Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
8 Hour a Day Office Job, 30 Minutes of Exercise a Day Not Enough
Replies
-
Big5BigChange wrote: »There has been a lot of interest in this in recent years. However, many studies say that no amount of additional exercise can offset the damaging impact of sitting for extended periods because this isn't a matter of just trying to outrun sedentary habits. There is obviously a calories in vs. calories out argument to sitting too much, but there is also an argument that sitting for prolonged periods is bad for you in other ways. It's a bit like saying somebody in solitary confinement for a year, will be totally OK after a 2-day chat with a friend. The idea is (and I am no scientist, so am not arguing for or against) is that sitting down for long periods of times is damaging IN ITSELF and has poor impact on the way the body metabolises energy as well as forces the body to unnaturally hold unnatural positions. It's like subjecting yourself to stress positions as done in torture and interrogations, wreaking havoc on muscles! In this respect, many offices are now encouraging standing desks (where you can heighten your desk and stand at it for the majority of the day rather than sit). Other options are to stand up every time you're taking a telephone call (it makes you sound more assertive too BTW) or maybe everytime you need to read something in hard copy. Depending on your job - try to find habitual things that are easy to do while standing and then become ONLY things you do standing. Point is that being less sedentary is one thing and can be offset by more exercise later. However, regardless of the amount of exercise you do later, it doesn't offset the OTHER damaging effects of sitting for long periods without a break.
On that note - I am going to get up from my desk and make myself a cup of tea. A brief "stretch of my legs" will do me the world of good!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/sitting-too-long-death_n_884152.html
PS and by the way - just because people sit for long periods of time - doesn't mean they are "lazy". I used to work 14-15 hour days in a high pressure job where I was literally GLUED to my computer screen for the entire day and barely even stopped for lunch, if at all. Ironically I was at my skinniest then, as I didn't eat and was so stressed, the weight fell off. I wasn't healthy though!!
I can certainly agree with the last part. My 14 hour days often consist of being in a commercial vehicle. Not much opportunity for exercise when a little distraction can kill a whole bunch of people.
2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Individual results may vary, but on average people can do more but choose not to.
^This...
0 -
60 minutes a day is not hard to do. Break it up throughout the day. Six 10 minute bouts of activity. Dynamic warmup, stretching, walking, tai chi, jump rope etc. Does not have to be vigorous. Just get up and move...1
-
Packerjohn wrote: »BodyzLanguage wrote: »I know you can add another 30 mins to your workout. An hour a day is hardly any sacrifice.
Hardly any sacrifice FOR YOU. For many people, time is in shorter supply even than money, and you can't get more hours out of the day.
As mentioned earlier, the average American spends 5 leisure hours a day in front of a tube. This would indicate to me that most would have time to get an hour of movement a day if that was their choice.
For those people, perhaps, an hour would not be a sacrifice, but I'm not really talking about those people. The poster I quoted did not specify "average" Americans spending 5 hours a day in front of the TV (there's also the fact that you can watch TV while doing a multitude of other things, which is what I do). He just made the unqualified statement that an hour a day is hardly a sacrifice. See Gothchiq's reference above about working two jobs and still has to come home and clean - if a person spends 12 hours working, 2 hours commuting, and 2 hours cleaning/cooking/caring for and interacting with spouse and/or children, that leaves exactly 8 hours to sleep before they have to get up and do it all again. Should they take an hour out of their sleep, or be late to work and maybe lose their job, or quit one job and not be able to pay the bills, or let the house go to hell, or ignore their spouse/kids, or what? Everyone does not have the same life. I'm so fortunate to be in a position where I have the free time to do yoga and take lots of walks but I wasn't always in that position, and I think everyone who has that free time maybe ought to just be thankful for it instead of dogging other people who don't.
Yes, I work a FT job and am a grad student. Occasionally I watch TV while doing homework... It is a rare occasion if I watch TV while not doing something else.0 -
BodyzLanguage wrote: »I know you can add another 30 mins to your workout. An hour a day is hardly any sacrifice.
Let's see...
Wake 0530 - shower, dress, breakfast
Leave house 0615
arrive work 0830 - drive to the station, train, then a fifteen minute walk
finish work 1830
arrive home c2100
dinner, housework and a bodyweight session will take up to midnight
bed at about 0030
merely an example of where vacuous statements around adding time to a workout really don't add to the debate.6 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »BodyzLanguage wrote: »I know you can add another 30 mins to your workout. An hour a day is hardly any sacrifice.
Let's see...
Wake 0530 - shower, dress, breakfast
Leave house 0615
arrive work 0830 - drive to the station, train, then a fifteen minute walk
finish work 1830
arrive home c2100
dinner, housework and a bodyweight session will take up to midnight
bed at about 0030
merely an example of where vacuous statements around adding time to a workout really don't add to the debate.
I would hardly call the statement vacuous. Look, if you really wanted to add 30 minutes a day of activity you would find a way. Stop making excuses and just get it done, or don't. But either way, own it.4 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »BodyzLanguage wrote: »I know you can add another 30 mins to your workout. An hour a day is hardly any sacrifice.
Let's see...
Wake 0530 - shower, dress, breakfast
Leave house 0615
arrive work 0830 - drive to the station, train, then a fifteen minute walk
finish work 1830
arrive home c2100
dinner, housework and a bodyweight session will take up to midnight
bed at about 0030
merely an example of where vacuous statements around adding time to a workout really don't add to the debate.
I would hardly call the statement vacuous. Look, if you really wanted to add 30 minutes a day of activity you would find a way. Stop making excuses and just get it done, or don't. But either way, own it.
And as anticipated, another vacuous comment.
So what solution would you suggest? New job that doesn't involve that amount of travel? Not having a disabled partner? Less than 5 hours sleep? Excuses perhaps, but finding alternative approaches mean disruptive, rather than incremental, lifestyle change. Finding half an hour isn't quite as simple as the original, and indeed your response, would suggest.
I'll acknowledge that the description of the day was slightly disingenuous, I'll fit in two 1.5-2hour sessions midweek, then a 2-3 hour and a 3-4 hour session at weekends. Achieving that involves considerable financial impact, as facilitating the midweek sessions costs c£200 each, to my business.2 -
I'd tackle the issue of a job where you take 2 hours of travel each way while working 10 hours. That can't be healthy psychologically.5
-
stevencloser wrote: »I'd tackle the issue of a job where you take 2 hours of travel each way while working 10 hours. That can't be healthy psychologically.
Some of us work FT jobs with less commute (and average more like 9-9.5 hrs. / day) and are also full time grad students. Or work more than 1 job.1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »BodyzLanguage wrote: »I know you can add another 30 mins to your workout. An hour a day is hardly any sacrifice.
Let's see...
Wake 0530 - shower, dress, breakfast
Leave house 0615
arrive work 0830 - drive to the station, train, then a fifteen minute walk
finish work 1830
arrive home c2100
dinner, housework and a bodyweight session will take up to midnight
bed at about 0030
merely an example of where vacuous statements around adding time to a workout really don't add to the debate.
Me:
Wake 4:30-5:30 depending.
Either run 5:30-6:30 and then shower, eat, and leave for work at 7:30 or else bike or run to work around 7:00 (having eaten before).
If not running or biking to work, walk 10 minutes to L stop. If low exercise day is planned, perhaps walk to an L stop that's about a mile further.
Get to work around 8.
During work use lunch to walk or go to gym.
Finish work between 7 and 9, depending -- can go to gym then or run or bike home (I don't bike when I expect to work past dark, but I will run home in the dark -- I have a backpack for my stuff).
Key here in improving my exercise time from when I thought I had no time was getting a gym close to work and using my commuting time as much as possible.
Agree with steven that the 2 hour each way commuting time seems intolerable to me, but that is not the US norm, so is not the reason people aren't exercising. Average US travel time to work is actually 25 minutes (https://project.wnyc.org/commute-times-us/embed.html#5.00/42.000/-89.500). I remember this since I was annoyed that my own travel time (45-50 minutes if I walk straight to the L and take it and there are no delays which there sometimes are) is significantly higher despite the fact that I live only 6.5 miles from work. That's when I decided to try to combine commuting and activity as much as possible: biking (I take a scenic route that's about 13 miles, normally), running (anywhere from the straight route to a more scenic 8-9 mile route), or simply walking about half of it on the way home, sometimes. I know not everyone can do this, but it has made things easier for me.1 -
What hits me most is this: Studies are crap. Everyone is born with knowledge and folks need to make better choices based on instinct. We humans want a study or authority figure to tell us what to do so we can avoid responsibility if we end up not liking the outcome.1
-
I have an office job sitting and only exercised about 30 min a day 5 days a week and lost 78 lbs in 14 months. So I think it's still CICO.3
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Agree with steven that the 2 hour each way commuting time seems intolerable to me, but that is not the US norm,
It's pretty common in the UK. My train is standing room only from the 65 minutes to London point, and people who live in London suburbs are still travelling in the order of an hour.
Days I work at home are easier, and as upthread my company takes the financial impact of mitigating the travel time, but that's not an option for a great many people.
I've been commuting for more than an hour for at least the last 20 years, with only a short amount of time less than that, largely as a result of clients giving me the opportunity.
1 -
DetroitDarin wrote: »What hits me most is this: Studies are crap. Everyone is born with knowledge and folks need to make better choices based on instinct. We humans want a study or authority figure to tell us what to do so we can avoid responsibility if we end up not liking the outcome.
Humans are not born with knowledge, they are born with instinctual response. That instinct is actually what makes people fat in a land of plenty and ease. Knowledge and effort are required to undo it.5 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'd tackle the issue of a job where you take 2 hours of travel each way while working 10 hours. That can't be healthy psychologically.
Some of us work FT jobs with less commute (and average more like 9-9.5 hrs. / day) and are also full time grad students. Or work more than 1 job.
In that case I'd tell you I'm envious of your schedule because when I was a student my classes were all over the place and could start anywhere from 8 am to 6 pm, impossible to have a full time job with that.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »DetroitDarin wrote: »What hits me most is this: Studies are crap. Everyone is born with knowledge and folks need to make better choices based on instinct. We humans want a study or authority figure to tell us what to do so we can avoid responsibility if we end up not liking the outcome.
Humans are not born with knowledge, they are born with instinctual response. That instinct is actually what makes people fat in a land of plenty and ease. Knowledge and effort are required to undo it.
Not at the base - not at the core. The core - the foundation is simply "Want-to". Knowledge will fix nothing.0 -
DetroitDarin wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »DetroitDarin wrote: »What hits me most is this: Studies are crap. Everyone is born with knowledge and folks need to make better choices based on instinct. We humans want a study or authority figure to tell us what to do so we can avoid responsibility if we end up not liking the outcome.
Humans are not born with knowledge, they are born with instinctual response. That instinct is actually what makes people fat in a land of plenty and ease. Knowledge and effort are required to undo it.
Not at the base - not at the core. The core - the foundation is simply "Want-to". Knowledge will fix nothing.
Hence the effort part. Knowing and doing are generally useless by themselves. My knowing how to track food intake would be pointless if I didn't do it. My tracking food intake would be pointless if I didn't know to weigh (or at least get a very good estimate) of what I was eating. We see examples of both here, daily.
The exact same thing can apply to exercises. I know what lifting regimen works for me. That doesn't change theh fact that said knowledge was useless to me, during the last three years when I was being lazy as *kitten*.1 -
shiningstar93 wrote: »I have an office job sitting and only exercised about 30 min a day 5 days a week and lost 78 lbs in 14 months. So I think it's still CICO.
I got up to 230 pounds working a desk job. I still work a desk job, but now I've lost 60 pounds. I definitely agree that CICO has a huge part to play in it. Course my Fitbit has logged 924 mile since I bought it in February so I'm sure that's helped too.0 -
What is mindless about my response?MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »BodyzLanguage wrote: »I know you can add another 30 mins to your workout. An hour a day is hardly any sacrifice.
Let's see...
Wake 0530 - shower, dress, breakfast
Leave house 0615
arrive work 0830 - drive to the station, train, then a fifteen minute walk
finish work 1830
arrive home c2100
dinner, housework and a bodyweight session will take up to midnight
bed at about 0030
merely an example of where vacuous statements around adding time to a workout really don't add to the debate.
I would hardly call the statement vacuous. Look, if you really wanted to add 30 minutes a day of activity you would find a way. Stop making excuses and just get it done, or don't. But either way, own it.
And as anticipated, another vacuous comment.
You mentioned there is a 15 minute walk every morning. So, all you are missing is another 15 minutes of activity...MeanderingMammal wrote: »So what solution would you suggest?
I would imaging you get a lunch hour at your job. Take 15 minutes and do something with it...MeanderingMammal wrote: »New job that doesn't involve that amount of travel? Not having a disabled partner? Less than 5 hours sleep? Excuses perhaps, but finding alternative approaches mean disruptive, rather than incremental, lifestyle change. Finding half an hour isn't quite as simple as the original, and indeed your response, would suggest.
It does not have to be so complicated...MeanderingMammal wrote: »I'll acknowledge that the description of the day was slightly disingenuous, I'll fit in two 1.5-2hour sessions midweek, then a 2-3 hour and a 3-4 hour session at weekends. Achieving that involves considerable financial impact, as facilitating the midweek sessions costs c£200 each, to my business.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'd tackle the issue of a job where you take 2 hours of travel each way while working 10 hours. That can't be healthy psychologically.
Some of us work FT jobs with less commute (and average more like 9-9.5 hrs. / day) and are also full time grad students. Or work more than 1 job.
In that case I'd tell you I'm envious of your schedule because when I was a student my classes were all over the place and could start anywhere from 8 am to 6 pm, impossible to have a full time job with that.
When I was in the last 2 years of undergrad, I worked a FT job (many more hours than I do now), 2 PT jobs, and did contract work on the side. Classes were Sat. morning (7:30am - 1pm) or evenings (5:45pm - 10:15pm). I worked my FT job all day and some evenings / weekends. I worked my PT jobs on other evenings (until 2am-3am, whenever we got done) and on Sun. mornings (5am-1:30pm). I would do homework or contract jobs on Sun. afternoon or any evenings I didn't have class or work. Since Sat. nights were the busiest at the 1st PT job, it wasn't unusual to be there until 3am and then be at the other job at 5am. I had barely enough time to get home and shower. Fortunately, traffic is light at those times and I could make it back from the first job in 10 min. and to the 2nd job in 20 min., which still left time to shower and a few min. to eat.
Now I live in a rural area that takes much longer to travel anywhere (because of distance, not traffic). However, my graduate degree is being done online. I still have time commitment to get everything done, but the assignments are given and deadlines are never less than 2 days apart... so as long as I can find the time somewhere during that window, it works for scheduling. I found that scheduling multiple jobs / classes was soooo much easier when I lived in the city. A big part of that is the close proximity of everything.0 -
shiningstar93 wrote: »I have an office job sitting and only exercised about 30 min a day 5 days a week and lost 78 lbs in 14 months. So I think it's still CICO.
Agreed, but I think we are talking health.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »DetroitDarin wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »DetroitDarin wrote: »What hits me most is this: Studies are crap. Everyone is born with knowledge and folks need to make better choices based on instinct. We humans want a study or authority figure to tell us what to do so we can avoid responsibility if we end up not liking the outcome.
Humans are not born with knowledge, they are born with instinctual response. That instinct is actually what makes people fat in a land of plenty and ease. Knowledge and effort are required to undo it.
Not at the base - not at the core. The core - the foundation is simply "Want-to". Knowledge will fix nothing.
Hence the effort part. Knowing and doing are generally useless by themselves. My knowing how to track food intake would be pointless if I didn't do it. My tracking food intake would be pointless if I didn't know to weigh (or at least get a very good estimate) of what I was eating. We see examples of both here, daily.
The exact same thing can apply to exercises. I know what lifting regimen works for me. That doesn't change theh fact that said knowledge was useless to me, during the last three years when I was being lazy as *kitten*.
And that goes to my point - studies are silly. Study results are based on interpretation. Tomorrow some new study will say after 8hrs at work one should nap for 2 hours then eat an oreo pack. (shrug)
Studies to guide us are goofy. We - anyone semi-enlighted about their body - know what to do.0 -
DetroitDarin wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »DetroitDarin wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »DetroitDarin wrote: »What hits me most is this: Studies are crap. Everyone is born with knowledge and folks need to make better choices based on instinct. We humans want a study or authority figure to tell us what to do so we can avoid responsibility if we end up not liking the outcome.
Humans are not born with knowledge, they are born with instinctual response. That instinct is actually what makes people fat in a land of plenty and ease. Knowledge and effort are required to undo it.
Not at the base - not at the core. The core - the foundation is simply "Want-to". Knowledge will fix nothing.
Hence the effort part. Knowing and doing are generally useless by themselves. My knowing how to track food intake would be pointless if I didn't do it. My tracking food intake would be pointless if I didn't know to weigh (or at least get a very good estimate) of what I was eating. We see examples of both here, daily.
The exact same thing can apply to exercises. I know what lifting regimen works for me. That doesn't change theh fact that said knowledge was useless to me, during the last three years when I was being lazy as *kitten*.
And that goes to my point - studies are silly. Study results are based on interpretation. Tomorrow some new study will say after 8hrs at work one should nap for 2 hours then eat an oreo pack. (shrug)
Studies to guide us are goofy. We - anyone semi-enlighted about their body - know what to do.
We do, but that knowledge came from somewhere, be it an educated parent, a lot of reading, etc. Studies are intended to either verify or disprove hypotheses, nothing more. On the individual level, yes, we can learn more by doing, as each individual is different. When looking for information to help the clueless who actually want to learn and apply, proven and disproven hypothesis is an invaluable resource.2 -
I set up my office and desk so I can stand up and move my feet for at least half of my working hours. If I really want to sit, I can do that too.2
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
We do, but that knowledge came from somewhere, be it an educated parent, a lot of reading, etc. Studies are intended to either verify or disprove hypotheses, nothing more. On the individual level, yes, we can learn more by doing, as each individual is different. When looking for information to help the clueless who actually want to learn and apply, proven and disproven hypothesis is an invaluable resource.
I think studies tend to prove only this: Data is interpreted and because somebody seems 'learned' their interpretation sticks.
Keep up the fight! I aspire to be as fit, hell, HALF as fit as you Gallow.0 -
There a little things you can do:
* park as far as possible from your office door so you have to walk
* fidget at your desk -- I sometimes march in my chair under the desk while I'm typing, or I do ankle circles
* my industry occasionally offers stress management classes; last two I learned how to do some desk yoga -- you can literally do it for 10 minutes at a shot sitting at your desk
* try to get up & do a lap around the office at least once every 2 hours
* always take the stairs
1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'd tackle the issue of a job where you take 2 hours of travel each way while working 10 hours. That can't be healthy psychologically.
Some of us work FT jobs with less commute (and average more like 9-9.5 hrs. / day) and are also full time grad students. Or work more than 1 job.
In that case I'd tell you I'm envious of your schedule because when I was a student my classes were all over the place and could start anywhere from 8 am to 6 pm, impossible to have a full time job with that.
When I was in the last 2 years of undergrad, I worked a FT job (many more hours than I do now), 2 PT jobs, and did contract work on the side. Classes were Sat. morning (7:30am - 1pm) or evenings (5:45pm - 10:15pm). I worked my FT job all day and some evenings / weekends. I worked my PT jobs on other evenings (until 2am-3am, whenever we got done) and on Sun. mornings (5am-1:30pm). I would do homework or contract jobs on Sun. afternoon or any evenings I didn't have class or work. Since Sat. nights were the busiest at the 1st PT job, it wasn't unusual to be there until 3am and then be at the other job at 5am. I had barely enough time to get home and shower. Fortunately, traffic is light at those times and I could make it back from the first job in 10 min. and to the 2nd job in 20 min., which still left time to shower and a few min. to eat.
Now I live in a rural area that takes much longer to travel anywhere (because of distance, not traffic). However, my graduate degree is being done online. I still have time commitment to get everything done, but the assignments are given and deadlines are never less than 2 days apart... so as long as I can find the time somewhere during that window, it works for scheduling. I found that scheduling multiple jobs / classes was soooo much easier when I lived in the city. A big part of that is the close proximity of everything.
So, how much sleep did you get?
And yeah your classes seemed to be at the light side, we had ~20 hours of classes per week at those all over the place hours and were expected to self study up to double that outside of classes. Barely anyone did that though so I'm not counting it. But for anyone that did do that, university would have been their full time job.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'd tackle the issue of a job where you take 2 hours of travel each way while working 10 hours. That can't be healthy psychologically.
Some of us work FT jobs with less commute (and average more like 9-9.5 hrs. / day) and are also full time grad students. Or work more than 1 job.
In that case I'd tell you I'm envious of your schedule because when I was a student my classes were all over the place and could start anywhere from 8 am to 6 pm, impossible to have a full time job with that.
When I was in the last 2 years of undergrad, I worked a FT job (many more hours than I do now), 2 PT jobs, and did contract work on the side. Classes were Sat. morning (7:30am - 1pm) or evenings (5:45pm - 10:15pm). I worked my FT job all day and some evenings / weekends. I worked my PT jobs on other evenings (until 2am-3am, whenever we got done) and on Sun. mornings (5am-1:30pm). I would do homework or contract jobs on Sun. afternoon or any evenings I didn't have class or work. Since Sat. nights were the busiest at the 1st PT job, it wasn't unusual to be there until 3am and then be at the other job at 5am. I had barely enough time to get home and shower. Fortunately, traffic is light at those times and I could make it back from the first job in 10 min. and to the 2nd job in 20 min., which still left time to shower and a few min. to eat.
Now I live in a rural area that takes much longer to travel anywhere (because of distance, not traffic). However, my graduate degree is being done online. I still have time commitment to get everything done, but the assignments are given and deadlines are never less than 2 days apart... so as long as I can find the time somewhere during that window, it works for scheduling. I found that scheduling multiple jobs / classes was soooo much easier when I lived in the city. A big part of that is the close proximity of everything.
So, how much sleep did you get?
And yeah your classes seemed to be at the light side, we had ~20 hours of classes per week at those all over the place hours and were expected to self study up to double that outside of classes. Barely anyone did that though so I'm not counting it. But for anyone that did do that, university would have been their full time job.
You are describing a typical large U.S. university, which doesn't structure courses for efficiency of students. I specifically selected schools that would maximize my ability to work and gain experience sooner. I have type 1 diabetes and this was before the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), but after HIPPA. Everyone knows about the Privacy part of HIPPA because they have to sign something to acknowledge privacy policies whenever they see a physician. However, the other P was much more important to me because without Portability, I would never have coverage for type 1 diabetes related health care expenses ever again in my life if I didn't have a group policy within 60 days of losing coverage under another group policy (co-pays were still super high). My parent's plan would kick me off at age 21, so I had to work FT before then. I started at a 2 year school 2 weeks after graduating high school and went year-round until I graduated. Because that particular school designed their associate degrees for only relevant classes, area employers recognized that as equivalent to a 4-year degree. Still, to be competitive outside the area (and generally to be competitive), I still needed a bachelor's degree. So I started working FT in my field and went through satellite campuses of another school that structured courses around working adults (so they specifically designed classes at nights and weekends for people like me). That took me from 16 hours of classes per week to 10 hours of classes per week and designed around a daytime worker's schedule. I did all the extra classes needed for a 4-year degree (I took a movies class, a class on HIV/AIDS, topography, etc. - for an accounting degree... because I had transferred all the relevant classes from the first school).
So I had to have a FT job to have a group insurance policy by the time I was 21 and specifically selected schools that would allow that to happen. I graduated with my first degree and was working FT less than 1 month after my 20th birthday.1 -
lithezebra wrote: »I set up my office and desk so I can stand up and move my feet for at least half of my working hours. If I really want to sit, I can do that too.
Standing desks are more and more popular here. Two of my co-workers have them, and I want one. What I tend to do now is use the open secretarial station right outside my office (I am lucky that it's open) as a place to stand and read or edit off and on, which serves the same purpose. I think it would be too hard to focus while actually walking, for me.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Agree with steven that the 2 hour each way commuting time seems intolerable to me, but that is not the US norm,
It's pretty common in the UK. My train is standing room only from the 65 minutes to London point, and people who live in London suburbs are still travelling in the order of an hour.
Days I work at home are easier, and as upthread my company takes the financial impact of mitigating the travel time, but that's not an option for a great many people.
I've been commuting for more than an hour for at least the last 20 years, with only a short amount of time less than that, largely as a result of clients giving me the opportunity.
This backs you up: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/nov/09/million-people-two-hours-commuting-tuc-study
I see you get 15 minutes walking -- is there no way to add more, like by walking to the train station? Not that you need to, as you get the exercise in as is, as you mentioned doing weights in the evening. Also, of course, if you have the option of some home days, that makes a difference.
Anyway, this is interesting to me, as people always seem to slam the US for having long commute times and commuting structures not conducive to including movement in our days vs. Europe and elsewhere. Ours don't seem so bad by comparison, even in places where they are on average longer, like where I live.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions