150 Intensity minutes a week? No wonder obesity is out of control in the US!

I think they chose 150 as it?s some government minimum recommendation. I just did a 2h45m run so I?m good for this week!

I've never paid much attention to it but while setting up my VA3 I scrolled back through this year and saw that my lowest weekly total was in the 800's so that's where I set it. However I'm in the throes of marathon training and usually in the 1500-1700 range. I'm currently at 1212 at the end of a cutback week.

I think CW is right about 150 being a minimum standard. Like 10k steps a day is.

Also, you got to remember that not everyone runs long distances. I have plates and screws in one ankle, and walking is my main activity. I can go out for a good 1hr walk and get 10-20 intense minutes, so 150 a week is a reasonable goal for me. If it was 500, it would simple be unreasonable for someone like me.

Maybe there should be something like the "auto goal" for steps, where if you go over the goal, the next week it increases, but if you don't meet the goal, the next week it decreases, with 150 as a minimum.

The 150 minutes is based on current national and international recommendations for the minimum amount of exercise necessary to maintain health. Thirty minutes a day of moderate intensity exercise or about half the amount of vigorous exercise on five or more days a week. This exercise may be accumulated in several bouts of 10 minutes or more throughout the day. There are a number of us researching the effect of accumulating exercise in multiple 10 minute bouts throughout the day and how that impacts health compared to single, longer bouts.

While the OP may mock people who only do 150 minutes, there are many others who do far less than that. The goal is to get those who do nothing to do something. For people unaccustomed to exercise just getting started requires a massive effort. When you exercise a lot, it's hard to understand why people don't. The best we can do is to encourage them to start doing something. Little and often can quickly become more and often.

Age is immaterial. I know 20 year olds who do nothing. I know 70 year olds who do nothing. I also know 20 and 70 year old who do lots. Exercise for 150 minutes is not a 'gold standard' it's something to aim for as a first target for those who don't do anything. We should be helping and encouraging them. Avoid showing them how good you are. Instead show them how good they can be.

My intentions with this post was not to mock, but to motivate. With 150 IM as the minimum, let's have Garmin implement a similar set up like they have for steps whereby your Intensity Minutes goal increases each week.
As far as age not considered, take a look at VO2 charts. Running competition breaks down age categories, geez, even golf has the Seniors Tour.
We are coming out of the "dark age" where physical fitness was filled with myths. Women weren't allowed to run Marathons, take salt tablets when sweating.The Army had fitness standards that were embarrassing. Until the 80's, folks over 40 didn't have to do PT- physical training.
Sorry if this post was taken the wrong way. Nick

It is not clear to me how IMs are calculated. I did a 32 min run with the following times in the various HR zones
[TABLE]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Z5[/TD]
[TD]2:52[/TD]
[TD]9%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Z4[/TD]
[TD]19:39[/TD]
[TD]61%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Z3[/TD]
[TD]7:46[/TD]
[TD]24%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Z2[/TD]
[TD]0:54[/TD]
[TD]2%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Z1[/TD]
[TD]0:37[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I got a total of 28 IMs for this activity. I would have expected that spending significant times in Z4 and Z5 would have resulted in some vigorous IMs. Instead it looks like in order to get vigorous IMs, you have to be in Z5 or above. I will try out that experiment.

Edit to add: I just looked at another 28 minute run from yesterday with the following HR Zones distribution.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Z5[/TD]
[TD]14:53[/TD]
[TD]52%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Z4[/TD]
[TD]11:23[/TD]
[TD]40%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Z3[/TD]
[TD]0:36[/TD]
[TD]2%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Z2[/TD]
[TD]1:29[/TD]
[TD]5%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Z1[/TD]
[TD]0:00[/TD]
[TD]0%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Total IM was 26 minutes. So it seems that I get no vigorous IMs.

Maybe there are other variables to consider.

rprr, a couple thoughts: how did you establish your max HR? Hopefully not with the old 220- age formula.
As a long time (over 41 years of long distance running/ over 87,000 miles run) and coach, the 2 runs you presented appear to be pretty intense. Suggestion, slow down, increase your warm up time, spend less time in Zone 5 and add gentle, longer runs. This formula will likely add more years of injury free running and have you avoid joining the world's largest running club-"I Use to RUN...BUT Club" Nick

Nick -- Thanks very much. I use the 208 -0.7*age formula for the Max HR. The zones are calculated based of % of MaxHR.

From the 2011 American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand:

"The scientific evidence demonstrating the beneficial effects of exercise is indisputable, and the benefits of exercise far outweigh the risks in most adults. A program of regular exercise that includes cardiorespiratory, resistance, flexibility, and neuromotor exercise training beyond activities of daily living to improve and maintain physical fitness and health is essential for most adults. The ACSM recommends that most adults engage in moderate-intensity cardiorespiratory exercise training for ≥30 min?d on ≥5 d?wk for a total of ≥150 min?wk, vigorous-intensity cardiorespiratory exercise training for ≥20 min?d on ≥3 d?wk (≥75 min?wk), or a combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity exercise to achieve a total energy expenditure of ≥500-1000 MET?min?wk. On 2-3 d?wk, adults should also perform resistance exercises for each of the major muscle groups, and neuromotor exercise involving balance, agility, and coordination. Crucial to maintaining joint range of movement, completing a series of flexibility exercises for each the major muscle-tendon groups (a total of 60 s per exercise) on ≥2 d?wk is recommended"

So yes, 150m is the minimum, but still yields important health benefits. Much more than that and most would not bother doing anything. But remember, not everyone is a triathlete, and regardless, exercise is just one component of weight management, with the other (much more important) component being diet. I know a lot of people who more than double that and still are overweight, and lean people who never move from the couch. The body is smart enough to know that if you increase exercise enough, to crave more food. I'd say 5 x30min a week is a pretty good balance for many people.