Run, Don't walk to stave off Heart death: UK Study

This is the title of a health article posted on Yahoo news today.

They said that a study indicates that the current UK and US heart guidelines of a brisk half-hour
walk may not be enough to avoid a premature death from heart disease.

The study divided 1,975 Welsh men into 'light activities' (walking, bowling or sailing) and moderate
(golf and dancing) and vigorous (climbing stairs, swimming, jogging); and then correlated them over
11 years with deaths from cardiovascular conditions.

The results: Men who engaged in light and moderate exercise (equivalent to 343 calories (90 minutes
walking) per day) were not protected from the risk of early death.

Men who engaged in the highest levels of heavy exercise (equivalent to 54 calories (nine minutes
jogging) per day) were 47 percent less likely to die early and 62 percent less likely to die of
heart disease.

Pretty impressive, eh wot. Makes you think. So let's think.

Using the console computer on my Pacemaster treadmill (I weigh 190 pounds) 54 calories/nine
minutes/1% slope is 3.15 mph or .48 miles 343 calories/90 minutes/1% slope is 1.9 mph or 2.85 miles

Shoot, their definition of 'highest levels of heavy exercise' is just a fast walk for nine minutes.
A warmup essentially.

And light to moderate exercise is just a slow walk in the park.

Who comes up with these stupid studies?

To be honest they should have grouped the welsh men into two groups - the no exercise group - and
the very light exercise group (10 minutes of fast walk/day).

The title of this piece is certainly misleading.

10 minutes of fast walking are terms define the same in the USA as in UK what is 'fast'
vigorous = jogging ,,, at what speed?? welsh men = most men?? i wish the reports would be more
detailed plodzilla

ragkar@repix.net wrote:
>
> This is the title of a health article posted on Yahoo news today.
>
> They said that a study indicates that the current UK and US heart guidelines of a brisk half-hour
> walk may not be enough to avoid a premature death from heart disease.
>
> The study divided 1,975 Welsh men into 'light activities' (walking, bowling or sailing) and
> moderate (golf and dancing) and vigorous (climbing stairs, swimming, jogging); and then correlated
> them over 11 years with deaths from cardiovascular conditions.
>
> The results: Men who engaged in light and moderate exercise (equivalent to 343 calories (90
> minutes walking) per day) were not protected from the risk of early death.
>
> Men who engaged in the highest levels of heavy exercise (equivalent to 54 calories (nine minutes
> jogging) per day) were 47 percent less likely to die early and 62 percent less likely to die of
> heart disease.
>
> Pretty impressive, eh wot. Makes you think. So let's think.
>
> Using the console computer on my Pacemaster treadmill (I weigh 190 pounds) 54 calories/nine
> minutes/1% slope is 3.15 mph or .48 miles 343 calories/90 minutes/1% slope is 1.9 mph or
> 2.85 miles
>
> Shoot, their definition of 'highest levels of heavy exercise' is just a fast walk for nine
> minutes. A warmup essentially.
>
> And light to moderate exercise is just a slow walk in the park.
>
> Who comes up with these stupid studies?
>
> To be honest they should have grouped the welsh men into two groups - the no exercise group - and
> the very light exercise group (10 minutes of fast walk/day).
>
> The title of this piece is certainly misleading.

The new UK study is rather flawed compared to the ongoing US Framingham survey which has opposite
conclusions. The "exercise intensity" data was asked once at the beginning of the ten year study.
People change habits over ten years. Since this study condradicts many others, and is flawed, I
would discard it immediately.

> The study divided 1,975 Welsh men into 'light activities' (walking, bowling or sailing) and
> moderate (golf and dancing) and vigorous (climbing stairs, swimming, jogging); and then correlated
> them over 11 years with deaths from cardiovascular conditions.
>
Sailing as a light activity??? - obviously these people have never stood at a winch tacking
continously in a race with tacks every 5 or so minutes

Last night I came across another version of this report. The version I quoted stated 54 calories and
343 calories. The newer version ,which was also on yahoo news, uses 54 kcal and 343 kcal
(kilocalories). A kilocalorie is the amount of heat required to raise one kilogram of water one
degree celsius. I don't know how that compares to what I use as calories.

I'm just going to ignore the whole mess and continue as I see best.

On 16 Apr 2003 07:44:30 -0700, rick303@hotmail.com (rick++) wrote:

>The new UK study is rather flawed compared to the ongoing US Framingham survey which has opposite
>conclusions. The "exercise intensity" data was asked once at the beginning of the ten year study.
>People change habits over ten years. Since this study condradicts many others, and is flawed, I
>would discard it immediately.