Cumulative time spent in “vigorous” physical activity lowers mortality risk (Attia)

I agree with this, but what I would like to see is the detailed cost/benefit analysis. The pushback I always get from my less athletic friends is: “sure… you will live longer, but you spend all that time exercising” :wink:


I would be interested in the half life of the effects of exercise. If I exercise today, how long does the benefit last? If I stop exercising do I lose all the benefits?

1 Like

In my view, the time spent exercising improves the quality of all other time that you’re alive - you live better, not just longer. I like being strong and capable even when I’m not at the gym. I like being able to keep up with my kids if we go for a hike or a bike ride. Moreover, strength and balance developed through exercise reduce the risk of falls in old age.

The article says the “optimal” dose of vigorous exercise is 54 minutes a week. Do that for 30 years and you spent a total of 58.5 days exercising in order to reduce your risk of ACM by 36% - which I am sure will be a gain of much more than 58.5 days.


Not sure why you would stop doing something that’s good for you. :grinning:

Loss of strength from not training occurs more rapidly the older you are, as you would expect. In my experience, you start getting weaker if you take more than a week off from lifting, and the weakness will accelerate after two or three months off. More detailed study here:

A Guide to Detraining: How to Mitigate Losses and Get Back to Full Strength (


Sometimes stuff happens. A way to think about this is building “headroom”. Having room to fall (decline in fitness) when something happens: illness, injury, change in life…so you can lose some fitness without become so unfit or unmuscled that recovery becomes too hard or impossible. This is why I maintain a level of fitness and muscle mass higher than is “necessary”…to give me headroom.