nytimes blog re: sweet spot for exercise (4 times a week).

rocket_ace

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/why-four-workouts-a-week-may-be-better-than-six/

the distill I got was this:

(1) exercising more burns more calories.
(2) in addition to exercise time in the gym, general activity (like walking around, taking the stairs, vs driving/taking escalator) also is an important part of daily activity.
(3) If you exercise even a little, you will receive benefits.
(4) if you exercise alot, your emotional state (feeling pressured for time, feeling drained) may cause you to curb your daily activity (ie - non-gym time) to an overall lower level when added together (gym time plus non-gym general activity).
(5) my conclusion is that, you should be aware of your gym and non-gym activity levels, and just try to achieve a balance that is sustainable (one that you are actively aware of) and hopefully one that shows gradual improvement.

letjog

depends on your goals, really

stumblinthrulife

Hmmmm, I can see the logic in it, but I'm not convinced by the study. The sample group was hardly representative, and the conclusions would be better stated as "It may be better for sedentary women aged 60 to 72 to work out four times a week rather than six, if they feel that working out six times a week may take away take away from activities they would rather be doing".

I think your point 5 is pretty much the most valuable thing to take from the study. If exercise is netted out by a reduction in NEAT, it has less value. Individuals have to best determine how that applies to them.

kristen6022

I have always thought 4x was the magic #. It give me balance and lets me have a life and get other things accomplished.

Cr01502

Couldn't agree more.

Thanks for the read.