Jay Novella

of those cardio events.

So to me, you're 150 a week and you're getting only 8% to 9% reduction of those things that I mentioned, the atrial fibrillations, but also the strokes and the heart attacks and all that nasty stuff.

So an 8% to 9%, that just seems like a lot less than I thought it would have been if you were doing, say, 150 to 250 minutes a week.

It seems a lot smaller.

So that's one of the reasons why I was frustrated.

To get the risk reduction that I assumed I was

fairly close to getting already, I would have to double what I'm doing now.

And so that's where my frustration came in.

It's like, oh my God, I thought I was doing some good cardio here, and now I've got to double it, double or triple what I've been doing to get the effect.

that I thought I was already getting based on this study.

But that was just my immediate kind of knee-jerk, annoyed Bob reaction.

So after reading more research and some time to think about it, here's what I think is a better takeaway to this study, if you come across it, if you want to even read about it online.

It was really interesting.

So the 150-minute per week guideline is not wrong.

It's important because it gets you in the game, right?

It has real tangible benefits.

And there's far, far too many Americans and I think probably people throughout the world that don't reach that goal.

They don't do 150 minutes of activity, at least moderate activity every week.

So this is an important goal for a lot of a lot of people.

Right.