Have you ever wondered if there’s a natural way to lower your high blood pressure, guard against Alzheimer's, lose weight, and feel better? Well as it turns out there is. Michael Greger, M.D. FACLM, founder of NutritionFacts.org, and author of the instant New York Times bestseller “How Not to Die” celebrates evidence-based nutrition to add years to our life and life to our years.

How Much Exercise is Enough?

30 minutes? 15 minutes? Every other day? Today we look at the bigger picture about exercise.

This episode features audio from How Much Should You Exercise?Treating ADHD without Stimulants, and Enhanced Athletic Recovery without Undermining Adaptation.



Hello and welcome to Nutrition Facts. I’m your host, Dr. Michael Greger. Today, we’re going to explore smart nutrition choices based, naturally, on facts. Have a history of high blood pressure in your family?  How about heart disease?  Diabetes? There are foods we can eat that may not only help prevent many of these chronic diseases but even stop them in their tracks. 

Today, we’re going to talk about the benefits of exercise – by answering a few simple questions.  How much do we need to exercise –and how much exercise can make a difference? 

Physical fitness authorities seem to have fallen into the same trap as nutrition authorities—recommending what they think may be achievable, rather than simply telling us what the science says, and letting us make up our own mind.  So, it’s a good time to take a look at the facts. 

Researchers who accept “grants from The Coca-Cola Company” may call physical inactivity “the [greatest] public health problem of the 21st century.” But, actually, physical inactivity ranks down at number five in terms of risk factors for death in the United States, and number six in terms of risk factors for disability. And, inactivity barely makes the top ten, globally. As we’ve learned, diet is by far our greatest killer, followed by smoking.

Of course, that doesn’t mean you can just sit on the couch all day. Exercise can help with mental health, cognitive health, sleep quality, cancer prevention, immune function, high blood pressure, and lifespan extension. If the U.S. population collectively exercised enough to shave just one percent off the national body mass index, two million cases of diabetes, one-and-a-half million cases of heart disease and stroke, and a hundred thousand cases of cancer might be prevented.

Ideally, how much should we exercise? The latest official physical activity guidelines recommend adults get at least 150 minutes a week of moderate aerobic exercise, which comes out to be a little more than 20 minutes a day. That’s actually down from previous recommendations from the Surgeon General, and the CDC, and American College of Sports Medicine, which recommended at least 30 minutes each day.

The exercise authorities seem to have fallen into the same trap as the nutrition authorities, recommending what they think may be achievable, rather than simply informing us what the science says, and letting us make up our own mind. They already emphasize that any physical activity is better than none; so, why not stop patronizing the public, and just tell everyone the truth?

It is true that walking 150 minutes a week is better than walking 60 minutes a week. Following the current recommendations for 150 minutes appears to reduce your overall mortality rate by 7 percent, compared to being sedentary. Walking for only 60 minutes a week only drops your mortality rate about 3 percent. But, walking 300 minutes a week drops overall mortality by 14 percent. So, walking twice as long—40 minutes a day, compared to the recommended 20—yields twice the benefit. And, an hour-long walk each day may reduce mortality by 24 percent! (I used walking as an example because it’s an exercise nearly everyone can do, but the same goes for other moderate-intensity activities, such as gardening or cycling.)

This meta-analysis of physical activity dose and longevity found that the equivalent of about an hour a day of brisk, four-miles-per-hour walking was good, but 90 minutes was even better. What about more than 90 minutes? Unfortunately, so few people exercise that much every day that there weren’t enough studies to compile a higher category.

Okay, but if we know 90 minutes of exercise a day is better than 60 minutes, is better than 30 minutes, why is the recommendation only 20 minutes? I understand that only about half of Americans even make the recommended 20 minutes a day. So, the authorities are just hoping to, you know, nudge people in the right direction. It’s like the dietary guidelines advising us to “eat less candy.” If only they’d just give it to us straight. That’s what I try to do here at NutritionFacts.org.

Exercise has been shown to be effective in controlling ADHD—attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder symptoms and carries only positive side effects. Here’s more.

Every year in the United States, doctors write 20 million prescriptions for stimulants, like Ritalin, to give to kids for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. And. it goes up every year. In fact, more than any other drug class—another 0.8 million added every year to that 20 million. That’s a lot of amphetamines for a lot of kids.

These drugs are thought to act by increasing dopamine and norepinephrine levels in the brain. Well, guess what else can increase dopamine and norepinephrine levels? Exercise. And, it happens within minutes of getting on a bike; levels shoot up. Medications can take an hour to work; physical activity works almost immediately.

But, does it work for ADHD? According to the latest review, there isn’t a lot of research out there. But, the current evidence suggests that both “acute and chronic” physical activity can “mitigate ADHD symptoms.”

So, while “medications and exercise with regard to ADHD shows that they both work to more adequately regulate dopamine and norepinephrine levels in the brain,” some of the new long-acting formulations of drugs can work for up to 12 hours—whereas the therapeutic effect of exercise may only last an hour or so.

But, the drugs “produce unwanted side effects, and have the potential for abuse. Exercise has been shown to be effective in controlling ADHD symptoms, [and] has essentially no side effects.”

While that’s not really true, “[I]t should be noted that a major difference in the two treatment modalities is that medications have a defined effect on ADHD symptoms alone, whereas exercise produces physical, mental, and emotional advantages that are far-reaching.” So, exercise does have side effects, but they’re all good.

Might the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties of plant-based diets undermine some of the benefits of exercise?  Here’s the research. 

Ultramarathon runners may generate so many free radicals during a race that they can damage the DNA of a significant percentage of their cells. Now, “[s]ome…have looked on the exercise-induced increase in free radical production as a paradox.” Why would “an apparently healthy act (exercise)

to detrimental effects through damage to various molecules and tissues”?

“This is somewhat of a misunderstanding, as exercise in [and of] itself is not [necessarily the] healthy act…; [it’s] the recovery after exercise that is [so] healthy—the whole that-which-doesn’t-kill-us-makes-us-stronger notion. For example, “[e]xercise training has been shown to enhance antioxidant defenses”, for example, by increasing the activities of antioxidant enzymes. So, yeah, during the race, ultramarathoners may be taking hits to their DNA. But, check out a week later.

Six days after the race, they didn’t just go back to the baseline level of DNA damage. They had significantly less—presumably because they had so revved up their antioxidant defenses. So, maybe “exercise-induced oxidative damage” is beneficial—kinda like vaccination. By freaking out the body a little, maybe you’ll induce a response that’s favorable in the long run.

“This concept that low levels of a damaging entity can upregulate protective mechanisms…is known as hormesis.” For example, herbicides kill plants, but, in tiny doses, may actually boost plant growth—presumably by stressing the plant into rallying its resources to successfully fight back.

Wait a second, though. Could, then, eating anti-inflammatory, antioxidant-rich plant foods undermine this adaptation response? We saw that berries could reduce inflammatory muscle damage, and greens could reduce the free radical DNA damage. Dark chocolate and tomato juice may have similar effects. The flavonoid phytonutrients in fruits, vegetables, and beans appear to inhibit the activity of xanthine oxidase, considered “the main contributor of free radicals during exercise.” And, the carbs in plant foods may decrease stress hormone levels.

So, in 1999, a theoretical concern was raised. Maybe all that free radical stress from exercise is a good thing, and “increased consumption of some antioxidant nutrients might interfere with these necessary adaptive processes.” So, if you decrease the free radical tissue damage, maybe you don’t get that increase in activity of those antioxidant enzymes.

The cherry researchers responded, look, although it’s likely that muscle damage, inflammation, and oxidative stress are important factors in the adaptation process, minimizing these factors may improve recovery, so you can train more, and perform better. So, there’s kind of theories on both sides. But, what happens when you actually put it to the test? What does the data show?

While antioxidant or anti-inflammatory supplements “may prevent these adaptive events,” researchers found that a berry extract—black currant in this study—although packed with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, actually augmented, boosted, “the health effects of regular exercise” even further.

But, you take antioxidant pills—vitamin C and vitamin E supplements—and, you can actually reduce the stress levels induced by exercise. But, in doing so, you can block that boost in antioxidant enzyme activity caused by exercise. Now, maybe you don’t need that boost if you don’t have as much damage. But, vitamin C supplements may impair physical performance in the first place. Whereas with plant foods, you appear to get the best of both worlds.

Check out this recent study on lemon verbena, an antioxidant-rich herbal tea. It “protects…against oxidative damage, decreases the signs of muscular damage and…inflammation” all without blocking “the cellular adaptation to exercise.” They showed that lemon verbena does not affect the increase of the antioxidant enzyme response promoted by exercise. On the contrary, glutathione reductase activity was even higher in the lemon verbena group. Here’s the level of antioxidant enzyme activity, before and after 21 days of intense running exercises, in the control group. With all that free radical damage that caused, the body started cranking up its antioxidant defenses. But, give a dark green leafy tea, and not only do you put a kibosh on the damage, due to all the phytonutrient antioxidants, you still get the boost in defenses—in fact, in this case, even better.

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, or studies mentioned here, please go to the Nutrition Facts podcast landing page.  There, you’ll find all the detailed information you need plus links to all the sources we cite for each of these topics.

NutritionFacts.org is a nonprofit, science-based public service, where you can sign up for free daily updates on the latest in nutrition research via bite-sized videos and articles.

Everything on the website is free. There’s no ads, no corporate sponsorship. It’s strictly non-commercial. I’m not selling anything. I just put it up as a public service, as a labor of love, as a tribute to my grandmother, whose own life was saved with evidence-based nutrition.

Thanks for listening to Nutrition Facts.  I’m Dr. Michael Greger.

This is an approximation of the audio content, contributed by Allyson Burnett.




10 responses to “How Much Exercise is Enough?

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. Hi Doctor!

    Thank you so much for sharing this vital information but shouldn’t 1 hour of brisk walking result in 21(7*3) percent decrease in the overall mortality rate?

    Have great day and good luck,


  2. Heart rates!? What is the heart rate for vigorous exercise. I have seen 220 – age = max rate and then recommendations on how close to the max I should be, but what does Dr Greger have to say?

  3. Hi Eric, many thanks for your contact.

    Yes, that’s the most used formula to know which is your maximum heart rate, subtract your age from 220.

    The heart rate for vigorous exercise is at 70 to 85% of your maximum heart rate.

    For example, for a 35-year-old person, the estimated maximum age-related heart rate would be calculated as 220 – 35 years = 185 beats per minute (bpm). The 70% and 85% levels would be:

    70% level: 185 x 0.70 = 130 bpm, and
    85% level: 185 x 0.85 = 157 bpm

    When you’re on a vigorous activity you can also see that your breathing is deep and rapid, you develop a sweat after only a few minutes of activity and you can’t say more than a few words without pausing for breath.

    Hope it helps!

  4. Hi Dr. Greger,

    I have been following the daily dozen checklist but sometimes I wonder if it is ever okay to skip a day of exercise. For instance, sometimes when I am menstruating I feel like doing a bit of stretching would be enough for me but I don’t have the time to do 90 minutes of it. On other days when I am not menstruating, I usually do high impact exercise so that it takes less time to fit into my schedule.

  5. Everything is a matter of degree. There are no absolutes. Exercise every day is good. High impact can hurt you though, so maybe make it high intensity instead. Weight bearing exercise is important too. On days you’re not ready for high intensity exercise, you can go for a walk. Even walking is better than just sitting all day. Even cleaning the house is considered exercise.

  6. Dr. Greger’s definitions of “Moderate” vs “Vigorous” exercise are rather suspect. For instance, he states somewhere that walking 4.0 miles an hour is moderate. For me and my short legs, that speed sends my heart rate over 125. Cycling uphill he calls vigorous; I call cycling uphill “kill me now” with a heart rate of 175+ and definitely can’t do 45 minutes straight going uphill on my road bike. According to different sources for my age, “moderate” exercise is a heart rate between 90 and 107, and “vigorous” is over 125. Can anyone provide guidance on his definitions and how they can be universalized for different heights, ages, and fitness levels?

  7. Hi Nicole,

    I am a volunteer for Dr. Greger. Thank you so much for your question.

    You are correct, that what might be vigorous or moderate for one person may be quite different for another person. The unit of measure scientists use to standardize exercise is the metabolic equivalent of task, more commonly known as MET. This measure isn’t perfect, but it is fairly accurate for most people. One MET is equal to the number of calories it takes to sit at rest. This is typically about one calorie for every 2.2 pounds of body weight per hour. So somebody that weighs 160 lbs would burn about 70 calories per hour at rest. Moderate exercise is defined as 3-6 MET’s, which means that somebody who’s MET=1 at 70 calories, would need to burn about 210 – 420 calories per hour. Vigorous exercise is anything above 6 MET’s. Overall, the amount of energy burned is a better predictor of exercise intensity than heart rate.

    Harvard has a short article (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/moderate-and-vigorous-physical-activity/) that explains this concept just as I did above and also provides examples of moderate exercise and vigorous exercise, based on METs. Some examples they list as moderate exercise include walking very briskly (at 4 mph), biking at light effort (10-12 mph), or mowing the lawn with a power mower. Vigorous exercise examples include jogging at 6 mph, bicycling fast at 14-16 mph, or playing a basketball or soccer game.

    For older individuals and those with decreased fitness, (I’m not sure what your age or fitness level is) it may be very difficult to do any activities in the vigorous exercise category. For these individuals, heart rate may be a better marker as you mentioned.

    I hope this helps answer your question!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This