"Is '150 Minutes a Week' Not Enough? New Insights on Exercise for Heart Protection"

"Engage in exercise that slightly elevates your breathing for 150 minutes a week."

We've seen this figure repeatedly in health checkup brochures, municipal awareness materials, and fitness app goals. Walking for 30 minutes a day, five times a week. Or perhaps a brisk cycle, light jogging, swimming, or dancing. For busy modern individuals, even this can be a high hurdle.

However, a recent study introduced by ScienceAlert sheds new light on the familiar "150 minutes a week" figure. In short, 150 minutes a week is not meaningless. Rather, it's an important minimum for protecting the heart and blood vessels. But to significantly reduce cardiovascular events like heart attacks and strokes, a much greater amount of exercise than currently recommended might be necessary.

The numbers highlighted in the study are 560–610 minutes a week, which translates to approximately 9–10 hours.

The study examined "how much activity benefits the heart"

This study targeted 17,088 participants from the UK Biobank, a large-scale medical database in the UK. The research team examined the participants' physical activity levels and cardiorespiratory fitness, and then tracked the incidence of cardiovascular disease over approximately eight years.

The cardiovascular events considered included heart attacks, strokes, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. During the tracking period, 1,233 cardiovascular events were confirmed.

Importantly, the study did not rely solely on self-reported exercise amounts. Many health studies use surveys asking, "How many times a week do you exercise?" or "How many minutes per session?" but people tend to overestimate their exercise. This study used objective physical activity data from accelerometers. Additionally, estimated VO₂max, data close to maximum oxygen uptake, was considered as an indicator of cardiorespiratory fitness.

The results showed that people meeting the current guideline of 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week had about an 8–9% lower risk of cardiovascular disease. This may seem like a small number, but it holds significant meaning when viewed across the entire population. Therefore, 150 minutes a week is still a valuable goal.

On the other hand, to aim for a large risk reduction of over 30%, the required amount of exercise increases significantly. The study estimated that around 560–610 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise per week would be necessary, equivalent to 3–4 times the current recommendation.

"Minimum Line" and "Ideal Line" Are Not the Same

What's interesting about this study is that it does not negate the existing guidelines.

The recommendation of 150 minutes a week is designed as a "public health minimum" that many people can achieve. It's not a number that promises perfect cardiovascular protection, but a realistic standard that suggests "if you aim here first, you can expect health benefits."

For example, a passing grade and a perfect score in school are different. Achieving a passing grade is significant, but aiming for a higher score requires additional effort. The study suggests that the same might be true for exercise. 150 minutes a week is a passing grade. However, to protect the heart more strongly, there is room for more activity.

However, it's important to note that this is not about saying "you must exercise for 10 hours a week for it to be meaningful." The study's data suggests that as exercise increases, cardiovascular risk may decrease further. In other words, it's not all or nothing. Someone not reaching 150 minutes a week could first increase to 60 minutes a week. Those achieving 150 minutes could gradually extend to 200 or 300 minutes a week. Every stage has its significance.

People with Lower Fitness May Need Slightly More Exercise for the "Same Effect"

The study also suggested that the amount of exercise needed to achieve the same cardiovascular risk reduction might differ between people with high and low cardiorespiratory fitness.

People with lower fitness may need about 30–50 minutes more moderate to vigorous exercise per week to achieve the same effect as those with higher fitness. This might sound like a tough message for those who are not good at exercise.

However, there's another perspective. People with lower fitness have room for improvement by gradually building up. Cardiorespiratory function is not a fixed fate. It can be improved over time by incorporating walking, stairs, light jogging, cycling, strength training, and aerobic exercise into daily life.

The key is not to aim for 10 hours a week from the start. Setting a high goal suddenly for those without an exercise habit can lead to injury, fatigue, and discouragement. The "big effect benchmark" suggested by the study and the personal action goals to start today need to be considered separately.

Experts Are Cautious About the "10 Hours" Message

The study has received both praise and cautious voices from experts.

Professor Aiden Doherty, a biomedical informatician at Oxford University, acknowledges the excellence of the study itself but questions the emphasis on the "560–610 minutes a week" figure as a public message. From a public health perspective, many people have not yet reached 150 minutes a week. Telling them "actually, you need 10 hours a week" might discourage them instead.

Meanwhile, Professor Steffen Petersen, a cardiology expert at Queen Mary University of London, appreciates the study for objectively measuring physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness. Although the study is observational and does not prove complete causality, it provides important data for considering the relationship between exercise and cardiovascular risk.

In summary, the experts' view is as follows.

"150 minutes a week still holds value. However, those who can move more may gain additional benefits. Yet, making 10 hours a week a universal slogan is not realistic."

On Social Media, More "Isn't It Impossible?" Than "Motivating"

This news has sparked reactions on social media and forums.

On X, ScienceAlert itself introduced the article with the theme "quantity matters," and in another post, headlines like "current guidelines are too low" and "potential to reduce cardiovascular risk by 30%" were spreading. On LinkedIn, there were posts sharing the research paper with a simple interpretation of "more exercise is better."

On the other hand, Reddit showed more reactions from a lifestyle perspective. Particularly in communities for the elderly, there were concerns that such headlines might make those lacking exercise feel "it's impossible." Another user pointed out that instead of saying "10 hours a week," it might be better to convey "the effect becomes significant around here and approaches a peak around here."

While there were reactions saying "10 hours a week is too much," there were also comments integrating it into daily life, like "walking the dog for an hour every day at a slightly brisk pace would make it 7 hours a week." Additionally, another user emphasized the importance of the word "substantial," noting that while there is risk reduction with 150 minutes, aiming for a significant effect over 30% increases the exercise amount, providing a clearer understanding of the study.

What is visible from social media reactions is the difficulty in how to convey scientific numbers rather than the numbers themselves. Health information can both encourage and discourage people. Especially with topics like exercise, where many people already feel they "should do it," setting goals too high can backfire.

What Is "Moderate to Vigorous Exercise"?

Let's clarify the moderate to vigorous physical activity addressed in this study.

Moderate exercise often refers to activities where you can talk but find it difficult to sing. This includes brisk walking, leisurely cycling, light hiking, dancing, and gardening. Vigorous exercise is characterized by being out of breath and finding it hard to maintain a conversation, such as running, cycling uphill, swimming, sports, and quickly climbing stairs.

Therefore, the figure of 560–610 minutes a week doesn't need to be interpreted as "10 hours of intense gym training." Combining brisk walking, cycling to work, stairs, household chores, light running, and weekend hiking can accumulate exercise.

Of course, not all activities have the same effect. The appropriate exercise varies depending on intensity, duration, frequency, age, fitness level, and medical history. Those with a history of heart disease, chronic conditions, or who haven't exercised for a long time should gradually increase their activity in consultation with healthcare providers, rather than suddenly starting high-intensity exercise.

A Realistic Goal: "Maintain 150 Minutes a Week and Gradually Add More"

So, how can we apply this study to our daily lives?

The most realistic approach might be to maintain 150 minutes a week as a "minimum goal" while gradually adding more without straining your lifestyle. For instance, if you're already achieving 150 minutes a week, the next goal could be 200 minutes or even 300 minutes. WHO guidelines also recommend increasing moderate exercise to 300 minutes a week for additional health benefits.

Rather than being overwhelmed by the figure of 10 hours a week, the following mindset might be more practical.

Make weekday commutes a bit brisker. Use stairs instead of escalators. Walk for 10 minutes during lunch breaks. Include longer walks or cycling on weekends. Add strength training twice a week. Replace some TV or smartphone time with light stretching or squats.

These small accumulations might seem modest individually. However, the total exercise amount makes a difference. Increase daily 20 minutes to 30 minutes, 30 minutes to 40 minutes. Take a longer walk once a week. Make commuting or shopping trips a bit more active. Such changes can make a significant difference on a weekly basis.

Don't Forget the Limitations of the Study

This study is valuable for its large scale and use of objective physical activity data. However, it's not all-encompassing.

Firstly, this is an observational study. While it shows a correlation that people with higher exercise levels have lower cardiovascular disease risk, it can't definitively state that "exercise alone caused the risk reduction." People with higher exercise levels might differ in other health factors like diet, sleep, income, medical access, and smoking rates.

The research team used statistical adjustments and Mendelian randomization to approach causality, but it's still different from randomized controlled trials.

Additionally, UK Biobank participants are mainly middle-aged and older adults in the UK, so the findings may not directly apply to everyone worldwide. Further validation is needed to determine if the same numbers are optimal for younger people, the very elderly, those with chronic diseases, Asian populations, and Japanese lifestyles.

Therefore, the figure of "560–610 minutes a week" should not be treated as an absolute answer. It's merely one guideline visible from current data.

The Key Is "Movable Hope," Not "Scary Numbers"

Health article headlines often tend to be extreme. If people read "you need to exercise 10 hours a week for heart benefits," many might give up before even starting. However, the real message to take from this study is more positive.

Firstly, 150 minutes of exercise a week is meaningful. The current guidelines are not in vain.
Secondly, those who can move more may have the potential for even greater cardiovascular protection.
Thirdly, for those with lower fitness, gradually building up an exercise habit is crucial.
Fourthly, exercise can be increased not only in the gym but also in daily life.

Exercise to protect the heart is not just for special people. It's a collection of small choices like how you walk daily, how often you choose stairs, how you spend your weekends, your means of transportation, and the pace of your household chores.

The figure of 10 hours a week is indeed large. However, it's not an order to "get there immediately." Rather, it's like a map showing that there's still more to the effects of exercise. Those not reaching 150 minutes a week should aim there first. Those already achieving it have room to go a bit further.

The heart prefers habits that last long over sudden efforts. This study can be said to have reaffirmed this seemingly obvious but challenging fact with numbers.

Source URL

ScienceAlert: Article introducing the study content, expert comments, and key points
https://www.sciencealert.com/exercising-beyond-current-guidelines-could-unlock-incredible-heart-benefits

BMJ Group: Press release of the study presentation. Explanation of 560–610 minutes a week, 150 minutes a week, and differences in required exercise amounts due to fitness levels
https://bmjgroup.com/560-610-minutes-of-exercise-a-week-needed-for-substantial-heart-benefits/

British Journal of Sports Medicine / PubMed: Research paper "Joint non-linear dose-response associations of device-measured physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness with cardiovascular disease"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42156172/

Science Media Centre: Expert comments by Professor Aiden Doherty, Professor Steffen Petersen, and others
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-on-amount-of-exercise-done-a-week-and-benefits-to-heart-health-using-mendelian-randomisation/

The Guardian: Article reporting the study content, experts' cautious views, and Sport England's response
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/may/19/least-fit-people-need-to-do-more-exercise-than-fittest-to-get-same-benefit-study

WHO: Physical activity guidelines for adults. Recommendations of 150 minutes a week, 300 minutes a week for additional benefits
https://www.who.int/initiatives/behealthy/physical-activity

CDC: Physical activity guidelines for adults. 150 minutes of moderate exercise a week, muscle strengthening twice a week
https://www.cdc.gov/physical-activity-basics/guidelines/adults.html

Reddit r/science: Public forum reactions to the study. Discussions on exercise intensity and study title
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1tijxb6/adults_should_aim_to_do_between_560610/##