# data[].attributes.body
Misinformation:

When you look at this page on Instagram it tells you about the benefits you can gain while working out, however it does not site where they got this information from. Some of the posts this page includes can be argued that this is ones personal opinion on why a particular exercise is good. No sources are sited whatsoever.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

# data[].attributes.body
Credible Information:

This is video is published from CBC news, a reliable news network that people watch for current news and health information in Canada. Health experts have also reviewed the information in this video to make sure it is credible. Also, this study is also backed up with evidence that exercise can help with cognitive/ mobility function.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A little weight training good for the brain

# data[].attributes.body
Credible Information:

The World Health Organization is a reliable source of information when it comes to addressing physical activity and how one can help increase how much activity they do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Key facts

Regular physical activity provides significant physical and mental health benefits.

In adults, physical activity contributes to prevention and management of noncommunicable diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, cancer and diabetes and reduces symptoms of depression and anxiety, enhances brain health, and can improve overall well-being.

In children and adolescents, physical activity promotes bone health, encourages healthy growth and development of muscle, and improves motor and cognitive development.

31% of adults and 80% of adolescents do not meet the recommended levels of physical activity.

The global target set to reduce levels of physical inactivity in adults and adolescents is a 10% relative reduction by 2025 and 15% by 2030, from the 2010 baseline.

The global estimate of the cost of physical inactivity to public health care systems between 2020 and 2030 is about US$ 300 billion (approximately US$ 27 billion per year) if levels of physical inactivity are not reduced.

Overview

WHO defines physical activity as any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that requires energy expenditure. Physical activity refers to all movement including during leisure time, for transport to get to and from places, or as part of a person's work or domestic activities. Both moderate- and vigorous-intensity physical activity improve health. Popular ways to be active include walking, cycling, wheeling, sports, active recreation and play, and can be done at any level of skill and for enjoyment by everybody.

Physical activity is beneficial to health and well-being and conversely, physical inactivity increases risk for noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and other poor health outcomes. Together, physical inactivity and sedentary behaviours are contributing to the rise in NCDs and placing a burden on healthcare systems.

Improving levels of physical activity will benefit health and well-being and contribute to attainment of global NCD targets and a number of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, this will require increased commitments and investments by Member States; innovation and contributions from non-state actors; cross sector coordination and collaboration; and ongoing guidance and monitoring from WHO.

Benefits of physical activity and risks of sedentary behaviour and inactivity

Physical inactivity is one of the leading risk factors for noncommunicable diseases mortality. People who are insufficiently active have a 20% to 30% increased risk of death compared to people who are sufficiently active. Regular physical activity is associated with:

in children and adolescents, improvedphysical fitness, cardiometabolic health, bone health, cognitive outcomes, mental health and reduced body fat;

in adults and older adults, reducedrisk of all-cause mortality, risk of cardiovascular disease mortality, incident hypertension, incident site-specific cancers, incident type-2 diabetes, and falls and improved mental health, cognitive health, sleep and measures of body fat; and

for pregnant and post-partum women, decreased risk of pre-eclampsia, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, excessive gestational weight gain, delivery complications, postpartum depression and newborn complications. Physical activity has no adverse effects on birthweight or increased risk of stillbirth.

Sedentary behaviour is any period of low-energy expenditure while awake such as sitting, reclining or lying. Lives are becoming increasingly sedentary through the use of motorized transport and the increased use of screens for work, education and recreation. Evidence shows higher amounts of sedentary behaviour are associated with the following poor health outcomes:

in children and adolescents, increased adiposity, poorer cardiometabolic health, fitness, and behavioural conduct/pro-social behaviour, and reduced sleep duration; and

in adults, increasedall-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer mortality and incidence of cardiovascular disease, cancer and type-2 diabetes.

How much physical activity is recommended?

The WHO Global guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour provide recommendations for children (age 5 and up), adolescents, adults, older adults, pregnant and post-partum women, and people living with chronic conditions and disabilities. The recommendations detail the amount of physical activity (frequency, intensity and duration) required to offer significant health benefits and to reduce health risks. The guidelines highlight that any amount of physical activity is better than none; all physical activity counts; all age groups should limit the amount of time being sedentary; and muscle strengthening benefits everyone.

The WHO Guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep for children under 5 years of age provide recommendations on the amount of time in a 24-hour day that young children, under 5 years of age, should spend being physically active or sleeping for their health and well-being, and the maximum recommended time these children should spend on screen-based sedentary activities or time restrained.

An infographic summarizes the current WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour for all age groups. WHO develops guidelines through an arduous process of reviewing scientific evidence and expert consultations. Preparations are already underway for the next guidelines, anticipated for publication in 2030.

Levels of physical inactivity globally

WHO regularly monitors trends in physical inactivity. A recent study (1) found that nearly one third (31%) of the world's adult population, 1.8 billion adults, are physically inactive. That is, they do not meet the global recommendations of at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity per week. This is an increase of 5 percentage points between 2010 and 2022. If this trend continues, the proportion of adults not meeting recommended levels of physical activity is projected to rise to 35% by 2030.

Globally, there are notable age and gender differences in levels of physical inactivity.

Women are less active than men by an average of 5 percentage points. This has not changed since 2000.

After 60 years of age physical inactivity levels increase in both men and women.

81% of adolescents (aged 11-17 years) were physically inactive (2).

Adolescent girls were less active than adolescent boys, with 85% vs. 78%, not meeting WHO guidelines.

Many different factors can determine how active people are and the overall levels of physical activity in different population groups. These factors can be related to the individual or wider social, cultural, environmental and economic determinants that influence access and opportunities to be active in safe and enjoyable ways.

How Member States can increase levels of physical activity

The WHO Global action plan on physical activity provides policy recommendations for countries and communities to promote physical activity and ensure everyone has more opportunities to be regularly active. Examples of these recommendations include policies that ensure access to walking, cycling and non-motorized transport; that increase physical activity opportunities in schools, workplaces, childcare centres and in healthcare service delivery; and that increase accessibility and availability of community sports and public open spaces.

Implementing effective policies to increase levels of physical activity requires a collective effort, coordinated across multiple government departments at all levels, including health, transport, education, employment, sport and recreation, and urban planning. It also demands national and local engagement from nongovernmental organizations, various sectors, stakeholders and disciplines to support the implementation of policies and solutions that are appropriate to a country's cultural and social environment. Priority should be given to policy actions that address disparities in levels of physical activity, promoting, enabling and encouraging physical activity for all.

WHO response

WHOsupports countries and stakeholders to implement the recommended actions by:

1. developing global policy guidance and guidelines, underpinned by latest evidence and consensus;

2. supporting countries to develop appropriate policies that promote physical activity and multisectoral collaborations;

3. conducting advocacy to raise awareness of the multiple benefits of increasing physical activity and support the development of economic analysis of the impact of increasing physical activity and return on investment of different policy interventions;

4. developing technical tools and training packages to help countries build capacity in the implementation of policy and programmes across key settings and innovations using digital platforms including through WHO Academy courses, multi-country workshops and other knowledge exchange activities;

5. convening, coordinating, and collaborating to strengthen partnerships across sectors and between policy makers, practitioners and researcher communities; and

6. undertaking global monitoring and reporting of progress on implementation of the Global action plan on physical activity, global levels of physical inactivity and progress towards a 15% relative reduction in the prevalence of physical inactivity by 2030.

WHOsupports countries and stakeholders to implement the recommended actions by developing global policy guidance and guidelines, underpinned by latest evidence and consensus, to help countries develop appropriate policies, investment cases and financing mechanisms.
References

1. Strain, T., Flaxman, S., et al. National, regional, and global trends in insufficient physical activity among adults from 2000 to 2022: a pooled analysis of 507 population-based surveys with 5·7 million participants. The Lancet Global Health (2024).

2. Guthold, R., Stevens, G., et al. Global trends in insufficient physical activity among adolescents: a pooled analysis of 298 population-based surveys with 1.6 million participants. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health Vol. 4 Iss. 1 (2019).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WHO fact sheet on physical activity provides key facts and information on benefits, risks of inactivity, reasons for physical inactivity and how to increase physical activity, WHO response.

# data[].attributes.body
Credible Information:

When it comes to aerobic and weight training exercise, he sites his sources on where he gathered that information on the post he made on his Instagram. When you look at the links that he sues to site his information, it comes from peer reviewed work from sites such as MDPI and government websites like PubMed.

# data[].attributes.body
Credible Information:

This report was published by Harvard, a widely known University that is known for its extensive research and findings. It is reviewed by other doctors and medical professionals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Old-fashioned resistance training - lifting heavy weights multiple times - is the best way for men to slow and even reverse age-related muscle loss, known as sarcopenia. It can also increase your strength, protect against falls, and help you live a more independent life.

Resistance training (also known as strength training) consists of doing upper- and lower-body exercises using free weights (like dumbbells, kettlebells, or barbells), weight machines, resistance bands, or just your own body weight.

The constant challenge with resistance training is finding the Goldilocks zone between doing too little and too much.

"The goal is to stress your muscles enough to see and feel a difference, but not overdo it, where you risk injury," says Keelin Godsey, a physical therapist with Harvard-affiliated Spaulding Rehabilitation Network. "You also want to train with a goal of continuous improvement, not plateau."

How do you locate that happy medium? It comes down to five categories: type, weight, reps, sets, and frequency.

Get a helping hand

If possible, see a certified trainer before you embark on a resistance training program. "It's worth the time and investment, as he or she can create a routine unique to your needs, and most important, teach you proper form and speed," says Keelin Godsey, a physical therapist with Harvard-affiliated Spaulding Rehabilitation Network. A trainer can also show you different exercises for each muscle group so you can mix and match your workouts for variety. "This helps you not get bored with your workouts," says Godsey. "Once you know the basics, then you can easily and safely work out on your own."

Give workouts a lift

There are many theories about the ideal approach to resistance training. Guidelines published in the August 2019 issue of The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research offer some strong evidence-based advice. Researchers reviewed years of exercise data and determined that the following criteria for the five categories are ideal for older adults.

Type. The guidelines suggest one to two multi-joint exercises per major muscle group. There are six main muscle groups: chest, back, arms, shoulders, legs, and calves. So this means six to 12 exercises per workout.

As its name implies, multi-joint exercises are movements that engage more than one joint at a time - for example, elbow and shoulder, or knee and ankle. This is different from single-joint exercises that focus on isolated muscles, like a biceps curl.

"There's nothing wrong with single-joint exercises, and they're often the ones people are most familiar with. But with multi-joint exercises, you can train with heavier weights, which helps to increase muscle mass faster," says Godsey.

Weight. Older adults should aim to exercise with weight at 70% to 85% of their maximum one rep. Maximum one rep is the amount of weight you can lift just once. "You can still receive benefits from lifting lighter weight and less resistance, but the 70%-to-85% range is better," says Godsey.

However, determining a maximum one rep can be difficult for many older adults, as they can hurt themselves if they try lifting too heavy a weight without proper training and support. A simpler, safer approach is to use enough weight or resistance so you can perform 10 reps with good form. "The last two should be tough to complete, and you should have no more than one or two extra reps in reserve," says Godsey.

You can adjust the weight of your dumbbells or kettlebells as needed to find this sweet spot. For resistance bands, you need to change the tautness to make it more or less difficult to move. For body-weight movements, like a push-up, use the same approach: Decrease the resistance if it's too tough - for instance, by doing the push-up from your knees or against a counter. To increase the resistance, elevate your feet, or shift your hands inward from beneath your shoulders.

Reps. The guideline found that anywhere from six to 12 reps per exercise were beneficial. Godsey suggests beginning with 10 reps at light to medium resistance. "This is about in the middle of this range and is an easy number to remember," he says. "But as you progress, you should aim for six to eight reps with increased weight or resistance."

Sets. The guidelines recommend two to three sets per exercise. Godsey suggests beginning with two sets at first. "Always rest in between for anywhere from 30 seconds to two minutes, if needed, to help you recover," he says.

Frequency. More is not always better when it comes to resistance training. Two or three workouts per week produces the most muscle size and strength compared with fewer or more sessions. "Begin with twice a week, spread out by a few days, and then add another workout as you progress," says Godsey.

Keep in mind that it can take time to see increased muscle mass and feel stronger. "Consistency is essential, but if you don't notice changes after about eight weeks, you are not training hard enough and need to mix up your routine by increasing your weight or sets or the number of exercises," says Godsey.
Image: © LattaPictures/Getty Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Resistance training by the numbers - Harvard Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Resistance training (also known as strength training) is regarded as one of the best ways to slow and even reverse age-related muscle loss, known as sarcopenia. To find that happy medium between doing too little and too much new guidelines suggest people should focus on five categories: type of exercise, reps, weight, sets, and frequency.

# data[].attributes.body
Misinformation:

While what he has to say may be somewhat beneficial and can help motivate and inspire others to live healthier and work out, he doesn't have any sources on where he quotes his information. While he did state that we need 4,000 milligrams of potassium from the USDA, he wasn't exactly right with that given number. It actually states that we need 4,700 milligrams of potassium. His intentions are good, but this can be misleading to others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Men over 50 Need The Big 3 to Grow Muscle! (It Ain't Over Yet Boys!)

# data[].attributes.body
Credible Information:

This information presented was reviewed by other professionals and, the information comes from a scientific textbook that was reviewed and published for others to read.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Meta-Analyses of the Effects of Habitual Running on Indices of Health in Physically Inactive Adults

Abstract

Background

In order to implement running to promote physical activity, it is essential to quantify the extent to which running improves health.

Objective

The aim was to summarise the literature on the effects of endurance running on biomedical indices of health in physically inactive adults.

Data Sources

Electronic searches were conducted in October 2014 on PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, the Cochrane Library and LILACS, with no limits of date and language of publication.

Study Selection

Randomised controlled trials (with a minimum of 8 weeks of running training) that included physically inactive but healthy adults (18-65 years) were selected. The studies needed to compare intervention (i.e. endurance running) and control (i.e. no intervention) groups.

Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods

Two authors evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias; a third author resolved any uncertainties. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to summarise the estimates for length of training and sex. A dose-response analysis was performed with random-effects meta-regression in order to investigate the relationship between running characteristics and effect sizes.

Results

After screening 22,380 records, 49 articles were included, of which 35 were used to combine data on ten biomedical indices of health. On average the running programs were composed of 3.7 ± 0.9 sessions/week, 2.3 ± 1.0 h/week, 14.4 ± 5.4 km/week, at 60-90 % of the maximum heart rate, and lasted 21.5 ± 16.8 weeks. After 1 year of training, running was effective in reducing body mass by 3.3 kg [95 % confidence interval (CI) 4.1-2.5], body fat by 2.7 % (95 % CI 5.1-0.2), resting heart rate by 6.7 min −1 (95 % CI 10.3-3.0) and triglycerides by 16.9 mg dl −1 (95 % CI 28.1-5.6). Also, running significantly increased maximal oxygen uptake ( VO 2max) by 7.1 ml min −1 kg −1 (95 % CI 5.0-9.1) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol by 3.3 mg dl −1 (95 % CI 1.2-5.4). No significant effect was found for lean body mass, body mass index, total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol after 1 year of training. In the dose-response analysis, larger effect sizes were found for longer length of training.

Limitations

It was only possible to combine the data of ten out the 161 outcome measures identified. Lack of information on training characteristics precluded a multivariate model in the dose-response analysis.

Conclusions

Endurance running was effective in providing substantial beneficial effects on body mass, body fat, resting heart rate, VO 2max, triglycerides and HDL cholesterol in physically inactive adults. The longer the length of training, the larger the achieved health benefits. Clinicians and health authorities can use this information to advise individuals to run, and to support policies towards investing in running programs.

FormalPara Key Points

Endurance running was found to be beneficial for health in physically inactive adults with regards to body mass, body fat, resting heart rate, maximal oxygen uptake, triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

The effects of running on biomedical indices of health are beneficially correlated to running exposure.

Clinicians and health authorities can use this information to advise individuals to run, and also to support policies towards investing in running programs.

1 Introduction

Physical inactivity is a leading risk factor for mortality, accounting for millions of deaths per year [ 1]. Consequently, physical inactivity is a global public health concern [ 2] as a contributor to the worldwide epidemic of non-communicable diseases [ 3]. Increasing physical activity levels throughout the population is a major challenge for the 21st century [ 2, 4]. Societal trends, nonetheless, show a steady decline in physical activity levels [ 4]. Commitment to change this scenario is therefore critical [ 2], and efforts are constantly made towards promoting a physically active lifestyle, the health benefits of which are well documented [ 5- 8].

Regular running is a popular mode of physical activity [ 9], undertaken by many individuals seeking a healthier lifestyle [ 10]. It is easy to perform, it has a social component, and it is relatively inexpensive, time efficient and easily accessible [ 10, 11]. The high popularity and accessibility of running is seen as a strong contributor towards promoting and enhancing a physically active lifestyle within the population [ 11]. In order to ensure effective running programs that promote physical activity, and consequently to reduce the risk of lifestyle-related diseases, it is essential to quantify the extent to which running improves health. Such information is valuable in identifying target populations for specific physical activity programs and, more importantly, towards increasing the effectiveness thereof [ 4]. The aim of this study was, therefore, to summarise the evidence on the effects of endurance running on biomedical indices of health in physically inactive adults.

2 Methods

2.1 Eligibility Criteria

Studies were considered for inclusion if they were randomised controlled trials published in peer-reviewed journals; included physically inactive but healthy adults (18-65 years) at baseline; studied an endurance type of running intervention; compared the effects of endurance running to a group not engaged in any physical activity intervention; provided a follow-up of 8 or more weeks; and included at least one biomedical health indicator (indices of health) as an outcome measure. Physically inactive participants were considered if the studies clearly stated that the participants were physically inactive or sedentary, or if they did not reach the physical activity recommendations at baseline [ 12].

Studies were not included if they aimed to evaluate the effects of running exclusively on performance or neuromuscular outcomes, as these were not considered to be general indices of health; involved a very specific sample that could be significantly different from the general population at baseline (e.g. obese) and, therefore, may respond differently to the running training, providing a biased estimate; provided an intervention composed of running in combination with something else (e.g. diet), as these interventions do not reflect the independent effect of running; and included less than 8 weeks of training, in order to ensure a reasonable time for physiological responses.

2.2 Information Sources and Search Strategy

Systematic electronic searches were conducted in October 2014 on PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, the Cochrane Library and LILACS. The searches were structured following the Cochrane Collaboration recommendations [ 13] and were not limited by date or language of publication. The detailed search strategy for each database can be found in Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix S1. Reference lists of included articles were also accessed to search for additional studies that might be eligible for inclusion.

2.3 Study Selection and Data Collection Process

The selection process involved screening of titles and reading abstracts of the retrieved search results. The full texts of potentially relevant articles were subsequently obtained and analysed to check eligibility. The data were collected using a standardised data extraction form, which can be found in Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix S2. Two authors (LCHJ, JDP) evaluated the eligibility and extracted the relevant data of each article independently. In cases of uncertainty, a third author (EV) provided a consensus.

2.4 Risk of Bias Assessment

The risk of bias of all included studies was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias of randomised trials [ 14]. This tool comprises seven items assessing selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel), detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), reporting bias (selective reporting) and other sources of bias. In addition, it was assessed if the analysis was conducted on the basis of the intention-to-treat principle. The judgment was achieved in order to inform low risk of bias (i.e. criterion satisfied and clearly described in the article), high risk of bias (i.e. criterion not satisfied) and unclear risk of bias (i.e. insufficient information to permit judgment). Two authors (LCHJ, JDP) assessed each item independently, and in cases of uncertainties, a consensus was obtained through discussion and/or arbitration by a third author (EV).

2.5 Data Analysis

In order to summarise the effects of running on biomedical indices of health, the mean change from baseline and its standard deviation (SD) were used. In cases where the mean change from baseline was not available, but the study provided the mean at baseline and the mean after the follow-up, the mean change was calculated. In cases where the SD was not available, but the study provided another uncertainty measure as standard error or confidence intervals (CIs), the SD was estimated according to the Cochrane Collaboration recommendations [ 13]. Studies that did not provide sufficient data (e.g. number of participants, mean values or uncertainty measures for each group) were not included in the meta-analysis for that particular outcome. Duplicated results (articles related to the same study, but published as per different purposes) were considered in the meta-analysis only once for each outcome measure. The criteria used in deciding which duplicated result would be considered for the meta-analysis were based on (1) the primary aim of the study; (2) the date of publication, with preference for the earliest date; and (3) the number of participants, with preference for the largest sample available.

Random-effects meta-analyses were used to summarise the results of each outcome measure. The summary measure was the combined mean difference weighted by the inverse of the variance within and between (tau-squared) studies, and its 95 % CI. Heterogeneity was assessed by the I ² estimate. Subgroup analyses were performed in order to explain the effect variations by length of training and sex that were hypothesised before the analyses. Therefore, only the outcome measures that had at least ten comparisons between running and control groups were included in the meta-analysis, otherwise the subgroups analysis would not be possible. Outcome measures that did not meet this criterion were summarised descriptively.

A dose-response analysis was performed in order to investigate the relationship between running characteristics and effect sizes. Univariate linear meta-regressions with random effects were performed using the mean difference between running and control groups as the dependent variable (effect size), and the running characteristics (length of training, frequency, duration, distance, intensity and speed) as numeric linear predictors. Larger studies had more influence in the meta-regressions than smaller studies, and residual heterogeneity among effect sizes not modelled by the running characteristics was also considered in the analyses (random-effects) [ 13]. The summary measure was the linear regression coefficient ( β) and its 95 % CI.

Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were conducted in Stata/SE 12.0 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA), using the commands metan and metareg, respectively. Statistically significant results were considered for the estimates with the 95 % CI not including zero [ 15].

3 Results

3.1 Selection of the Studies

A total of 22,380 records were retrieved, 22,353 from the electronic search strategy and 27 from references of included articles. Of the 17,875 unique records retrieved (duplicates removed), 49 articles were considered eligible. Only 35 articles, however, presented sufficient and original data and were, therefore, included in the meta-analysis. Figure 1 presents the flow diagram of the selection process.

Flow of the studies during the selection process. The databases searched were: PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), SPORTDiscus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the Cochrane Library and Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information (LILACS). BMI body mass index, HDL high-density lipoprotein, LDL low-density lipoprotein, RCT randomised controlled trial, VO 2max maximal oxygen uptake

3.2 Description of the Included Articles

The 49 articles included in this systematic review were published between 1980 and 2014. The sample size ranged from 14 to 120, with a mean of 41.3 ± 25.5 (mean ± SD) participants. The total sample was composed of 2024 participants (79 % males, n = 1592; 21 % females, n = 432), aged 33.8 ± 10.2 years. In the control groups, the sample size ranged from 6 to 60 (17.2 ± 11.9), and the total was 844 participants (78 % males, n = 658; 22 % females, n = 186), aged 34.1 ± 9.9 years.

In the running groups, the sample size ranged from 7 to 60 (24.1 ± 14.6), and the total was 1180 participants (79 % males, n = 934; 21 % females, n = 246), aged 34.2 ± 9.1 years. On average the running programs were composed of 3.7 ± 0.9 sessions/week, 2.3 ± 1.0 h/week, 14.4 ± 5.4 km/week, and ranged from 60 to 90 % of the maximum heart rate (77.6 ± 6.3 %), and the length of training was 21.5 ± 16.8 weeks. Detailed description of the data extracted from the included articles can be found in Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix S2.

3.3 Risk of Bias Assessment

Table 1 presents the risk of bias assessment of all included articles. In general, underreporting of information was identified as a main concern. Consequently, it was difficult to judge certain criteria because of missing information. Most articles did not clearly describe the method of randomisation (90 %, n = 44), whether the allocation of the participants to study groups was concealed (90 %, n = 44), information on the study protocol (82 %, n = 40) and whether or not the analysis was conducted on the basis of the intention-to-treat principle (98 %, n = 48). A low risk of bias was achieved for most of the studies regarding incomplete outcome data (73 %, n = 36) and other sources of bias (100 %, n = 49). Blinding of participants provided the highest risk of bias, which can be expected because of the nature of the intervention.

Table 1 Risk of bias assessment of included studies

3.4 Effects of Running on Biomedical Indices of Health: Meta-Analysis

A total of 161 biomedical indices of health were collectively investigated in the 49 articles included in the systematic review (Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix S3). Outcome measures were classified into three groups: body composition, cardiorespiratory measures and blood serum concentrations. Some of the studies compared more than one running group (i.e. high/moderate-intensity and low-intensity training [ 16- 20]; 4- and 2-mile training [ 21, 22]; or 4.8-, 3.2- and 1.6-km training [ 23, 24]) to a control group, allowing multiple comparisons.

Meta-analyses were possible for ten outcome measures, and the main findings are summarised in Table 2. Forest plots, with detailed information of the number of studies and the results of individual studies included in each meta-analysis can be found in Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix S4.

Table 2 Meta-analyses on the effects of running on biomedical indices of health

3.4.1 Body Composition Outcomes

Meta-analyses were possible for four body composition outcome measures: body mass, lean body mass, percentage body fat and body mass index (BMI). A statistically significant reduction was found for body mass and percentage body fat in favour of the running group after 1 year of training. A greater reduction was found in males for both of these outcome measures. Differences in lean body mass and BMI were not statistically significant.

3.4.2 Cardiorespiratory Outcomes

Meta-analyses were possible for two cardiorespiratory outcome measures: resting heart rate and maximal oxygen uptake ( VO 2max in ml min −1 kg −1). A statistically significant reduction in resting heart rate was found after 12, 26 and 52 weeks, and also in males. Statistically significant increases in VO 2max were found for all subgroup categories, with a larger effect size after 1 year of training and in males. The longer the length of training, the larger the effect of running on resting heart rate and VO 2max.

3.4.3 Blood Serum Concentration Outcomes

Meta-analyses were possible for four blood serum concentration outcome measures: triglycerides, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Statistically significant reductions were found for triglycerides and statistically significant increases were found for HDL cholesterol in favour of the running group after 1 year of training and in males. Conflicting results were found for total cholesterol after 12 and 26 weeks of training. Differences in LDL cholesterol were not statistically significant.

3.4.4 Heterogeneity

Table 2 presents results on heterogeneity. Most of the meta-analyses revealed low inconsistencies. Moderate heterogeneity was found in the meta-analyses for body fat ( I ² = 24 %), VO 2max ( I ² = 27 %) and HDL cholesterol ( I ² = 41 %) after 1 year of training, and for HDL cholesterol in males ( I ² = 30 %).

3.5 Dose-Response Analysis: Meta-Regression

A total of 34 articles (97 %) reported data on running frequency (sessions/week), 31 (89 %) on duration (h/week) and intensity (percentage of maximum heart rate), and nine (26 %) on distance (km/week). Sufficient data were provided in order to perform a dose-response analysis for length of training, running frequency, duration, distance and intensity. In addition, it was possible to calculate and analyse the average running speed by dividing the weekly distance by the weekly duration (7.9 ± 3.3 km/h) in nine articles (26 %).

Table 3 describes the meta-regression results. Longer length of training was statistically significantly associated with a reduction in body mass. Furthermore, longer length of training was statistically significantly associated with an increase in VO 2max. Both associations indicated larger health benefits for longer running programs. However, an increase in weekly duration (h/week) was statistically significantly associated with a decrease in

Table 3 Dose-response analysis on the effects of running on biomedical indices of health

VO 2max.

3.6 Biomedical Indices of Health Not Included in the Meta-Analysis

It was not possible to perform meta-analyses for 151 indices of health (Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix S3). Within the body composition category, there were only three outcome measures evaluated by more than two studies: body fat-free mass, sum of skin-folds and waist/hip ratio. Five studies evaluated body fat-free mass, with only one of these studies showing a statistically significant increase in the running group compared with the control group [ 25]. Seven studies evaluated the sum of skin-folds, two of which showed a statistically significant decrease in favour of the running group [ 20, 26]. One of these studies additionally found an increase in sum of skin-folds in the low-intensity running group compared with the control group [ 20]. Eight studies evaluated waist/hip ratio, one of which indicated a statistically significant decrease in favour of the running group [ 27], whilst two of the studies reported a statistically significant increase [ 28, 29].

Within the cardiorespiratory category, there were nine outcome measures evaluated by more than two studies: a change in submaximal heart rate at a fixed exercise intensity, left ventricular diameter in the end of the systole, left ventricular diameter at the end of the diastole, left ventricular posterior wall thickness at the end of the diastole, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, peak oxygen uptake ( VO 2peak), maximum pulmonary ventilation (VE max) and respiratory exchange ratio. Of the five studies that evaluated VO 2peak, two studies found a statistically significant increase in favour of the running group [ 30, 31]. Of the three studies that evaluated VE max, two reported a statistically significant increase in favour of the running group [ 32, 33]. No statistically significant results were found for the other seven cardiorespiratory outcome measures.

Within the blood serum concentration category, there were 16 outcome measures evaluated by more than two studies: fasting glucose, fasting insulin, total cholesterol/HDL ratio, HDL/total cholesterol ratio, lecithin:cholesterol acyltransferase (LCTA), HDL2 subfraction, HDL3 subfraction, small LDL, large LDL, LDL peak flotation rate, very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), intermediate-density lipoprotein, apolipoprotein A-I, apolipoprotein A-II, apolipoprotein B and lactate. A statistically significant decrease, in favour of the running group, was found in one of the four studies that evaluated glucose [ 23] and total cholesterol/HDL ratio [ 34]. Of the seven studies that evaluated HDL2 and HDL3 subfractions, two studies found a statistically significant increase in favour of the running group [ 34, 35]. Of the six studies that evaluated VLDL, two studies found a statistically significant decrease in favour of the running group [ 28, 35]. Ten and nine studies evaluated apolipoprotein A-I and B, respectively. Only one study, however, found a statistically significant increase in favour of the running group for apolipoprotein A-I and a statistically significant decrease for apolipoprotein B [ 31]. Of the four studies that evaluated lactate, only one study found a statistically significant decrease in favour of the running group [ 36]. No statistically significant results were found for the other eight blood serum concentration outcome measures.

4 Discussion

This study was a comprehensive systematic review aiming to summarise the evidence about the effects of endurance running on biomedical indices of health. Running provided a beneficial effect on body mass, body fat, resting heart rate, VO 2max, triglycerides and HDL cholesterol. In general, larger effects were observed with longer length of training and in males. With regards to the running dose, the results also suggested that the effect of running on body mass and VO 2max was larger with longer length of training.

4.1 Risk of Bias

Underreporting was the main factor identified in the risk of bias assessment of the included randomised controlled trials. One explanation could be that most of the studies were published before the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement [ 37]. Studies published after CONSORT, however, presented similar underreporting issues. Owing to the nature of the intervention, the blinding of participants and personnel presented a high risk of bias in all studies. The blinding of participants and personnel is challenging or almost impossible in physical activity interventions [ 37]. However, blinding of the outcome assessment is often achievable [ 37]. It was, therefore, surprising to note the high risk of bias judgment in most articles regarding blinding of outcome assessment. Researchers should be aware about reporting all relevant methodological information in randomised controlled trials, and also about designing studies with the lowest risk of bias as possible.

4.2 Possible Mechanisms of the Effects of Endurance Running

The reduction found in body mass can be explained by the reduction in percentage body fat with no significant changes in lean body mass. Prolonged endurance exercise training is known to increase lipids metabolism during exercise [ 38]. This is probably the most reasonable mechanism explaining the reduction in body fat (and consequently in body mass), and also explains the effect of running on triglycerides (an important fat substrate [ 39]) and on HDL cholesterol [ 40]. The reduction in resting heart rate could be explained by adaptations of exercise such as increases in blood volume [ 41] and reductions in sympathetic and/or increases in parasympathetic autonomic control at rest [ 42]. The increase in relative VO 2max (ml min −1 kg −1) could be partially explained by the reduction in body mass, and partially by physiological adaptions of exercise. Increases in stroke volume and cardiac output (as a result of the increased blood volume caused by the exercise training [ 41]) can increase the oxygen delivery [ 43].

Physical activity has been considered as a drug [ 44] because of the similarities in health benefits achieved by both [ 45]. An essential aspect of physical activity, therefore, relates to dosage [ 46]. The effects of running on body mass and VO 2max were larger for longer length of training (1 additional week of running training reduces the body mass by 0.06 kg and increases the VO 2max by 0.07 ml min −1 kg −1), and this trend was consistent with all other outcomes. There is an evident explanation for these results: the longer one exercises, the larger the benefits one achieves. However, larger effect sizes were achieved with shorter weekly duration for VO 2max, and although this result was counterintuitive with our previous hypothesis, studies have shown that the duration of exercise per session is not a suitable characteristic to be manipulated in order to enhance cardiorespiratory outcomes [ 47, 48]. On the other hand, training intensity seems to play an important role [ 47- 49], but the results of this systematic review were inconclusive in this regard.

4.3 Implications for Practice

Endurance running was found to be beneficial for health with regard to biomedical indices of health related to cardiovascular disease, and also presented beneficial dose-response relationships. Clinicians can use the outcomes of the current systematic review to advise running in order to improve health in physically inactive adults. Outcomes of this review can also be used by (public) health authorities to support policies towards investing in running programs, therefore, combating physical inactivity, which is a leading risk factor for mortality [ 1]. This rationale is of particular significance for public health, as running is well known to be easily accessible and relatively inexpensive to implement [ 10, 11].

After evidencing that an intervention is effective, the next step is to evaluate if the intervention is implementable in the real world (i.e. in the non-controlled environment) [ 50]. One important aspect of implementation is to investigate whether or not individuals continue to adhere to the intervention after the study ends. Unfortunately, no studies included in this systematic review investigated this issue. However, Ooms et al. [ 11] showed that 4.5 months after the end of a 6-week start-to-run program, 69 % of the participants in the start-to-run group were still running and they were spending 152 more min/week (95 % CI 80-223) in vigorous-intensity physical activities, and 107 more min/week (95 % CI 69-145) in sports activities compared with the control group. Therefore, available evidence suggests that promoting running in order to decrease physical inactivity is effective, beneficial for health, implementable and sustainable in the short term [ 11, 51, 52]. However, more studies investigating implementation issues of running programs are needed, especially in the long term.

The results of this systematic review were based on running programs designed for physically inactive adults. Therefore, the running volume and/or intensity were progressively increased and sometimes walking was allowed or an integral part of the running programs (detailed descriptions of the running programs can be found in Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix S2). This characteristic of the running programs could result in an underestimation of the effects of actual running on the biomedical indices of health [ 52]. Yet, the inclusion of walking reflects the reality of such programs in which participants walk every now and then [ 11]. Consequently, this increases the external validity of the results throughout the adult inactive population that decides to start running.

4.4 Benefits Versus Risks of Running

Despite the health benefits, running is not free from adverse effects. Although death during running is extremely rare (incidence of 0.39 per 100,000 runners) [ 53], running has a substantial risk of injuries [ 54]. The incidence of running injuries in novice runners is about 30 injuries per 1000 h of running exposure [ 55- 57], and these injuries can affect up to 30 % of novice runners in 1 year [ 58]. However, the health benefits achieved by running in physically inactive individuals outweigh the risks, since running significantly reduces much more severe outcomes, such as death (30 and 45 % lower risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, respectively) [ 52] and disability [ 51], which may be partially explained by the results of this systematic review.

4.5 Limitations

This systematic review was conducted in order to compare the running effects with no intervention. The advantages of this approach include the investigation of the crude effect of running and the comparability across studies. The main disadvantage is, however, that this study did not compare running with other types of physical activity, and it may be that other types of physical activity could reach similar health effects. According to Wen et al. [ 59], a 5-min run is as beneficial as a 15-min walk for the reduction of all-cause mortality; however, to get the same benefits as a 25-min run, one should walk four times longer. Studies have shown that running, cycling and swimming training at the same volume and intensity result in similar effects on VO 2max in physically inactive individuals [ 60, 61].

The limitations of this systematic review also include the following: of the 161 biomedical indices of health identified, it was only possible to combine the data for ten indices of health (6 %), which may have yielded an underestimation of the health benefits of endurance running; in some cases, the subgroup analyses were carried out with few studies, which may have limited the ability to draw strong conclusions about some subgroups; and the lack of a proper description of the training characteristics in some of the included papers precluded a multivariate meta-regression analysis investigating the influence of a combination of the training characteristics on the effect sizes.

4.6 Future Recommendations

Important areas for future research were identified on the basis of the current gaps noted. Few studies have investigated important biomedical indices of health, such as blood pressure, insulin and hormones, warranting the need for future studies that explore the effects of running on these indices. Studies included in this systematic review usually included males only; therefore, the effects on females should be further investigated. Most of the studies were conducted with a short follow-up; hence, more long-term studies should be conducted to investigate if the effects of running increase consistently over time or if there is a plateau in this relationship. Additionally, there is a need for studies investigating implementation issues regarding the continuation of running practice after organised running programs end (e.g. after the study has ended).

5 Conclusions

Current evidence supports that endurance running is effective in providing beneficial effects on body mass, body fat, resting heart rate, VO 2max, triglycerides and HDL cholesterol in physically inactive adults. In general, the longer the length of training, the larger the achieved health benefits. Further research is necessary to investigate the effectiveness of running on biomedical indices of health for which there was insufficient evidence in this systematic review to enable conclusions to be drawn.

References

1. WHO. Global health risks: mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009.

2. WHO. Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.

3. Shrestha P, Ghimire L. A review about the effect of life style modification on diabetes and quality of life. Glob J Health Sci. 2012;4(6):185-90. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v4n6p185.

PubMed Google Scholar

4. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 2 July 2015

5. Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986;292(6522):746-50.

6. Iltis PW, Thomas TR, Adeniran SB, et al. Different running programs: plasma lipids, apoproteins, and lecithin: cholesterol acyltransferase in middle-aged men. Ann Sports Med. 1984;2(1):16-22.

Google Scholar

7. Sedlock DA, Lee MG, Flynn MG, et al. Excess postexercise oxygen consumption after aerobic exercise training. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2010;20(4):336-49.

PubMed Google Scholar

8. Hurley BF, Nemeth PM, Martin WH 3rd, et al. Muscle triglyceride utilization during exercise: effect of training. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1986;60(2):562-7.

9. Vina J, Sanchis-Gomar F, Martinez-Bello V, et al. Exercise acts as a drug: the pharmacological benefits of exercise. Br J Pharmacol. 2012;167(1):1-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2012.01970.x.

10. Kluitenberg B, van Middelkoop M, Smits DW, et al. The NLstart2run study: incidence and risk factors of running-related injuries in novice runners. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2014. doi: 10.1111/sms.12346.

PubMed Google Scholar

11. Nielsen RO, Buist I, Parner ET, et al. Predictors of running-related injuries among 930 novice runners: a 1-year prospective follow-up study. Orthop J Sports Med. 2013;1(1):1-7.

Google Scholar

12. Moghadasi M, Mohammadi Domieh A. Effects of resistance versus endurance training on plasma lipocalin-2 in young men. Asian. J Sports Med. 2014;4(6):108-14.

Google Scholar

13. Hosseini M, Piri M, Agha-Alinejad H, et al. The effect of endurance, resistance and concurrent training on the heart structure of female students. Biol Sport. 2012;29(1):17-21.

Article Google Scholar

14. Lo MS, Lin LL, Yao WJ et al. Training and detraining effects of the resistance vs. endurance program on body composition, body size, and physical performance in young men. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(8):2246-54. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e8a4be.

15. Nindl BC, Alemany JA, Tuckow AP et al. Circulating bioactive and immunoreactive IGF-I remain stable in women, despite physical fitness improvements after 8 weeks of resistance, aerobic, and combined exercise training. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2010;109(1):112-20. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00025.2010.

16. Brixius K, Schoenberger S, Ladage D et al. Long-term endurance exercise decreases antiangiogenic endostatin signalling in overweight men aged 50-60 years. Br J Sports Med. 2008;42(2):126-9. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2007.035188(discussion 9).

Download references

Acknowledgments

Luiz Carlos Hespanhol Junior is a PhD candidate supported by CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior), process number 0763/12-8, Ministry of Education of Brazil. This study had no funding source of any nature. All authors declare that there was no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationship with any organisation that might have an interest in the submitted work; and no other relationship or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Public and Occupational Health and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Luiz Carlos Hespanhol Junior, Willem van Mechelen & Evert Verhagen

2. Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Durban University of Technology, PO Box 1334, Durban, 4001, South Africa

Julian David Pillay

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evert Verhagen.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hespanhol Junior, L.C., Pillay, J.D., van Mechelen, W. et al. Meta-Analyses of the Effects of Habitual Running on Indices of Health in Physically Inactive Adults. Sports Med 45, 1455-1468 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0359-y
Download citation

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meta-Analyses of the Effects of Habitual Running on Indices of Health in Physically Inactive Adults - Sports Medicine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Background In order to implement running to promote physical activity, it is essential to quantify the extent to which running improves health. Objective The aim was to summarise the literature on the effects of endurance running on biomedical indices of health in physically inactive adults.

# data[].attributes.body
Credible Information:

The information that was presented in the literature was checked by other professionals. Also, the author provides sources on where they found that information. It also states that their research was funded by the Faculty of Natural Sciences of the University of Graz.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A two-week running intervention reduces symptoms related to depression and increases hippocampal volume in young adults

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This study examined the effects of a two-week running intervention on depressive symptoms and structural changes of different subfields of the hippoca...

# data[].attributes.body
Credible Information:

Physical Activity Alliance is a nationally recognized organization here in the US. They include their board of directors on their About page in which you can look up their history and what they do. They also include their partner organizations, few of their partners are recognized and mentioned by the government and CDC websites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Overview PAA’s National Physical Activity Plan (NPAP) is a comprehensive set of policies, programs, and initiatives for increasing physical activity in all segments of America. The Plan aims to foster a national culture that supports physically active lifestyles and lead the population to achieve th…

# data[].attributes.body
Credible Information:

This information presented here is published by an agency under the government. They provide data from their findings and provide a resources page to send the readers to on where they gathered that information from external sites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding Physical Activity Differences Among Older Adults: Validating a Proposed Typology of Physical Activity as a Tool to Increase Physical Activity by Older Adults

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Being physically active as one ages benefits both physical and mental health and remains a public health need. A typology to understand older adults’ PA level and intentions can be vital to developing strategies to promote PA.The researchers developed…

# data[].attributes.body
Credible Information:

Mayo Clinic is a nationally recognized organization. They have doctors and medical professionals review articles to check for credibility, they also cite their sources on where they find their information if it came from a different site/ article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Aerobic exercise: Top 10 reasons to get physical

Regardless of age, weight or athletic ability, aerobic exercise is good for you. See why - then prepare yourself to get moving.
By Mayo Clinic Staff
Regular aerobic activity, such as walking, bicycling or swimming, can help you live longer and healthier. Need motivation? See how aerobic exercise affects your heart, lungs and blood flow. Then get moving and start reaping the rewards.

How your body responds to aerobic exercise

During aerobic activity, you repeatedly move large muscles in your arms, legs and hips. You'll notice your body's responses quickly.

You'll breathe faster and more deeply. This maximizes the amount of oxygen in your blood. Your heart will beat faster, which increases blood flow to your muscles and back to your lungs.

Your small blood vessels (capillaries) will widen to deliver more oxygen to your muscles and carry away waste products, such as carbon dioxide and lactic acid.

Your body will even release endorphins, natural painkillers that promote an increased sense of well-being.

What aerobic exercise does for your health

No matter your age, weight or athletic ability, aerobic activity is good for you. Aerobic activity has many health benefits. As your body adapts to regular aerobic exercise, you'll get stronger and fitter.

Consider the following 10 ways that aerobic activity can help you feel better and enjoy life to the fullest.
1. Keep excess pounds at bay
Aerobic activity can help you:
2. Increase your stamina, fitness and strength
Combined with a healthy diet, aerobic exercise helps you lose weight and keep it off.

You may feel tired when you first start regular aerobic exercise. But over the long term, you'll enjoy increased stamina and reduced fatigue.
3. Ward off viral illnesses
You can also gain increased heart and lung fitness and bone and muscle strength over time.
4. Reduce your health risks
Aerobic exercise activates your immune system in a good way. This may leave you less susceptible to viral illnesses, such as colds and the flu.

Aerobic exercise reduces the risk of many conditions. These conditions include obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, stroke and certain types of cancer.
5. Manage chronic conditions
Weight-bearing aerobic exercises, such as walking, help lower the risk of osteoporosis.
6. Strengthen your heart
Aerobic exercise may help lower blood pressure and control blood sugar. It can reduce pain and improve function in people with arthritis. It can also improve the quality of life and fitness in people who've had cancer. If you have coronary artery disease, aerobic exercise may help you manage your condition.
7. Keep your arteries clear
A stronger heart doesn't need to beat as fast. A stronger heart also pumps blood more efficiently, which improves blood flow to all parts of your body.
8. Boost your mood
Aerobic exercise boosts your high-density lipoprotein (HDL), the "good," cholesterol, and lowers your low-density lipoprotein (LDL), the "bad," cholesterol. This may result in less buildup of plaques in your arteries.
9. Stay active and independent as you age
Aerobic exercise may ease the gloominess of depression, reduce the tension associated with anxiety and promote relaxation. It can improve your mental well-being and your self-esteem. It can also improve your sleep.

Aerobic exercise keeps your muscles strong, which can help you maintain mobility as you get older. Exercise can also lower the risk of falls and injuries from falls in older adults. And it can improve your quality of life.
10. Live longer
Aerobic exercise also keeps your mind sharp. Regular physical activity may help protect memory, reasoning, judgment and thinking skills (cognitive function) in older adults. It may also improve cognitive function in children and young adults. It can even help prevent the onset of dementia and improve cognition in people with dementia.

Studies show that people whoparticipate in regular aerobic exercise live longer than those who don't exercise regularly. They may also have a lower risk of dying of all causes, such as heart disease and certain cancers.

Take the first step

Ready to get more active? Great. Just remember to start with small steps. If you've been inactive for a long time or if you have a chronic health condition, get your doctor's OK before you start.

When you're ready to begin exercising, start slowly. You might walk five minutes in the morning and five minutes in the evening. Any physical activity is better than none at all.

The next day, add a few minutes to each walking session. Pick up the pace a bit, too. Soon, you could be walking briskly for at least 30 minutes a day, five days a week, and reaping all the benefits of regular aerobic activity. You can gain even more benefits if you exercise more. Also aim to sit less and move more during the day.

Short of time? Try a high-intensity interval training workout and enjoy a great workout with similar benefits as a standard aerobic workout in less time. In interval training, you alternate between short periods of intense activity and longer periods of less intense activity.

Other options for aerobic exercise could include cross-country skiing, aerobic dancing, swimming, stair climbing, bicycling, jogging, elliptical training or rowing.

If you have a condition that limits your ability to participate in aerobic activities, ask your health care provider about alternatives. If you have arthritis, for example, aquatic exercises may give you the benefits of aerobic activity without stressing your joints.

From Mayo Clinic to your inbox

Sign up for free and stay up to date on research advancements, health tips, current health topics, and expertise on managing health. Click here for an email preview.

Email field is required

Include a valid email address

Learn more about Mayo Clinic's use of data.

To provide you with the most relevant and helpful information, and understand which information is beneficial, we may combine your email and website usage information with other information we have about you. If you are a Mayo Clinic patient, this could include protected health information. If we combine this information with your protected health information, we will treat all of that information as protected health information and will only use or disclose that information as set forth in our notice of privacy practices. You may opt-out of email communications at any time by clicking on the unsubscribe link in the e-mail.

Thank you for subscribing!

You'll soon start receiving the latest Mayo Clinic health information you requested in your inbox.

Sorry something went wrong with your subscription

Please, try again in a couple of minutes

Show references

1. Peterson DM. The benefits and risks of aerobic exercise. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/search. Accessed Nov. 9, 2021.

2. AskMayoExpert. Physical activity (adult). Mayo Clinic; 2021.

3. Benefits of physical activity. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/pa-health/. Accessed Nov. 9, 2021.

4. Endurance exercise (aerobic). American Heart Association. https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/fitness/fitness-basics/endurance-exercise-aerobic. Accessed Nov. 9, 2021.

5. Systrom DM. Exercise physiology. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/search. Accessed Nov. 10, 2021.

6. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. 2nd ed. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://health.gov/our-work/physical-activity/current-guidelines. Accessed Nov. 10, 2021.

7. Goldman L, et al., eds. Physical activity. In: Goldman-Cecil Medicine. 26th ed. Elsevier; 2020. https://www.clinicalkey.com. Accessed Nov. 11, 2021.

8. Seidu S, et al. The importance of physical activity in management of type 2 diabetes and COVID-19. Therapeutic Advances in Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2021; doi:10.1177/20420188211054686.

9. Valenzuela PL, et al. Exercise benefits on Alzheimer's disease: State-of-the-science. Ageing Research Reviews. 2020; doi:10.1016/j.arr.2020.101108.

See more In-depth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 great reasons to love aerobic exercise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Need inspiration to work out? Consider the top 10 benefits of aerobic exercise.

# data[].attributes.body
Credible Information:

This website was published under the CDC, a government website that helps regulate, monitor, and provide information on health topics. The source was also reviewed by professionals and provides external sites that they collected information from.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Physical activity is anything that gets your body moving. Each week adults need 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity and 2 days of muscle strengthening activity, according to the current Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.

We know 150 minutes of physical activity each week sounds like a lot, but you don't have to do it all at once. It could be 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week. You can spread your activity out during the week and break it up into smaller chunks of time. See tips for getting started.

Physical activity supports physical and mental health. The benefits of physical activity make it one of the most important things you can do for your health.

Move More and Sit Less

Adults should move more and sit less throughout the day. Some physical activity is better than none. Adults who sit less and do any amount of moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity gain some health benefits.

Recommended Levels For Health Benefits

Adults should follow the exercises as specified in the following options. Check out this print-friendly age chart for a quick snapshot of the recommended amount of weekly activity for adults.

Moderate-intensity aerobic activity

(such as brisk walking) for 150 minutes every week (for example, 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week)
AND

Muscle-strengthening activities

on 2 or more days a week that work all major muscle groups (legs, hips, back, abdomen, chest, shoulders, and arms).

Vigorous-intensity aerobic activity

(such as jogging or running) for 75 minutes (1 hour and 15 minutes) every week
AND

Muscle-strengthening activities

on 2 or more days a week that work all major muscle groups (legs, hips, back, abdomen, chest, shoulders, and arms).

An equivalent mix of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity

on 2 or more days a week
AND

Muscle-strengthening activities

on 2 or more days a week that work all major muscle groups (legs, hips, back, abdomen, chest, shoulders, and arms).

For Even Greater Health Benefits

If you go beyond 150 minutes a week of moderate-intensity activity, or 75 minutes a week of vigorous-intensity activity or an equivalent combination, you'll gain even more health benefits.

Aerobic activity or "cardio" gets you breathing harder and your heart beating faster. From pushing a lawn mower, to taking a dance class, to walking or biking to the store - these types of activities and more count. As long as you're doing aerobic physical activities at a moderate- or vigorous-intensity, they count toward meeting the aerobic guideline.

Intensity is how hard your body is working during a physical activity.

Moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity means you're working hard enough to raise your heart rate and break a sweat. One way to tell if it's a moderate-intensity aerobic activity is that you'll be able to talk, but not sing the words to your favorite song. Here are some examples of activities that require moderate effort:

Walking fast

Doing water aerobics

Riding a bike on level ground or with few hills

Playing doubles tennis

Pushing a lawn mower

Vigorous-intensity aerobic activity means you're breathing hard and fast, and your heart rate has gone up quite a bit. You may use the Talk Test to gauge the intensity of your aerobic physical activity. If you're being active at a vigorous level, you won't be able to say more than a few words without pausing for a breath. Here are some examples of activities that require vigorous effort:

Jogging or running

Swimming laps

Riding a bike fast or on hills

Playing singles tennis

Playing basketball

If you are doing moderate-intensity physical activity, such as walking or hiking, you can talk, but not sing during the activity.

Build Up Over Time
If you want to do more vigorous-level activities, slowly replace those that take moderate effort like brisk walking with more vigorous activities like jogging. Learn more about getting started with physical activity to improve health.

You can do moderate- or vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, or a mix of the two, each week. A rule of thumb is that 1 minute of vigorous-intensity activity is about the same as 2 minutes of moderate-intensity activity.

Some people like to do vigorous activity because it gives them about the same health benefits in half the time. If you haven't been very active lately, however, increase your physical activity level slowly. If you have a history of a chronic disease, consider telling your doctor you are planning to increase your physical activity, including moving to more vigorous activity. You need to feel comfortable doing moderate-intensity activities before you move on to more vigorous ones. Learn more about additional types of physical activity that are right for you.

Want more tips on how you can add a variety of activities to your life? Check this out.

Physical activities to strengthen your muscles are recommended at least 2 days a week. Activities should work all the major muscle groups of your body-legs, hips, back, chest, abdomen, shoulders, and arms. Muscle-strengthening activities should be done in addition to your aerobic activity.

To gain health benefits, you need to do muscle-strengthening activities to the point where it's hard for you to do another repetition without help. A repetition is one complete movement of an activity, like lifting a weight or doing a sit-up. Try to do 8-12 repetitions per activity, which counts as 1 set. Try to do at least 1 set of muscle-strengthening activities. To gain even more benefits, do 2 or 3 sets.

You can do activities that strengthen your muscles on the same or different days that you do aerobic activity-whatever works best for you.
There are many ways you can strengthen your muscles, whether it's at home or the gym. You may want to try the following:

Lifting weights

Working with resistance bands

Doing exercises that use your body weight for resistance (e.g., push-ups, sit-ups)

Heavy gardening (e.g., digging, shoveling)

Some forms of yoga

Connect with Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Suggestions for how adults can get the recommended amounts of aerobic and muscle-strengthening physical activity each week.