form of basic daily activities.
this is why i love walkable cities! You don’t need to “schedule” time every week to meet basic fitness goals. You just walk to the subway, bus stop, etc. Walk to lunch. Walk to the park, Walk to buy groceries, etc.
For those living in suburbs, I hear dogs can be a good excuse to walk more. :)
It's typical/not difficult in major metro's - I do about 8-10k steps per day if I commute to and from my office without any lunch walks etc. Do any lunch/dinner/evening activity and you'll go over 12k.
I don't know how to replicate this in a car centric environment.
The manual for a human body says several hours of exercise per day.
Children try to follow it, but it's being made hard for them, and by the time you're an adult most have learned to forget the natural instincts for movement and how much fun you can have doing physical exercise.
There is a theory that testosterone makes physical exercise fun. No idea if it's true, or to what extent.
Anyway it's completely possible you just didn't find the right physical activity yet. It took me some years to realize that I have to exercise alone and outdoors.
It depends on what you're doing. I could play sports for hours and completely lose my sense of time. If I had to run on a treadmill for 20 minutes I'd die of boredom.
There's no such thing as "ideal". From what I understand from the research, more fitness is correlated with better health outcomes, even up to advanced to elite level.
I recommend trying out a number of different exercise modalities and schedules and seeing what you enjoy, what makes you feel the best, and what fits into your life.
> In this systematic review and meta-regression covering ~ 50 years of research data, we demonstrate that the magnitude of change in mitochondrial content, capillarization, and VO2 max to exercise training is largely determined by the initial fitness level. The ability to adapt to
exercise training is maintained throughout life irrespective
of sex and presence of disease. Larger training volumes (higher training frequency per week and larger number of training weeks) and higher training intensities (per hour of training, SIT > HIT > ET) are associated with greater
increases in mitochondrial content and VO2 max. Therefore, training load (volume x intensity) is a robust predictor of changes in mitochondrial content and VO2 max.
Increases in capillarization occur primarily in the early stages of exercise training (< 4 weeks) with ET, HIT, and SIT equally enhancing capillaries per fiber, while ET is
more effective in increasing capillary density (capillaries
per mm²) due to less pronounced muscle fiber hypertrophy.
The 2019 physical activity guidelines for Americans include consensus recommendations including the evidence and some good graphs to visualize the "bang for buck"
For those curious, those (weekly) recommendations are: twice weekly resistance training, and 150-300min moderate intensity aerobic activity, or 75-150min vigorous aerobic activity.
If you want a program to just give you a starting point, I highly recommend Barbell Medicine's (free) "Beginner Prescription"
Max effort is kind of nebulous as it really means different things to different people. Heart rate is probably the simplest and universal gauge for this...
Atm I am somewhat unfit (relative to my past/potential) so when I do a round on the pads in muay thai/boxing which could be 2-4 minutes, my heart rate sits around 180-185 for the duration of the round. Often, sparring is actually more relaxed than pads because the coaches like to work us hard.
I have noticed that if my training meaningfully reaches 173+ I will usually feel like a vegetable for several hours after, usually the whole day. I get endorphins and heightened awareness around the 150-172 region.
"Max effort" is kind of meaningless because it means different things to different people - when I was 16 my swimming coach pushed me with sprints until I puked, not THAT uncommon amongst competitive athletes and I was a little out of shape that one time. I rarely see people push themselves that hard during HIIT classes, myself included...
The meaning of the words “Max effort” doesn’t change or vary.
It’s just that some people have a max that is lower than others, or at some points in your life your effort is lower than at others, as dictated by physical, mental, or psychological capacity for that person at that moment.
For example a normally sedentary person might find it mentally and psychologically uncomfortable to exercise strenuously. That doesn’t mean they’re not putting forth max effort.
Who is asking you to be sure in the first place? Why do you need this certainty?
Farm animals need the comfort and stability of the farm to survive. They "flourish" within the parameters some one else sets.
In the Elephant-Rider model of how the mind works, people are talking to rider And the elephant.
The elephant just needs some feel good stuff, to momentarily focus shift away from all the unpredictability in the universe, it has no control over - in this case it is being fed - well the story teller who is not sure about anything is atleast "diligent".
When you let go of the story, and realize the elephant is not under your control and can never be, the ride is much smoother. And that's the only story, no SEO game needed to promote the Truth. And truth is - you are just along for the ride. Don't act like a farm animal thinking you are healthy based on how many eggs you have been told to lay. You are a chimp. All animal domestication protocols break down sooner or later when dealing with chimps. Cuz the chimp mind has an elephant in it. Taking it for a wild ride.
The separate HIIT is probably not necessary if you vary your weight training to include higher volume sets. If you do a true HIIT sprint set at 100 percent effort like the initial journal article, you will be wiped out the rest of the day, it’s not practical.
12000 steps is around 10km. And takes around 2-2.5 hours of walking. So I say it is total baloney. Only very few people can do that amount of walking daily. Plus after you do a 2+ hour walk your body next day needs time to recuperate. As an added note it could be utterly boring to walk the same route again and again.
Rather do 6 km slow running 2 or 3 times a week (of course if you are not severely overweight). You can do that in one hour and one running session is enough for 2-3 days. It also strenghtens your core and every other muscle in your body. You will also eat less. If you can mix it with strength training that includes your 4 headed leg muscles you will feel yourself like a champ.
Lot of literature is absolute hogwash in this space because most of them is theoretical and they regurgitate the same old bs. Like idiots saying running half an hour is 400 kcal :D.
Your body is a system, and not a robot or an engine that needs x amount of gas and oil to go for y kilometers.
It’s not 2 hours of walking nonstop. Walking to the toilet counts. So does walking to the bus, the grocery store, to lunch, etc.
I think it’s doable if you live in a very walkable city. I routinely hit about 11k steps most days of the week. Some days less of course…like if i’m sore from a workout or just feeling sedentary.
Anaerobic training’s returns increase ridiculously with days/week until about 3 and it’s large diminishing returns after that.
Just saying, once you’re willing to lift weights once a week with all the upfront cost (gym membership, leaving your comfort zone, learning the ropes, etc) it’s a really good bang for your buck adding one or two more.
For sure. My friend's program is longevity-focused, not strength focused.
I usually do 2/week strength training + 1/week bouldering, but have dropped to 1/week strength training + 1/week bouldering while I worked to incorporate the 12k steps into my routine. I'm also currently doing a cut so am less motivated to lift. After I hit 10% body fat I plan to start bulking and go back to 2/week + bouldering or maybe even 3/week + bouldering.
Regarding diminishing returns, at least for longevity,
> Training once or twice a week for less than an hour can reduce the chance of death from any cause by 35%. But, if the time is increased to over an hour in a week or more than three sessions, then the longevity benefit disappears to zero compared with people who never put their hands on a weight.
What is missing in all this is testosterone levels, especially diminishing as you age.
I have lifted weights for 35 years now and just reached the point that I can not lift, recover and cut calories. I can only recover from a very light full body once a week workout. Otherwise, I need a caloric surplus so I can't cut weight.
To me, it is why there is so much bad information in this space because training is so highly variable based on genetics, hormone levels and age. When I was 20, I had no problem recovering from lifting 6 days a week, running 30 minutes a day and cutting.
Now I can barely lift and more than 30 minutes a day of walking is not so easy to recover from.
I would suspect this is the state that not taking testosterone becomes increasingly unhealthy.
So I have basically quit lifting, cutting to 10% bodyfat and then will rebuild with lifting once on testosterone. I have never read a single reference though that lifting can be bad from the recovery demands if trying to cut at some level of hormones.
We are basically in the dark ages with all this stuff so you have to figure it out for yourself.
Mind that the result in the paper seems to only have number for CVD, not general mortality, and most importantly, tests subjects are middle aged men with checks 5 and 10 years later.
It’s perhaps good to see if there’s a lower chance of an early stroke/heart attack, but they don’t get in the range where the loss of muscle function and bone density can truly affect you, which is where anaerobic training shines (the usual “grandma broke her hip and never recovered”).
> My friend's program is longevity-focused, not strength focused.
I'd say long lifespan without long healthspan is not very useful, so I'd prioritize strength in common movement patterns over just extending temporal existence as much as possible. So longevity shouldn't be treated as separate from either cardiovascular or muscoskeletal fitness.
I love when exercise is hyper-optimized as possible so I can back to what's most important: working at a job I actually hate to make as much money as possible -- the real source of my happiness.
Walking 2 hours per day is a completely impractical fantasy.
A better resource: Body By Science a book containing recommendations based on research and data. The overall goal is proper volume of effective effort of cardio and strength exercise that doesn't take too long and reduces risks of wear/tear and injury.
> Walking 2 hours per day is a completely impractical fantasy.
Tell people you spend 12 hours a day starring at a screen and they won't bat an eye, tell them you walk 10k step a day and they'll try to convince your it's unpractical, unhealthy, "10k is a made up number anyways", "I don't have time", "isn't it too hard?"
All my friends are single and spend more time gaming than I spent exercising, by far, for most people it's a time allocation decision. My brother is more active than me despite having a kid
Huh, ai mean both my sisters walk for like an hour a day with their toddlers most days with good weather. So idk, different strokes for different filks I guess
My friend's main study that he cites is https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209525462... . The interesting thing is that there is no real cutoff. The benefit kind of tapers off logarithmically, but all-cause mortality just gets lower and lower the more steps/day you take. So his 12k is somewhat arbitrary.
> Also, I've found that suggesting 30 minutes of walking vs ??? minutes of walking to get 10k steps is easier for most people to fold into their schedule
And 10K steps is a good bit more walking than 30 minutes. IMO the 10K number might be halfway useful as a high level metric for people who are just judging their own activity throughout a day. As you've pointed out, if you are going for a brisk walk, you don't need 10K steps to get value from it.
I also like the Japanese Walking's focus on time versus number of steps because I can go for a walk with my parents and all three of our phones calculate different numbers that directly correlate with our gait. Mine is often half of theirs.
I have a real-life friend whose hobby is studying this stuff. His recommendations boil down to:
- 1/week 20 minutes HIIT: 5 minutes warmup, 3x(2 minutes high intensity + 3 minutes low intensity) blocks.
- 1/week strength training focused on large muscle groups.
- 12,000 steps per day walking (HIIT excluded).
According to his reading of the literature, this gives you the best bang for your buck in terms of all-cause mortality avoidance. Most of the studies in this area are correlational, not randomized controlled trials, so it's hard to be sure. But I can vouch for his diligence in trying to get to the bottom of this. I've been following his program since January with reasonably good results over my already-active baseline.
His website is https://www.unaging.com/, and honestly it's a bit hard to recommend because he's definitely playing the SEO game: the articles are often repetitive of each other and full of filler. And the CMS seems janky. (I would tell you to find his older articles before he started optimizing for SEO, but, it seems like the CMS reset all article dates to today.) But, if you have patience, it might be worthwhile.