Summarizing two studies: Walking is great but not enough, and even brief doses of intense exercise—eg, 2 minutes a day—is associated with big reductions in mortality risk.
Regarding walking: I completely agree that "strolling" (because let's face it, that's what most people who walk do) isn't enough. Just wanted to chime in that there is one type of walking that is enormously beneficial: hiking. But even here, many people interpret "hiking" as "putting on some burly shoes or hiking boots and going for a relaxed, flat stroll in the woods."
That isn't hiking. True hiking is to walking what running is to walking. First and foremost, it involves walking uphill, quickly...and not just a gentle slope, but STEEP uphills. Many people who say they hike avoid going uphill like the plague. You should not only go uphill, but you should LIKE going uphill. And trust me, comparative heartrate studies show numbers for hiking up steep hills to be equal to numbers for running, even sprinting.
A good hike is actually more like high intensity interval training than steady state, because the ideal terrain changes: you go up, you go down, then you go up again, even more. Add to the uphill part gnarly trails (not baby-bottom-smooth wood-chip paths) filled with rocks, and it becomes even more challenging, because now it's become exercise for balance and ankle strength.
I realize not everyone can hike like this, nor does everyone have access to anything but perfectly flat, smooth paths. Obviously you should use what you have. But it's important to distinguish between what I call "true hiking" and just "strolling in the woods." They are two entirely different things.
If you hike with a GPS and record your track, then aim for a minimum of 1,000 feet of elevation gain (the total vertical distance you climb while hiking) in every hike. That's pretty much guaranteed to repeatedly get your heartrate up into the 150-180 range (depending on steepness).
Scott, thanks for making these excellent points. The hiking you're describing is obviously great for health and heart and neuromuscular fitness. I don't know if it builds power in the realm that this post is focused on, but having lead four groups up to the summit of Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, I can attest to the stamina one builds hiking the way you described. Especially at altitude and with altitude gain. Thank you for this excellent comment.
Hi Paul, At 85, I'm teaching an exercise class to older women. The youngest is 75 and the oldest is 87. It's a small class (6-10) so I can watch them. We do 30 minutes of aerobic dance, 20 minutes of weight work with light weights (no more than 3 lbs) and standing beside a chair so that we can do leg strengthening as well. Then a 10 minute sitting stretch. It's a pretty balanced class and they love it!
Ha—my feed surfaced this story again which brought me back here. Which is fine because I'm still interested in the idea that intensity > volume. I don't disagree with anything you're saying...but I'm pretty sure (and want to learn more) that the value of volume becomes greater with the "intensity of the volume." By that, I mean, there is an enormous difference between walking at an amiable zone 1 or 2 pace on flat ground...and walking uphill in zone 3. I'm wondering whether the research shows that even maintaining high-intensity (but sub-maximal intensity) for long periods of time is much less valuable when compared to, say, doing wind sprints or intense reps with weight?
The majority of people who do "volume" do it at low intensity (like zone 2). I never do it below zone 3...and once in a while I jack it up to zone 4. This is true of hiking, of kayaking, and of cycling. I feel certain (but still admit I could be wrong) that this "high-intensity volume" training can be every bit as beneficial and muscle-building as short, max-intensity efforts. If it weren't, why are my shoulders and back muscles twice the size of everyone I know—not said to brag, rather to say this is a "side effect" of high-volume paddling for years.
I do recognize that for practical purposes, most people aren't going to do an hour of hiking at an average speed of 3+ mph. (Which is VERY fast hiking.) That said, I'm reluctant to suggest that HIIT (or similar training) with weights and other means is the only way to build and preserve muscle. But it's hands-down the most time-efficient way of doing it! :-)
Throughout my life, exercise has never been worthwhile if it doesn't also provide a significant mental health benefit. I might be unique, but short, high-intensity training with weights has always been an unenjoyable grind. I've always been far happier getting out into nature for at least an hour or more.
Scott, I appreciate you putting your thoughts and questions here. They're certainly good ones that deserve a like response. Let me work on that and get back to you. Just wanted to let you know I saw this and am putting some thoughts of my own together in response.
Yeah... both were a bit ahead of their time, you could argue... since they both sort of ushered in the 90's mix/dance scene. Jam, in particular, was barely 80's anyway since it was released in late 89. I kind of tie it together with 1990's SNAP! song, "The Power".
I think they make good workout songs. And in that regard I ought to listen to them more.
That's so interesting. I wouldn't have thought of these tunes as workout music in a million years. But I'm pretty sure the music I listen to during workouts isn't what many (perhaps most) people would find remotely inspiring. There needs to be a clinical study on workout music and what genres most inspire different demographic groups. That would be pretty fascinating.
Regarding exercise intensity: I’m over 70 and those ‘intensity bursts’ are part of my routine. A short sprint at the end of a training on my racing bike or in the pool. And in the gym those last ‘t reps with extra weight. So very limited burst’s and only after proper warming up
Cornelius, that sounds like the habit of someone who knows his body, knows what he’s doing and understands the benefits of every extra burst of intensity as well as the importance of keeping within tolerances. It’s a good inspiration. Thanks for posting this.
Walking is a great base layer, but it is not the whole portfolio. The real longevity edge seems to come from adding higher-return stressors — strength, intensity, power, load — in doses the body can actually adapt to. Easy movement keeps the account open; intensity is where some of the compounding starts to get interesting.
I love that we are getting solid data on this topic. Great job breaking it down! WRT brain health, the studies are coalescing around the importance of intensity.
Dr. Fenn, You make a great point. Research that uses accelerometers instead of human reporting from the respondents is bound to be much more accurate. And, one of these two studies is actually longitudinal.
Regarding walking: I completely agree that "strolling" (because let's face it, that's what most people who walk do) isn't enough. Just wanted to chime in that there is one type of walking that is enormously beneficial: hiking. But even here, many people interpret "hiking" as "putting on some burly shoes or hiking boots and going for a relaxed, flat stroll in the woods."
That isn't hiking. True hiking is to walking what running is to walking. First and foremost, it involves walking uphill, quickly...and not just a gentle slope, but STEEP uphills. Many people who say they hike avoid going uphill like the plague. You should not only go uphill, but you should LIKE going uphill. And trust me, comparative heartrate studies show numbers for hiking up steep hills to be equal to numbers for running, even sprinting.
A good hike is actually more like high intensity interval training than steady state, because the ideal terrain changes: you go up, you go down, then you go up again, even more. Add to the uphill part gnarly trails (not baby-bottom-smooth wood-chip paths) filled with rocks, and it becomes even more challenging, because now it's become exercise for balance and ankle strength.
I realize not everyone can hike like this, nor does everyone have access to anything but perfectly flat, smooth paths. Obviously you should use what you have. But it's important to distinguish between what I call "true hiking" and just "strolling in the woods." They are two entirely different things.
If you hike with a GPS and record your track, then aim for a minimum of 1,000 feet of elevation gain (the total vertical distance you climb while hiking) in every hike. That's pretty much guaranteed to repeatedly get your heartrate up into the 150-180 range (depending on steepness).
Scott, thanks for making these excellent points. The hiking you're describing is obviously great for health and heart and neuromuscular fitness. I don't know if it builds power in the realm that this post is focused on, but having lead four groups up to the summit of Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, I can attest to the stamina one builds hiking the way you described. Especially at altitude and with altitude gain. Thank you for this excellent comment.
Hi Paul, At 85, I'm teaching an exercise class to older women. The youngest is 75 and the oldest is 87. It's a small class (6-10) so I can watch them. We do 30 minutes of aerobic dance, 20 minutes of weight work with light weights (no more than 3 lbs) and standing beside a chair so that we can do leg strengthening as well. Then a 10 minute sitting stretch. It's a pretty balanced class and they love it!
You're a machine Ms. LeBleu Wood! Bravaa
Ha—my feed surfaced this story again which brought me back here. Which is fine because I'm still interested in the idea that intensity > volume. I don't disagree with anything you're saying...but I'm pretty sure (and want to learn more) that the value of volume becomes greater with the "intensity of the volume." By that, I mean, there is an enormous difference between walking at an amiable zone 1 or 2 pace on flat ground...and walking uphill in zone 3. I'm wondering whether the research shows that even maintaining high-intensity (but sub-maximal intensity) for long periods of time is much less valuable when compared to, say, doing wind sprints or intense reps with weight?
The majority of people who do "volume" do it at low intensity (like zone 2). I never do it below zone 3...and once in a while I jack it up to zone 4. This is true of hiking, of kayaking, and of cycling. I feel certain (but still admit I could be wrong) that this "high-intensity volume" training can be every bit as beneficial and muscle-building as short, max-intensity efforts. If it weren't, why are my shoulders and back muscles twice the size of everyone I know—not said to brag, rather to say this is a "side effect" of high-volume paddling for years.
I do recognize that for practical purposes, most people aren't going to do an hour of hiking at an average speed of 3+ mph. (Which is VERY fast hiking.) That said, I'm reluctant to suggest that HIIT (or similar training) with weights and other means is the only way to build and preserve muscle. But it's hands-down the most time-efficient way of doing it! :-)
Throughout my life, exercise has never been worthwhile if it doesn't also provide a significant mental health benefit. I might be unique, but short, high-intensity training with weights has always been an unenjoyable grind. I've always been far happier getting out into nature for at least an hour or more.
Scott, I appreciate you putting your thoughts and questions here. They're certainly good ones that deserve a like response. Let me work on that and get back to you. Just wanted to let you know I saw this and am putting some thoughts of my own together in response.
Hot take (apparently): those 2 songs *are* good songs.
Steven…..finally someone pushes back on my intentionally provocative slight of 2 (marginal) 80s songs…
Yeah... both were a bit ahead of their time, you could argue... since they both sort of ushered in the 90's mix/dance scene. Jam, in particular, was barely 80's anyway since it was released in late 89. I kind of tie it together with 1990's SNAP! song, "The Power".
I think they make good workout songs. And in that regard I ought to listen to them more.
That's so interesting. I wouldn't have thought of these tunes as workout music in a million years. But I'm pretty sure the music I listen to during workouts isn't what many (perhaps most) people would find remotely inspiring. There needs to be a clinical study on workout music and what genres most inspire different demographic groups. That would be pretty fascinating.
Regarding exercise intensity: I’m over 70 and those ‘intensity bursts’ are part of my routine. A short sprint at the end of a training on my racing bike or in the pool. And in the gym those last ‘t reps with extra weight. So very limited burst’s and only after proper warming up
Cornelius, that sounds like the habit of someone who knows his body, knows what he’s doing and understands the benefits of every extra burst of intensity as well as the importance of keeping within tolerances. It’s a good inspiration. Thanks for posting this.
Walking is a great base layer, but it is not the whole portfolio. The real longevity edge seems to come from adding higher-return stressors — strength, intensity, power, load — in doses the body can actually adapt to. Easy movement keeps the account open; intensity is where some of the compounding starts to get interesting.
I love that we are getting solid data on this topic. Great job breaking it down! WRT brain health, the studies are coalescing around the importance of intensity.
Dr. Fenn, You make a great point. Research that uses accelerometers instead of human reporting from the respondents is bound to be much more accurate. And, one of these two studies is actually longitudinal.