[Closed] Define "normal" levels of exercise

No idea in this sense but i would have asked the person who told me this what they meant, as , like you, i dont know what they mean either.

I did. We had a long chat about it - it was prompted by asking what sort of mileage I used to do on the bike. 165 miles in a day caused a bit of a raised eyebrow.

I'm now massively unfit and overweight, and so will only be returning via steady levels of exercise.

Just interested, that's all.

I think they were probably thinking of this

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/06/01/marathon-endurance-heart.html

This was widely reported in the "popular" press this summer as a scare story...is there any truth in it?

Let's look at a training programme put together by professionals...Jurgen Grobler's rowing squad do three sessions a day, six days a week. 2 water cardio session of 90-100mins in the morning, then one session of 60-90mins weights/ergos in the afternoon. They seem to be pretty fit and healthy, even the athletes who have left the programme have no heart problems.

One theory put forward is that exercise enlarges the heart, as it is a muscle, and that it can then turn flacid if not used...so I guess once and endurance athlete, always an endurance athlete?

I think it's very personal, so if you (or your mum in my case!) is worried, an ecg, perhaps whilst exercising as part of an assessment, could put your mind at rest.

http://www.bupa.co.uk/individuals/health-assessments/fitnessassessment

I would argue that to be inactive puts you at far greater risk of heart problems...but then I am addicted to exercise and in race season train A LOT!

One theory put forward is that exercise enlarges the heart, as it is a muscle, and that it can then turn flacid if not used...so I guess once and endurance athlete, always an endurance athlete?

I'm sure i remember reding that when Sir Steve Redgrave retired he had to undertake a specific training programme to slowly atrophy his heart muscle to prevent complications.

As for the OP, i doubt there is any definitive answer, for some "normal" will be 20-30 mins 3 times a week, for others it'll be 1-2 hours a day.

*As people who do a lot of endurance exercise have a greater chance of developing heart problems than the rest of the population.

Surely not as much as those whom smoke & drink & do no exercise?

165 miles in a day caused a bit of a raised eyebrow

My hip surgeon look most bemused today when he asked what sort of distance did I do before the problems and I replied 100 miles was easy and 200 not that unusual! I too am a fat knacker these days!!

lapierrelady - I've had more than my share of ECGs, echos, holter monitors and, most recently, cardiac MRI scan. Was at an appointment with the electrophysiologist today - this is where the discussion came from.

There is starting to appear to be some evidence to show that endurance athletes are more likely to develop electrical changes to the heart (greater incidence of atrial fibrillation, for example, which increases stroke risk).

Hence interest of what different people consider normal.

If you define normal as the average, then probably about 20mins a week.

Surely not as much as those whom smoke & drink & do no exercise?

Different problems. Generally electrical in nature. Can also hasten damage caused by genetic cardiomyopathies or cause sudden death.

If you define normal as the average, then probably about 20mins a week.

Fair point. Maybe even less is my guess.

Interesting topic-are there any cardiologists on the forum?
I think it also depends on the type of exercise as well? Many of us would ride for 6-7hrs without batting an eyelid-but running for that long would be another matter entirely. I wonder if it has something to do with where your heart rate sits? I work with quite a lot of ultramarathoners (double marathon+) who probably run at the HR that I bike at, but I can't run at less than UT1.

You are asking in the wrong place. Folk on here are remarkably fit, fast and skillful. You need to set your bar a bit lower.

Try Team Sky.

Interesting topic-are there any cardiologists on the forum?

Dunno. It's something I've seen more than once when doing research online. Study on corss country skiers is one: [url= http://www.escardio.org/about/press/press-releases/pr-10/Pages/Atrial-fibrillation-among-cross-country-skiers.aspx ]Linky[/url]

Folk on here are remarkably fit, fast and skillful

It's OK, I fully intend to divide everything by two.

Good news on the diagnosis, OMITN! (I guess?)

Normal amount of exercise? Averaging out an unscientific random selection of people I know, I'd say something strenuous (say 10 miles on a bike at reasonable pace) once a fortnight. Loads of people do nothing at all, plenty do something almost daily, hence 'normal' must be somewhere in between.

Normal for me would be considered a lot by most people I imagine.

Walking from the car to the office chair?

Good news on the diagnosis, OMITN! (I guess?)

Thanks. Thing he was testing for has no definitive diagnosis either way. Will be retested in 3 years, which should give proper reassurance.

Normal for me would be considered a lot by most people I imagine.

What's normal for you?

Walking from the car to the office chair?

I went from 200 miles a week (mainly commuting) to shuffle from bed to car/shuffle across car park to desk. Reverse.

I need somewhere in the middle that is useful and satisfying..!

What's normal for you?

In a week:

100 miles on the road at fast-as-I-can-through-traffic pace

Anywhere between 20 and 80 miles a week on the road at chaingang/race pace.

At least 1 hour running. At least 1 hard hour on mtb/bmx.

Everything else (bike errands, bike pootling with the kids, walking about, climbing stairs etc) I wouldn't count, that's just part of living.

normal? **** all. Get the lift, drive round the corner, use the escalator.

That's normal.

ourmaninthenorth, glad your ticker has proved to be ok mate.

now, my twopenneth,
when my heart went int AF, the 1st tme i saw the consultant, he asked me about my past and presant exercise regime.
i told him i cycled daily, toured on the bike, had in the past done triathlons and also played rugby for 25 yrs.
he then told me that the people who were most susceptible to AF, were people who had done a lot of endurance sport in the past.
he said although sport and exercise was good for you, like most things, too much can be detrimental.
he said all the sport i had done, could have (not had) made my heart go into AF.

after 4 failed procedures on my ticker, i am now stuck in AF for good.
on seeing my consultant 3 weeks ago, the 1st thing he commented on was how well i was looking and how much weight i had lost.
he told me that because of the amount of work they had done inside my heart, which had not cured me, that there was no more they could do.
so beta blockers for life................but the good news is, the new beta blocker i am taking is allowing me to exercise a fair bit more.
so i have started a reigime of exercise to try and mess my heart up some more, and try and shock it back into normal rhythm........... 😆

I get to do ECGs every year for my job. When my fitness levels are up (which they are at the moment) I get error messages every time. My (true) resting pulse is 33 but even in the docs it's about 45-55 which itself produces Brachycardia message. I do between 1-2 hours a day on my bike, generally flat-out with an average HR of 175-180BPM and max of 205-210. I'm 39 yrs old. I'm not the fastest but I'm not the slowest for my age.

My PR interval exceeds 200ms and gets longer the fitter I get, that produces the 1st AV block message. That's quite normal.

So as a result I get to do the occasional 24 hour tape and stress test. Every time the cardiologist states its all A1. Any symptoms disappears when I get my heart rate up. It seems it's got a lumpy idle!

I've researched various papers; there didn't seem to be any concern. Certainly my cardiologist was more than happy. Thankfully I've got it all in writing to throw at the next doc to query my ECG trace!

Edit: having read the above post I might slow down!! 😕

I think the recommended daily amount for ' a normal person' as stated by the government is something like 30mins a day?

ton - it doesn't surprise me he's said that. I think all the cardiologists I've seen take a dim view of long term endurance exercise, especially long term hard stuff (marathons, etc.).

I'm pleased the new bet blockers are doing good.

mikertroid - very interesting. I am off for another exercise ECG at some point just to double check there's nothing weird happening when pushing hard (I've never noticed anything).

I'm looking forward to doing some more exercise that my current state of zero and also getting rather thinner.

As Duggan said, 30mins a day.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/YoungPeople/HealthAndRelationships/KeepingHealthy/DG_10030630

There is no way the average person does that! maybe that a week, if you're lucky.

Normal for a cyclist would be maybe 3/4 hours a week?

A lot of these studies on athletes forget that many of the athletes were doping when active. I was in a minority on non-asthmatic triathletes in the 90s before more rigorous testing of athletes led to less getiting TUVs. It's still pretty much at the discretion of federations and I'm convinced that many athletes who claim to be asthmatic are not or have asthma that would require no treatment were they not competing.

So if over 70% of elite athlets were on beta-agonists (ventoline etc;) it's not surprising they now have the long term side effects of [url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15189956 ]beta-agonist use.[/url]

Edit: beta-agonists are great for putting on lean muscle as well as improving breathing and heart function in the short term. They were the muscle fertiliser of choice among women because they don't result in beard growth.

Interesting point. No idea whether those studies factor that.

Other studies are on younger people, so not necessarily older people who doped years ago.

Thing about atrial fibrillation (what started al this for me) is that it's the leading cause of stroke in people over 65....

Thing I was tested for - and cleared - is ARVC. Leading cause of sudden death in young athletes in northern Italy, and found to be cause of c25% of sudden death in athletes below 35 years old.

Are there any (good) studies about the effects of regular and moderate exercise on the body/heart compared to less frequent and more sustained/intense exercise?

I don't get a whole lot of CV type exercise through the week, but my weekends can be pretty full on. What is "regular" exercise?

I sometimes worry that I'm shocking my body at the weekend (nothing for 5 days then flat out for 2), but I seem to be getting fitter and relatively injury free, so can't be all bad?

he then told me that the people who were most susceptible to AF, were people who had done a lot of endurance sport in the past.
he said although sport and exercise was good for you, like most things, too much can be detrimental.

I don't get a whole lot of CV type exercise through the week

WHO Guidelines are:

In adults aged 18–64, physical activity includes leisure time physical activity (for example: walking, dancing, gardening, hiking, swimming), transportation (e.g. walking or cycling), occupational (i.e. work), household chores, play, games, sports or planned exercise, in the context of daily, family, and community activities. In order to improve cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, bone health, reduce the risk of NCDs and depression:

Adults aged 18–64 should do at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity throughout the week or do at least 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity throughout the week or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity.
Aerobic activity should be performed in bouts of at least 10 minutes duration.
For additional health benefits, adults should increase their moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity to 300 minutes per week, or engage in 150 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity per week, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity.
Muscle-strengthening activities should be done involving major muscle groups on 2 or more days a week.

I have read several times that one of the best exercises for CV is weightlifting (will try to find links) which is obviously the complete opposite of what most people think of when they think of "cardio" workouts.

Bouldering (very hard climbing, normally at a low height so no ropes), which is sort like upside down weight lifting, certainly gets my heart rate very high, although only for short periods of time (but repeatedly). Kind of interval training I guess.

Dunno what's normal for the general population but my 'average' exercise this year is ~5 and a half hours (~61 miles) a week on a bike.

Don't really go to the gym, does running round after a toddler count? 😀

he discourages what he calls "chronic cardio".

I know I shouldn't mention the name of idave on here, but...

He and I were exchanging tweets about Nassim Taleb's Anti Fragility theory and its application to exercise - the theory being more sort of low level stuff (walking, etc.) interspresed with more stressful activity (i.e. HIIT).

I guess there still needs to be some balance to that. Am going to ask the cardiologist.

tom, you're aware of my medical history.
since commencing my cycle commute, i do between 40-50mins a day, 5 days a week (8 mile round trip) at a reasonably high pace (that is, i keep my cadence quite high to keep the HR up as much as i dare). plus varying amounts of riding/fell walking over the weekends too.

i feel fitter and stronger than i have in a couple of decades, after about 5 weeks of doing this. we'll see what the outcome of last weekend's ECG is, but i suspect it'll be totally normal.

glupton - cheers for that. Very interesting.

Am trying to work out whether I can still race cross (next year, alas, no fitness at all now) without doing unnecessary volumes of hard work.

He and I were exchanging tweets about Nassim Taleb's Anti Fragility theory and its application to exercise - the theory being more sort of low level stuff (walking, etc.) interspresed with more stressful activity (i.e. HIIT).

Bouldering (very hard climbing, normally at a low height so no ropes), which is sort like upside down weight lifting, certainly gets my heart rate very high, although only for short periods of time (but repeatedly). Kind of interval training I guess.

[i] I am very much in favour of integrating movement/activity into the daily routine (especially fun stuff like sports/games) rather than strictly proscribed exercise (e.g. I am going to the gym for x time to do y). [/i]

[url]

yeah, that would be living the dream! Unfortunately it's not quite that pleasant round my way!

When you think about it endurance sports are not really "exercise" nor do they have any real fitness benefits.

Beyond the ability to compete in said endurance sports, of course. What I mean is, you can get extremely fit from mainly HIIT style training. Long hours of high-HR activity such as endurance sports are only going to lead to health complications in the long term. (I realise this may be a somewhat controversial point of view on a cycling forum! 😆 )

No, sorry, you're going to have to say that again SLOWER and LOUDER for me. Some data maybe?

Not heard that name before, I'll have to look into him.

Very interesting man. His ideas are very en vogue right now.

No, sorry, you're going to have to say that again SLOWER and LOUDER for me. Some data maybe?

You have to ask, what does "fit" mean?

The ability to run a marathon? To live twice your bodyweight? Climb a mountain? Swing a pickaxe all day?

It's all just functional fitness - getting fit for a specific activity. Whereas having a more all round sense of fitness without going to any one extreme may prove more useful.

Long hours of high-HR activity such as endurance sports are only going to lead to health complications in the long term. (I realise this may be a somewhat controversial point of view on a cycling forum! )

But is, basically, the message a leading heart man gave me yesterday, as well as something that some research suggests is the case.

I need to get back into shape. I need to lose weight. When I asked the man, he said "exercise like a normal person" i.e. not like the ex-fell runner on his ward who has ARVC (and will likely need a heart transplant at some point - all made massively worse by heavy endurance work).

Another fad then. (edit: in reply to "en vogue". Or another bandwagon for a fad specialist to jump on and try to make money from reflected glory)

Another fad then.

Philosophers tend to think they have hit on *the* answer, so don;t usually think of them as fads.

But another interesting idea to consider. And I like thinking about new ideas. It keeps the brain and one's opinions from becoming calcified.

In response to the OP; IMO Normal would be 2 to 4 hours of light cardio (zone 2 or 3) per day with a rest day every other or every 3 days. Mixed into the cardio would be hi intensity intervals, like a hill climb or sprint. So lets say 50km to 100km road ride or a 20km to 40km MTB ride per day 4 or 5 days per week.

You have to ask, what does "fit" mean?
The ability to run a marathon? To lift twice your bodyweight? Climb a mountain? Swing a pickaxe all day?

Well exactly. If I choose to define fitness as the ability to ride 100 miles, or run an ultra or climb French 7a or whatever, who are these folk to tell me that these 'sports are not really "exercise" nor do they have any real fitness benefits.'? That's just gibberish.

All of my examples can be done off a few hours a week, not what I'd define as compulsive, or excessive, or at the far end of spectrum of behaviours. But this has no benefit and will put people in hospital?

If people are happy doing their household chores with vigour that's equally fine, that's fitness for purpose. But I get a bit bothered by loose statements like 'some research' and 'a consultant once said'. Some proper data?

I appreciate some people are at a sensitive time, but there's still space for clarity.

Beyond the ability to compete in said endurance sports, of course. What I mean is, you can get extremely fit from mainly HIIT style training. Long hours of high-HR activity such as endurance sports are only going to lead to health complications in the long term

How does the whole Paleo anti endurance thing fit in with the concept of we may have evolved to persistent hunt? Or is that like god testing our faith by creating dinosaurs 🙂

But this has no benefit and will put people in hospital?

Not the case.

But I get a bit bothered by loose statements like 'some research' and 'a consultant once said'. Some proper data?

[url= http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/123/1/13.abstract ]Start here.[/url]

I appreciate some people are at a sensitive time, but there's still space for clarity.

You're absolutely right.

I've looked at the abstract for your pilot study in rats linked above and can't really conclude anything from it, without seeing the full paper. Similarly with the abstracts linked below. I don't have access to the BMJ sadly, though I was once published in the Builder's Merchant Journal. I'm curious but no more informed I'm afraid.

If I choose to define fitness as the ability to ride 100 miles, or run an ultra or climb French 7a or whatever, who are these folk to tell me that these 'sports are not really "exercise" nor do they have any real fitness benefits.'? That's just gibberish.

How does the whole Paleo anti endurance thing fit in with the concept of we may have evolved to persistent hunt? Or is that like god testing our faith by creating dinosaurs

It is interesting that most people still distinguish between what they call "cardio" and other types of exercise. It is not as if you work the heart/lungs in isolation when you do this (or any other) type of exercise. I have read several times that one of the best exercises for CV is weightlifting (will try to find links) which is obviously the complete opposite of what most people think of when they think of "cardio" workouts.

I think what you're referring to is a bit of work done in the mid nineties. I can't recall the exact detail but rather than resistance training having a direct affect on CV, it was to do with muscle efficiency. It was found that mid rep resistance training on the legs within a gym setting (15-20 rep max) had absolutely no effect on VO2 max, yet it was found that it had a significant effect on performance. The reason for this was not well understood but the 'best guess' was that it trained the muscles to recruit more fibres within the muscles. I think the analogy of many hands make light work was used.

Additionally there was work done on the effect of the different types of exercise & the effect on the heart. I seem to recall that hard low rep max weight lifting (any type) will thicken the heart muscle whereas traditional steady state CV will enlarge the heart chambers. So, the conclusion was cross training to 'strengthen' the heart (stronger pump) & CV to increase the volume.

The reason for this was not well understood but the 'best guess' was that it trained the muscles to recruit more fibres within the muscles.

[url= http://www.masse-fr.com/critiques/grimper_edlinger.htm ]More in here[/url]

Or how to get stronger without increasing muscle mass. It's all down to cordinating more muscle fibres to fire simultaneously in response to signals from the brain. The brain itself also learns when to signal muscle groups to produce the best results and equally importantly not to signal muscle groups that conter the action reauired. It was rumoured to be a new approach to doping a few years ago though I never heard a name given to the products used.

Or how to get stronger without increasing muscle mass. It's all down to cordinating more muscle fibres to fire simultaneously in response to signals from the brain. The brain itself also learns when to signal muscle groups to produce the best results and equally importantly not to signal muscle groups that conter the action reauired.

Sort of... The study I read made a point of the finding that 'strength' gains were negligable, VO2 max was unchanged, yet endurance sport (runners) performance was improved significantly. I think this and simar studies now form the basis of a lot of 'off-season' training regimes. I think many of us [i]instinctively[/i] know that resistance training benefits us, but don't know how or why so talk about it in terms of 'strength'.

It's also interesting to note that these benefits haven't found their way into mainstream coaching; a few friends of mine belong to various cycle and running clubs, and the mantra still being chanted is that of low intensity high volume in the off-season - which does have certain benefits but not that many in terms of outright performance.

OMITN - Great news. Except what the doctors say and don't worry too much about what is normal. Unless you are turning in to slob or a pro athelite then you're fine.
I''ve had no episodes for a while after tasking steadier exercise and excess wise. I guess it's all about balance.