Fitness
From practicing various forms of exercise to staying determined despite injuries and surgeries; Anupam Mittal’s fitness transformation is quite inspirational | The Times of India
closecomments
Be the first one to review.
We have sent you a verification email. To verify, just follow the link in the message
(Photo by Prostock-studio on Shutterstock)
The Standard Exercise Guideline Cuts Heart Risk by Only 8%, New Data Show
In A Nutshell
- Hitting the standard 150-minutes-per-week exercise guideline was associated with only about an 8% to 9% reduction in heart disease risk across all fitness levels, a reduction the researchers describe as “consistent but modest.”
- Cutting heart disease risk by 30% or more appeared to require exercise volumes roughly three to four times higher than the minimum recommendation, around 560 to 610 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity per week.
- A person’s cardiorespiratory fitness level independently contributed to lower heart disease risk beyond what exercise volume alone explained, with each additional unit of fitness linked to approximately 2% lower risk.
For decades, the exercise advice handed out in doctor’s offices, schools, and government health campaigns has told everyone to get at least 150 minutes of moderate activity per week, and your heart will thank you. Millions of Americans have taken that suggestion very seriously, treating it as a finish line of sorts. A new large-scale study suggests it may be closer to a starting block.
Published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, the research tracked more than 17,000 adults over nearly eight years and found that hitting the standard 150-minute weekly target was associated with only about an 8% to 9% reduction in heart disease risk. To cut that risk by 30% or more, the data pointed to a much higher threshold: somewhere around 560 to 610 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity per week. That’s roughly an hour and a half of moderate-to-vigorous activity per day.
Beyond raw minutes, the study identified a second factor that most public health guidelines barely acknowledge: how physically fit a person already is. Even after accounting for how much someone exercised, people with higher cardiorespiratory fitness, basically how well the heart and lungs deliver oxygen during exertion, had meaningfully lower heart disease risk. Fitness, the data suggest, may also play an independent protective role that extra exercise time alone doesn’t fully replicate.
What the 150-Minute Guideline Actually Delivers
To understand what was measured, it helps to understand how it was measured. Researchers drew on data from the UK Biobank, a large British health research database that recruited around 500,000 adults between the ages of 40 and 69. For this study, the team focused on a subset of roughly 17,000 participants who wore a wrist-based motion sensor for seven consecutive days. That device-based measurement is a meaningful advantage over most prior research, which relied on people self-reporting their own exercise habits, a method well-known for overestimating actual activity levels.
Participants also completed a stationary bike test at enrollment, which allowed researchers to estimate each person’s cardiorespiratory fitness level. After filtering for those without prior heart disease and with complete data, 17,088 people made it into the final analysis.
Over a median follow-up of just under eight years, 1,233 of those participants experienced a cardiovascular event: irregular heart rhythms, heart attacks, heart failure, or stroke. Researchers used an advanced statistical model to map how different combinations of weekly exercise volume and fitness level related to those outcomes.
What emerged was a clear tiered picture. At the guideline level of 150 minutes per week, the risk reduction was described by the researchers as “consistent but modest,” coming in at roughly 8% to 9% across all fitness levels. To push that figure to 20%, participants needed approximately 340 to 370 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity per week, more than double the recommendation. Reaching a 30% reduction required jumping to roughly 560 to 610 minutes per week.
Why Fitness Matters Beyond Step Count
One of the more meaningful findings concerns what fitness itself adds to the equation, independent of how much someone moves. Using a statistical technique designed to isolate fitness’s effect from exercise behavior, the researchers found that each additional unit of fitness was associated with approximately 2% lower heart disease risk. The authors note this pattern is consistent with fitness carrying heart-protective effects through biological pathways, such as changes in heart structure and improved blood vessel function, that weekly exercise volume doesn’t fully capture.
Lower-fitness individuals also faced a steeper climb to reach the same risk reductions as their fitter counterparts. According to a table the researchers built to translate findings into practical targets, a person with low fitness needed roughly 30 to 50 more minutes per week than a high-fitness person to achieve the same percentage reduction in risk. Reaching a 20% risk reduction, for example, required approximately 370 minutes per week for lower-fitness individuals compared to approximately 340 minutes for those with higher fitness.
What a Genetic Analysis Added
Beyond tracking real-world behavior, the research team added a layer of genetic analysis to test whether the associations they found were likely to reflect true cause and effect, rather than the result of other lifestyle factors that active, fit people tend to share. This type of analysis uses inherited genetic differences between people as a kind of natural experiment.
The genetic findings offered partial support for the observational results. Genetically predicted higher fitness was most clearly linked to lower heart failure risk, with odds roughly 21% lower compared to those with genetically lower fitness levels. Evidence for other cardiovascular outcomes was less consistent, and the case for exercise behavior itself, as opposed to fitness as a physical trait, was weaker still across the genetic analysis.
The researchers explain this gap by noting that genetic tools are better suited to capturing stable biological traits like fitness than complex behaviors like weekly exercise habits. They conclude that the observational findings remain “the strongest available evidence for guiding activity-based prescriptions.”
Rethinking What Exercise Advice Should Do
The study’s authors propose that future guidelines may need to draw a clearer line between two distinct goals: the minimum exercise volume needed to avoid the worst cardiovascular outcomes, and the substantially higher volumes needed for substantial cardiovascular risk reduction. They also suggest that measuring a person’s fitness level, not just asking how much they exercise, could help doctors set more personalized targets.
About 11.6% of participants in the study, roughly 1,980 out of 17,088, managed to hit or exceed the 560-minute-per-week mark, confirming that such volumes are achievable but represent a high bar for most people. For those with low baseline fitness, the challenge is compounded: they face both higher absolute risk and the need to put in more work to see the same relative benefit.
The 150-minute guideline isn’t wrong. For the large share of Americans who don’t even hit that threshold yet, getting there still delivers real cardiovascular benefit. But for those who have cleared that mark and assumed they were done, this research makes a solid case that meaningful heart protection may require considerably more.
Disclaimer: This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. The findings described are based on observational research and should not be used to self-diagnose, treat, or make changes to an exercise or health regimen without consulting a qualified healthcare provider. Individual health needs and risk factors vary. Speak with your doctor before significantly increasing your physical activity level.
Paper Notes
Limitations
Several important constraints apply to these findings. The UK Biobank cohort skews toward healthier, predominantly white, middle-aged to older adults living in the United Kingdom, which limits how well the results translate to younger people, non-white populations, or other countries. Physical activity was measured during only a single seven-day window, which may not reflect a person’s typical long-term habits. Fitness was estimated using a submaximal bike test rather than a gold-standard maximal effort test, introducing some measurement uncertainty, particularly for individuals with unusual heart rate responses to exercise. The study also measured exercise and fitness at a single point in time, so it can’t account for how those behaviors change over years. Despite the genetic analysis component, the observational design cannot fully rule out unmeasured lifestyle or health factors. The genetic instruments used in the analysis explained limited variation in physical activity behavior, and substantial heterogeneity was detected across genetic variants for several outcome pairs; the authors addressed this using random-effects models. Patients and members of the public were not involved in the study’s design or conduct.
Funding and Disclosures
The authors declared no specific grant funding from any public, commercial, or not-for-profit agency. No competing interests were declared. The study was conducted using the UK Biobank resource under Application Number 1050630 and was approved by the North West Multicentre Research Ethics Committee (reference 11/NW/0382).
Publication Details
Paper Title: Joint non-linear dose–response associations of device-measured physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness with cardiovascular disease: a cohort and Mendelian randomisation study | Authors: Zhide Liang, Senyao Du, Shiao Zhao, Xianfei Wang, Qiang Yan, Baichao Xu, Sanfan Ng, Ziheng Ning | Journal: British Journal of Sports Medicine (BMJ Group) | DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2025-111351 | Status: Published online ahead of print, accepted 6 April 2026
People who are the least fit need to do 30-50 minutes more exercise a week than the fittest to get the same reduction in cardiovascular risk, according to research.
Researchers examined data from more than 17,000 British adults taking part in the UK Biobank study. They completed a cycle test to measure their baseline cardiorespiratory fitness (estimated VO2 max) and wore a fitness tracker for a week to record typical exercise levels.
The adults, aged 40-69 were tracked for an average of eight years, during which there were more than 1,200 cardiovascular incidents, including heart attack, atrial fibrillation stroke and heart failure.
The NHS advises adults to do at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity each week, such as brisk walking, cycling or running.
The study, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, found achieving this guideline of two and a half hours’ exercise was associated with a 8-9% reduced cardiovascular risk.
“Given that large proportions of the population do not meet even this benchmark, the primary public health message remains straightforward: achieving 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous activity delivers meaningful cardiovascular protection regardless of fitness level,” the authors conclude.
The research also calculates that more exercise lowered the risk even further, but that those with the lowest fitness needed about 30-50 extra minutes’ exercise a week to obtain the same benefits.
To achieve a 20% reduced risk, the least fit needed to do 370 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity a week, whereas those with the highest fitness levels only needed 340 minutes.
To reduce the odds of cardiovascular events by more than 30%, the least fit would need to do more than 10 hours (610 minutes) while the most fit would have to do just over nine hours (560 minutes).
“This finding highlights the steeper challenge faced by deconditioned populations,” the research concludes.
“Current moderate-to-vigorous physical activity guidelines provide a universal but modest safety margin, whereas optimal cardiovascular protection may require substantially higher activity volumes.”
“Future guidelines and implementation strategies may need to differentiate between the minimal moderate-to-vigorous physical activity volume required for a basic safety margin and the substantially higher volumes necessary for optimal cardiovascular risk reduction.”
The findings appear to challenge previous research, which found that walking only 4,000 steps a day would still reduce older people’s risk of dying early by around a quarter.
But experts said recommending more than nine hours a week of exercise was “misguided”.
Aiden Doherty, professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Oxford, said: “We can’t give much weight to the figure of 560-610 minutes of exercise a week.
“Clearly there will be cardiovascular benefit for people who are able to do (more than) 1 hour 20 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity a day but this is not a sensible public health message.
“The public should continue to aim for at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous intensity of physical activity a week; more is better; every move counts.”
Responding to the findings, a Sport England spokesperson said that increasing activity levels was vital for keeping people healthier for longer: “Emerging research like this reinforces the importance of helping more people be active, more often.
“Sport England’s own research shows activity relieves healthcare issues for both individuals and the NHS, preventing 1.3 million cases of depression, 600,000 of diabetes and 57,000 of dementia.”
When GH decided to launch a fitness challenge, there was only one woman we could turn to. Because honestly, who doesn’t want just a tiny slice of Davina McCall’s irrepressible energy for themselves?
In October, Davina designed a 31-day programme of fun, feelgood movement for GH readers – no equipment, no gym, no pressure. Just five minutes of each movement every day with a mat and your favourite playlist.
She hasn’t exactly slowed her pace since then. ‘My workout today,’ she recently wrote on Instagram, beneath a video of her shadowboxing in leopard-print leggings. ‘I absolutely love a fight. I literally want to go and run a marathon now!’
So should we all step up to this next level of the challenge and try shadowboxing ourselves? ‘Boxing is a surprisingly brilliant way to get moving and feel good,’ says Kim Hawley, GH’s fitness expert. Daunted? Don’t be. While contact boxing has been linked to brain trauma, you don’t actually need to get punched or swing a fist at anyone else to experience its benefits. ‘Boxing for fitness isn’t about stepping into a ring or investing in a mouthguard,’ Kim promises. ‘It’s the training that does the magic and keeps the brain ticking as much as the body, with drills to learn, remember and build on. Add in footwork and suddenly you’re working coordination, balance and focus all in one go.’
Shadowboxing like Davina – where you punch, defend and move as if you’re fighting an imaginary component – boosts heart rate, builds core strength, improves technique and burns calories. In fact, physical therapists have begun using non-contact boxing to help people with Parkinson’s disease manage their symptoms. It also acts as a major stress-reliever – just picture whatever’s getting under your skin that day.
‘A few rounds of punching thin air will have your heart racing,’ summarises Kim. ‘Even basic simple skipping does wonders for cardio and bone strength – you can even “air skip” so you don’t even need a rope! Unlike sports that rely on courts, clubs or other people, this is something you can dip into whenever you like,’ says Kim.
There are plenty of ways to give it a try – most gyms now run classes, and you can find online shadow boxing workouts, too. ‘It’s genuinely fun,’ says Kim. ‘If you’re looking for something a little different for your health and fitness routine, boxing might just land the punch.’
This year, GH is getting fit (enough). Join us!
The Fit (Enough) Club is an accessible, realistic and fun fitness community for women who hate fads and like treats. Sign up to the Good Life newsletter and, along with wellness tips and health advice, you’ll get a weekly dose of fitness advice and expert insights – a Fit (Enough) Club fix to keep you moving and motivated throughout 2026. You’ll also receive your special welcome pack.
Ready? Get set… Go!
Join the Fit (Enough) Club!
-
Montana3 minutes agoPoll finds Jacobsen, Busse most favorable in Montana’s Western District primaries
-
Nebraska9 minutes agoAmericans exposed to Hantavirus upset about being forced to quarantine in Nebraska
-
Nevada15 minutes agoHeaded to Vegas from SoCal for Memorial Day? Best times to travel on I-15
-
New Hampshire21 minutes agoBeginner’s Guide To Sushi: Start With California Rolls And Spicy Crab Rolls At These Local Spots
-
New Jersey27 minutes agoAnyone have earthquake FOMO after small tremor hit NJ on Tuesday?
-
New Mexico33 minutes ago3 dead in New Mexico and first responders treated for exposure to unknown substance
-
North Carolina39 minutes agoNC lawmakers back income tax cap measure for November ballot: ‘States aren’t here to make profits’
-
North Dakota45 minutes agoCustomers react to Mango’s closure ahead of final day
Count: 3000
X