How much is enough?
#1
Dan J
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Iron Mountain, MI
Posts: 1,244
Bikes: 1974 Stella 10 speed, 2006 Trek Pilot 1.2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
How much is enough?
#2
In Real Life
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152
Bikes: Lots
Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 596 Times
in
329 Posts
Can you give us a brief summary of what's in the link?
__________________
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
#3
Ride On!
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 971
Bikes: Allez DSW SL Sprint | Fuji Cross
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
"The daily dose of physical exertion required to lower the risk of diabetes, stroke, heart disease, and both breast and bowel cancer by at least 20 percent, is several times the mininum recommended by the World Health Organization, researchers found (AFP Photo/Kirill Kudryavtsev)"
It's a really short article though.
It's a really short article though.
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times
in
177 Posts
They reviewed thousands of studies and concluded that the WHO's recommended 600 MET minutes per week didn't lower disease or cancer risk significantly. They found 3500 to 4000 MET minutes/week from combined activities provided the most benefit.
1 MET => resting, 4 METs => moderate exercise, 8 METs =>higher intensity like running.
1 MET => resting, 4 METs => moderate exercise, 8 METs =>higher intensity like running.
#5
Dan J
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Iron Mountain, MI
Posts: 1,244
Bikes: 1974 Stella 10 speed, 2006 Trek Pilot 1.2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
They say the necessary level to get these benefits is 3,000 to 4,000 METS per week. They say 10 minutes of running = 80 mets, so (if that's accurate) you'd have to run 8.3 hours a week to get to 4,000 METS. For comparison, at the level recommended by the WHO -- 600 MET minutes -- there was hardly any impact at all, according to the study.
I'd say you'd have to at least double the time running to get an equivalent for biking, so it would come out to over 2 hours a day. These are obviously rough approximations, but however you cut it, it's a lot more than the paltry levels of exercise many mainstream media articles talk about.
I'd say you'd have to at least double the time running to get an equivalent for biking, so it would come out to over 2 hours a day. These are obviously rough approximations, but however you cut it, it's a lot more than the paltry levels of exercise many mainstream media articles talk about.
#6
Non omnino gravis
This whole MET thing just excites me. Head over to the Compendium of Physical Activites (Bicycling) to find your MET, multiply it by your time ridden per week, and smile or frown as needed.
Myself, for instance, look at it this way:
A 10.0 MET is "bicycling, 14-15.9 mph, racing or leisure, fast, vigorous effort", and
a 12.0 MET is "bicycling, 16-19 mph, racing/not drafting or > 19 mph drafting, very fast, racing general"
I don't race, but I do average 17-18mph over the course of a week (+10,000kj per week) so I'll call myself an 11.0 MET.
8/1 - 8/7, 924 minutes * 11.0 MET = 10,164 MET
Myself, for instance, look at it this way:
A 10.0 MET is "bicycling, 14-15.9 mph, racing or leisure, fast, vigorous effort", and
a 12.0 MET is "bicycling, 16-19 mph, racing/not drafting or > 19 mph drafting, very fast, racing general"
I don't race, but I do average 17-18mph over the course of a week (+10,000kj per week) so I'll call myself an 11.0 MET.
8/1 - 8/7, 924 minutes * 11.0 MET = 10,164 MET
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
I think everybody has known for a while that the official recommendations aren't enough. There have been a lot of studies lately on the dangers of a sedentary lifestyle, I saw an article last year in Runners World about how even runners are usually too sedentary, it said don't think that doing some exercise makes it ok to spend the rest of the day sitting.
But it's like pulling teeth to get a lot of people to park on the far side of the lot and walk a little extra. The official recommendation for 150 minutes per week (that's 2.5 hours) is probably about setting the bar low enough that people will do it.
But it's like pulling teeth to get a lot of people to park on the far side of the lot and walk a little extra. The official recommendation for 150 minutes per week (that's 2.5 hours) is probably about setting the bar low enough that people will do it.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
Canvassing nearly 200 studies in half a dozen countries -- including the United States, China, India and South Africa -- the researchers found that sharp reductions in disease risk required at least 3,000 to 4,000 of these "MET minutes" per week.
Compared to a couch-potato existence, that level of physical exertion cut the risk of diabetes and breast cancer by more than 20 percent, they reported.
Compared to a couch-potato existence, that level of physical exertion cut the risk of diabetes and breast cancer by more than 20 percent, they reported.
I guess that's across the population as a whole.
There's no history of diabetes in my family. There's a genetic component so already I'm not at much risk. Exercise improves your sensitivity to insulin (which is basically the opposite of type 2 diabetes), so with the cycling I do, it's just not on the radar.
I have no idea what number of METs I come to, and I doubt it's 4 to 6 k, but that's like asking somebody to walk some number of leagues when they're used to miles, METs means nothing to me, I have no context. (And I'm a bit skeptical.) But whatever number I come to, my risk level for T2D is acceptable.
Men can get breast cancer (the guy who played Shaft did) but I have no idea how to go about assessing risk for that. Ovarian cancer did my grandmother in, and I think that's a risk factor for BC, but I don't have ovaries.
#9
Dan J
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Iron Mountain, MI
Posts: 1,244
Bikes: 1974 Stella 10 speed, 2006 Trek Pilot 1.2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This whole MET thing just excites me. Head over to the Compendium of Physical Activites (Bicycling)
Last edited by chinarider; 08-10-16 at 12:38 PM.
#10
Non omnino gravis
Well, it seems like the whole "MET" thing is just another way to go about guessing kilojoules, and I should have gone for the full 12.0, because according to the PM, I put out 11,592kj for that week, so the 10,162 MET would be way low, unless a MET is bigger than a kJ. I think it's useful, because it gives people who don't have other means to track their energy expenditure at least a general figure to help plan their intake.
The average person needs to exercise more. I think everyone knows this. But I average 2 hours of riding a day at ~17mph, so I have no problem almost tripling the recommended METs.
The average person needs to exercise more. I think everyone knows this. But I average 2 hours of riding a day at ~17mph, so I have no problem almost tripling the recommended METs.
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The MET thing is just another calories in calories out theory. It doesn't take into account what else you are and are not doing for most of the time, only measuring a single factor during a limited period of time and ignoring all others. Let's say that I drink vodka, smoke Chesterfields and inject heroin between my toes for an average of 10 hours a day. How much then does it matter that I did 4,000 MET's every week? Could be a little, none, or it might even increase my risk of death.
#12
Dan J
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Iron Mountain, MI
Posts: 1,244
Bikes: 1974 Stella 10 speed, 2006 Trek Pilot 1.2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Well, it seems like the whole "MET" thing is just another way to go about guessing kilojoules, and I should have gone for the full 12.0, because according to the PM, I put out 11,592kj for that week, so the 10,162 MET would be way low, unless a MET is bigger than a kJ. I think it's useful, because it gives people who don't have other means to track their energy expenditure at least a general figure to help plan their intake.
The average person needs to exercise more. I think everyone knows this. But I average 2 hours of riding a day at ~17mph, so I have no problem almost tripling the recommended METs.
The average person needs to exercise more. I think everyone knows this. But I average 2 hours of riding a day at ~17mph, so I have no problem almost tripling the recommended METs.
My point in starting the thread was to point out that to get the benefits measured, the study seems to call for quite a bit more exercise than what is typically seen is mass media, where you typically see something like the 150 minutes per week prescription with the pronouncement that there is no real benefit in doing more than that.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
The MET thing is just another calories in calories out theory. It doesn't take into account what else you are and are not doing for most of the time, only measuring a single factor during a limited period of time and ignoring all others. Let's say that I drink vodka, smoke Chesterfields and inject heroin between my toes for an average of 10 hours a day. How much then does it matter that I did 4,000 MET's every week? Could be a little, none, or it might even increase my risk of death.
#14
Other Worldly Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: The old Northwest Coast.
Posts: 1,540
Bikes: 1973 Motobecane Grand Jubilee, 1981 Centurion Super LeMans, 2010 Gary Fisher Wahoo, 2003 Colnago Dream Lux, 2014 Giant Defy 1, 2015 Framed Bikes Minnesota 3.0, several older family Treks
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked 136 Times
in
53 Posts
I'd estimate 60-90 minutes of good hard cycling per day (8-11 MET) or 7-12 hours a week to hit 4000 MET. I'm at ~2000 in winter, maybe near 4000 in summer.
__________________
Make ******* Grate Cheese Again
Make ******* Grate Cheese Again
#15
Dan J
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Iron Mountain, MI
Posts: 1,244
Bikes: 1974 Stella 10 speed, 2006 Trek Pilot 1.2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
My mistake. From the link above: "Definition of Terms used in the Compendium
MET (Metabolic Equivalent): The ratio of the work metabolic rate to the resting metabolic rate. One MET is defined as 1 kcal/kg/hour and is roughly equivalent to the energy cost of sitting quietly. A MET also is defined as oxygen uptake in ml/kg/min with one MET equal to the oxygen cost of sitting quietly, equivalent to 3.5 ml/kg/min."
1 kcal= 4.184 kJ. So if DrIsotope puts out 11,592kj, that would be 2770 kcal. If we knew his weight, we could compute the METs (if I'm understanding this).
MET (Metabolic Equivalent): The ratio of the work metabolic rate to the resting metabolic rate. One MET is defined as 1 kcal/kg/hour and is roughly equivalent to the energy cost of sitting quietly. A MET also is defined as oxygen uptake in ml/kg/min with one MET equal to the oxygen cost of sitting quietly, equivalent to 3.5 ml/kg/min."
1 kcal= 4.184 kJ. So if DrIsotope puts out 11,592kj, that would be 2770 kcal. If we knew his weight, we could compute the METs (if I'm understanding this).
Last edited by chinarider; 08-11-16 at 11:09 AM.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times
in
1,417 Posts
My mistake. From the link above: "Definition of Terms used in the Compendium
MET (Metabolic Equivalent): The ratio of the work metabolic rate to the resting metabolic rate. One MET is defined as 1 kcal/kg/hour and is roughly equivalent to the energy cost of sitting quietly. A MET also is defined as oxygen uptake in ml/kg/min with one MET equal to the oxygen cost of sitting quietly, equivalent to 3.5 ml/kg/min."
1 kcal= 4.184 kJ. So if DrIsotope puts out 11,592kj, that would be 2770 kcal. If we knew his weight, we could compute the METs (if I'm understanding this).
MET (Metabolic Equivalent): The ratio of the work metabolic rate to the resting metabolic rate. One MET is defined as 1 kcal/kg/hour and is roughly equivalent to the energy cost of sitting quietly. A MET also is defined as oxygen uptake in ml/kg/min with one MET equal to the oxygen cost of sitting quietly, equivalent to 3.5 ml/kg/min."
1 kcal= 4.184 kJ. So if DrIsotope puts out 11,592kj, that would be 2770 kcal. If we knew his weight, we could compute the METs (if I'm understanding this).
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Heavy drinking certainly raises the risk of breast cancer. Type 2 diabetes maybe should not be on list at all since it is entirely a consequence of diet first and exercise secondly. But those five specific diseases are major players in longevity. My point is that this "magic" number attempts to equate a met's per week to risk, while it ignores more important factors. If you look at the places where people live the longest, and thus have lower instances of these killer diseases, it is not calories burned, but diet quality and activity frequency. Activity frequency as in how many minutes during a day that you are active, being entirely different than met's per week which reveals nothing about what you do most of the time.
#18
Senior Member
or people could eat less.
__________________
Comedian Bill Hicks once said, "Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy a jet ski, and you never see an unhappy person riding a jet ski."
Comedian Bill Hicks once said, "Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy a jet ski, and you never see an unhappy person riding a jet ski."
#19
Dan J
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Iron Mountain, MI
Posts: 1,244
Bikes: 1974 Stella 10 speed, 2006 Trek Pilot 1.2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Heavy drinking certainly raises the risk of breast cancer. Type 2 diabetes maybe should not be on list at all since it is entirely a consequence of diet first and exercise secondly. But those five specific diseases are major players in longevity. My point is that this "magic" number attempts to equate a met's per week to risk, while it ignores more important factors. If you look at the places where people live the longest, and thus have lower instances of these killer diseases, it is not calories burned, but diet quality and activity frequency. Activity frequency as in how many minutes during a day that you are active, being entirely different than met's per week which reveals nothing about what you do most of the time.