Who needs more exercise: Women or men?
Exercising regularly is known to lower the risk of death, especially from heart problems. But scientists have discovered that that reduction in risk may differ between the sexes, with some people reaping greater benefits in less workout time.
So, who has to exercise more to reduce their risk of death: Women or men?
It turns out that women may reap these survival benefits more easily than men do. That's according to a large study published in 2024 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology , which included data from more than 412,000 American adults ages 27 to 61, 55% of whom were female.
You may like
'The beauty of this study is learning that women can get more out of each minute of moderate to vigorous activity than men do,' study co-lead author Dr. Martha Gulati , director of preventive cardiology in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, said in a statement . 'It's an incentivizing notion that we hope women will take to heart.'
The researchers collected participants' physical activity data via the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), the largest and longest-running health survey in the U.S. The study looked at data collected between 1997 and 2017.
Related: 11 minutes of moderate exercise a day cuts early death risk by 20%, huge analysis suggests
The survey itself included questions about the types of exercises people performed and at what frequencies, durations and intensities. It also included participants' socioeconomic and demographic characteristics and medical conditions. The study excluded people who had certain health conditions at the start of the study time frame, such as coronary heart disease or cancer.
Read More
Most melatonin gummies have higher doses than what's on the label
Get the world's most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.
The researchers also looked through the National Death Index — a national database of death records — for deaths from any cause, as well as cardiovascular-related deaths. The data from survey participants is linked to this death-record data , so the researchers could then connect the data from their NHIS participants to the mortality data through the end of 2019. Overall, 39,935 participants died in the study timeframe, including 11,670 cardiovascular-related deaths, such as those from heart disease, heart attacks and strokes.
About 32% of the women and 43% of the men surveyed said they engaged in regular aerobic exercise , exercising for at least 150 minutes per week. Compared to inactive individuals of the same sex, women who exercised regularly had up to a 24% lower risk of death from any cause. For men who exercised regularly, however, the reduction in mortality risk reached only 15%.
Women also gained these survival benefits much more quickly than men did, the study found. In men, the highest reduction in death risk was seen at about 300 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per week. That came with an 18% reduction in all-cause mortality. Women saw an equal benefit in less than half that time, at about 140 minutes of MVPA a week.
Women who trained more than that each week saw a greater benefit until they also peaked at around 300 minutes of weekly MVPA.
That trend held true across all durations of exercise, the researchers found, with women consistently seeing 'proportionately greater benefits' for any amount of exercise than men did.
About 20% of women and 28% of men said they engaged in two or more sessions of strength training, such as lifting weights, each week. Overall, though, women reported an average of about 0.85 sessions per week, while men averaged 1.25 sessions per week.
On average, the women who strength-trained at least twice a week had a 19% lower mortality risk than women who trained less often or not at all. Men, on average, saw a 11% lower risk compared with inactive men.
These benefits were even greater when it came to cardiovascular health specifically.
Related: Why is it harder for some people to build muscle than others?
Compared with inactive individuals, women who performed aerobic physical activity had a 36% lower cardiovascular mortality risk, while for active men, this risk reduction was about 14%. Muscle strengthening produced similar outcomes, with a cardiovascular risk reduction of 30% for women and 11% for men, compared to baseline.
'What surprised us the most was the fact that women who do muscle strengthening had a reduction in their cardiovascular mortality by 30%,' Gulati told NPR . 'We don't have many things that reduce mortality in that way,' she added.
The study did have some limitations, including that people's exercise data was self-reported, so it relied on the participants accurately reporting their activity levels.The study also tracked only leisure-time exercise, meaning it didn't count exercise completed during household tasks or as part of a job, which may have also contributed to the results. In addition, the study didn't account for potentially unassessed health issues in some participants, or changes in people's exercise trends over time.
That said, the results echo similar findings from a 2011 meta-analysis published in the journal Circulation . This review of 33 studies concluded that there was a stronger link between exercise and lower death risk in women than men.
The researchers behind the 2024 study hope their findings could help motivate more women to exercise, whether through traditional ' cardio ' or muscle strengthening regimes including bodyweight exercises or lifting weights.
'I am hopeful that this pioneering research will motivate women who are not currently engaged in regular physical activity to understand that they are in a position to gain tremendous benefit for each increment of regular exercise they are able to invest in their longer-term health,' Dr. Christine Albert , chair of the Department of Cardiology in the Smidt Heart Institute who was not involved in the study, said in the statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pandemic preparedness ‘dramatically eroding' under Trump, experts say
Amid controversial dismissals for independent advisers and staff at health agencies, alongside lackluster responses to the bird flu and measles outbreaks, experts fear the US is now in worse shape to respond to a pandemic than before 2020. H5N1, which has received less attention under the Trump administration than from Biden's team, is not the only influenza virus or even the only variant of bird flu with the potential to spark a pandemic. But a subpar response to the ongoing US outbreak signals a larger issue: America is not ready for whatever pathogen will sweep through next. 'We have not even remotely maintained the level of pandemic preparedness – which needed a lot of work, as we saw from the Covid pandemic,' said Angela Rasmussen, an American virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. 'But now, we essentially have no pandemic preparedness.' Related: Bird flu reinfections at US poultry farms highlight need for vaccines, experts say 'I'm concerned on a number of fronts,' said Jennifer Nuzzo, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University School of Public Health. Those concerns include a lack of quality information from officials, weakened virus monitoring systems, and public health reductions at the federal, state and local levels. 'The thing that I am most concerned about is the veracity of information coming out of the health agencies,' Nuzzo said. In the ongoing outbreaks of measles, for example, Robert F Kennedy Jr, the secretary of health and human services, has downplayed the severity of the disease, spread misinformation about the highly effective vaccine to prevent measles, and pushed unproven treatments. 'The communications on measles gives me deep worries about what would happen in a pandemic,' Nuzzo said. 'If a pandemic were to occur today, the only thing we would have to protect ourselves on day one would be information.' The H5N1 outbreak has been plagued by incomplete information, an issue that began in the Biden administration but has amplified under Trump. In Arizona, 6 million chickens were killed or culled at a Hickman's Family Farms location because of H5N1 in May. That's about 95% of the company's hen population in the state. Hundreds of workers, including inmate laborers, are now being dismissed as Arizona braces for egg shortages. We're not testing – it's not that there are no new cases Angela Rasmussen Yet even as H5N1 outbreaks continue to spread on farms and wreak havoc on the food supply, no new bird flu cases have been reported in people for months. 'I am concerned that we may not be finding new infections in humans,' Nuzzo said – and a lack of testing may be the culprit. 'We're not testing – it's not that there are no new cases,' Rassmussen said. The last bird flu case in a person was listed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on 23 February. At that point, at least 830 people in the US had been tested after contact with sick animals. This kind of testing – monitoring the health of people who regularly work with H5N1-infected animals – is how the vast majority of cases (64 out of 70) have been found in this outbreak. But then, several CDC officials overseeing the bird flu response were fired on 1 April. Since then, only about 50 people in the US have been tested after exposure to sick animals – and no positive cases have been announced. It's also been difficult to understand the extent of the outbreak and how the virus spreads among animals. 'We still just don't have a good picture of the scope and scale of this outbreak – we never really have. And until we have that, we're not going to be able to contain it,' Rasmussen said. 'It's extremely bad,' she continued. 'We don't have any information about what's happening right now. The next pandemic could be starting, and we just don't know where that's happening, and we don't have any ability to find out.' We're seeing health departments scrambling. That infrastructure is just dramatically eroding Jennifer Nuzzo Huge reductions in the public health workforce and resources has led to less monitoring of outbreaks, known as disease surveillance. 'Cutting back on that surveillance is leaving us more in the dark,' Nuzzo said. The CDC clawed back $11.4bn in Covid funding in March. This funding was used to monitor, test, vaccinate and otherwise respond to public health issues at the state, local, territorial and tribal level. 'We're seeing health departments scrambling,' Nuzzo said. 'That infrastructure is just dramatically eroding.' International monitoring programs to address outbreaks before they expand across borders have also been cancelled. 'We have taken for granted all of those protections, and I fear that we are poised to see the consequences,' Nuzzo said. Trump's crackdown on immigration also poses a major challenge in detecting cases and treating patients during outbreaks. 'A lot of the people who are most at risk are strongly disincentivized to report any cases, given that many of them are undocumented or are not US citizens,' Rasmussen said. 'Nobody wants to go get tested if they're going to end up in an Ice detention facility.' When cases are not detected, that means patients are not able to access care. Although it's rare for people to become sick with H5N1, for instance – the virus is still primarily an avian, not a human, influenza – this variant of bird flu has a 52% mortality rate globally among people with known infections. Allowing a deadly virus to spread and mutate under the radar has troubling implications for its ability to change into a human influenza without anyone knowing. And if such changes were detected, widening gaps in communication could be the next hurdle for preventing a pandemic, Nuzzo said. 'Communication is our most important public health intervention. People, in order to be able to know how to protect themselves, need to have access to facts, and they need to believe in the messengers. And the communication around the measles outbreaks are deeply eroding our standing with the American people.' Even stockpiled vaccines and other protective measures, like personal protective equipment, take time to distribute, Nuzzo added. 'And flu is a fast-moving disease that could cause a lot of damage in the months it would take to mount a vaccination campaign.' The US government's cancellation of its $766m contract with Moderna to research and develop an H5N1 vaccine also signals a concerning strategy from health officials, Nuzzo and Rasmussen said. Other restrictions on vaccine development, like a new plan to test all vaccines against saline placebos, is 'going to make it extremely difficult to approve any new vaccine' and would 'have a devastating impact on our ability to respond to a potential pandemic', Rasmussen said – especially in a rapidly moving pandemic where speed matters. 'You don't have time for that if this virus causes a human-to–human outbreak,' Rasmussen said. All of these policies mean the US is less prepared for a pandemic than it was in 2020, she said. And it also means there will be preventable suffering now, even before the next big one strikes. 'We are actively making people less safe, less healthy and more dead,' Rasmussen said.
Time Magazine
5 hours ago
- Time Magazine
We Need to Invest in the Heartland
For too long, the national conversation about innovation, the future of higher education, and economic growth has been dominated by a handful of colleges and universities largely based in coastal power centers. In doing so, we've overlooked the rest of the country and have weakened the broader foundation of American capitalism and democracy. There is another path forward—and it runs through the heartland of America. Across the country, families, and employers are rethinking the value of a college degree. Meanwhile, the pace of technological change is accelerating—AI is transforming industries, new sectors are emerging, and the demand for skilled talent is shifting rapidly. This comes at a time when public trust in institutions is eroding, and millions of Americans are asking whether our systems still work for them. Whether America leads or lags in this new window of opportunity depends on how we respond. With bold leadership and deep partnerships between universities and the private sector, the heartland can become the driving force behind America's next wave of innovation, economic competitiveness, and shared prosperity. Businesses and philanthropists are uniquely positioned to scale this pivotal moment: one that calls for a new, more inclusive era of American innovation and entrepreneurial growth. In the Midwest, universities are working hand-in-hand with businesses—and proving that the innovation and growth of the future will not be confined to any one part of the country. This region is uniquely suited to lead the next wave of American renewal. It has what the moment demands: grit, talent, urgency, and values that anchor capitalism in real lives and impact. As a nation, we often overlook where some of the most consequential innovation is happening. While innovation breakthroughs are happening at an exciting pace in the heartland, venture capital dollars continue to concentrate in California, New York, and coastal cities. Moreover, research centers are partnering with hospitals and farms, and in classrooms from coast to coast students are working with local employers to move forward in areas like AI, energy, bioscience, and robotics. This is where innovation reaches scale and serves everyday people, and not just markets or valuations. The future of American prosperity will be shaped by whether states, the federal government, and individual donors continue to invest in public universities embedded in their communities—institutions that serve as launchpads for discovery, entrepreneurship, and upward mobility for millions of people. For more than 80 years, universities have partnered with government and industry to drive innovation, advance research, and develop a skilled workforce. For the United States to maintain its global leadership, it is important for these three sectors to renew and strengthen their collaboration in the face of emerging challenges and opportunities. Public institutions, in fact, enroll three-quarters of the roughly 19 million college students in the United States, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. More specifically, America's land-grant institutions, created by and for the people, are uniquely positioned to rewrite the value proposition for higher education for the next generation. Access and opportunity are at the core of our mission, calling us to do work that directly benefits the people we serve. We exist to make life better in the communities of which we are a part. At The Ohio State University, demand is soaring for affordable academic programs, deep partnerships with industry, and innovation-based education and research. It's why we launched the Center for Software Innovation and joined the NextGenAI consortium from OpenAI—bringing additional research grants, funding, and API access to AI-related campus work. But for partnerships like these to grow, we need a mindset shift—within universities and across business and philanthropy. Investors and employers must see the Midwest as a wellspring of ideas, talent, and leadership. More broadly, we must ensure research dollars and economic incentives reach every corner of America. These investments make the United States more resilient and competitive globally while unlocking a wider pool of ideas, perspectives, and solutions. When America invests in our universities, we invest in well-rounded citizens, building social mobility and stability, and research that literally saves lives. We know this from experience. One of us is a Navy airman turned university president. The other, a software entrepreneur turned university benefactor and investor. We've seen how cross-sector leadership can create durable, inclusive growth. But this work can't be piecemeal. We need a national rallying cry to drive how, where, and why we invest in America's future. That future can start in the heartland, if we recognize its potential and act accordingly. The heartland doesn't just hold the key to America's economic future—it holds the promise of a robust economy rooted in community, powered by purpose, and capable of restoring trust in systems meant to serve us all.
Newsweek
8 hours ago
- Newsweek
How Animal Testing in US Could Be Transformed Under Trump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Millions of animals each year are killed in U.S. laboratories as part of medical training and chemical, food, drug and cosmetic testing, according to the non-profit animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). For many animals held captive for research, including a huge range of species from dogs, cats and hamsters to elephants, dolphins and many other species, pain is "not minimized," U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows. The issue of animal testing is something most Americans agree on: it needs to change and gradually be stopped. A Morning Consult poll conducted at the end of last year found that 80 percent of the 2,205 participants either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "The US government should commit to a plan to phase out experiments on animals." Since President Donald Trump began his second term, his administration has been making moves to transform and reduce animal testing in country, although the question remains as to whether it will be enough to spare many more animals from pain and suffering this year. Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva What Is The Trump Administration Doing About It? There have been various steps taken in different federal agencies to tackle the issue of animal testing since Trump was sworn in on January 20. In April, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it was "taking a groundbreaking step to advance public health by replacing animal testing in the development of monoclonal antibody therapies and other drugs with more effective, human-relevant methods." The FDA said that its animal testing requirement will be "reduced, refined, or potentially replaced" with a range of approaches, including artificial intelligence-based models, known as New Approach Methodologies or NAMs data. A Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) official told Newsweek: "The agency is paving the way for faster, safer, and more cost-effective treatments for American patients. "As we restore the agency's commitment to gold-standard science and integrity, this shift will help accelerate cures, lower drug prices, and reaffirm U.S. leadership in ethical, modern science." The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it was "adopting a new initiative to expand innovative, human-based science while reducing animal use in research," in alignment with the FDA's initiative. The agency said that while "traditional animal models continue to be vital to advancing scientific knowledge," new and emerging technologies could act as alternative methods, either alone or in combination with animal models. The NIH Office of Extramural Research told Newsweek it was "committed to transparently assessing where animal use can be reduced or eliminated by transitioning to [new approach methodologies (NAMs)]." "Areas where research using animals is currently necessary represent high-priority opportunities for investment in NAMs," the agency added. It added that it will "further its efforts to coordinate agency-wide efforts to develop, validate, and scale the use of NAMs across the agency's biomedical research portfolio and facilitate interagency coordination and regulatory translation for public health protection." During Trump's first term, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a directive to "prioritize efforts to reduce animal testing and committed to reducing testing on mammals by 30 percent by 2025 and to eliminate it completely by 2035," an EPA spokesperson told Newsweek. Although, the spokesperson added: "the Biden Administration halted progress on these efforts by delaying compliance deadlines." As a member of the House, Lee Zeldin, the EPA's current administrator, co-sponsored various bills during Trump's first term regarding animal cruelty, covering issues such as phasing out animal-based testing for cosmetic products; ending taxpayer funding for painful experiments on dogs at the Department of Veteran Affairs; empowering federal law enforcement to prosecute animal abuse cases that cross state lines; and others, the spokesperson said. What The Experts Think Needs To Be Done The Trump administration's efforts to tackle the issue of animal testing appear to be a step in the right direction, according to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "I was pleasantly surprised and quite frankly a bit shocked to read the simultaneous announcements by the NIH and the FDA regarding a new emphasis on the use of alternatives to animals," Jeffrey Morgan, a professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at Brown University in Rhode Island, told Newsweek. Morgan, who is also the director of the Center for Alternatives to Animals in Testing at Brown University, said that both agencies are moving together in the same direction on the issue "sends a unified and very powerful message to the research and biotech communities." He added that the announcements showed "a major acknowledgement of the limitations of the use of animals in research and testing." "What is especially exciting is that the NIH announcement will encourage the entry of new investigators into the field, further accelerating innovation in alternatives with exciting impacts for both discovery and applied research across all diseases," he said. He added that the FDA announcement and its emphasis on a new regulatory science that embraces data from alternatives was "equally exciting." "The demands of this new regulatory science will likewise accelerate innovation because it will establish the much-needed regulatory framework for the rigorous evaluation of data from alternatives," he said. While the administration's initiatives to shift research away from animal testing is heading in the right direction, its policies are "overdue," Dr. Thomas Hartung, a professor in the department of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. "The animal tests for safety were introduced more than 50 years ago. There is no other area of science where we do not adapt to scientific progress," he said. Hartung added that animal "testing takes too long and is too expensive to really provide the safety consumers want." He said that running animal tests for new chemicals can cost millions and take years in some cases. "Nobody can wait that long, even if they can afford the testing costs," he said. Hartung also believes the shifts in the industry to reduce animal testing have been "coming for a while," as over the last two decades, America's opposition to animal use in medical research has been increasing. "The alignment of FDA and NIH really makes the difference now, which I think is evidence of a strong relationship of their leaderships," he said. Yet in order to make a real difference, Hartung said clear deadlines are key to show that "this is not just lip service." He also said that he thought "the transformative nature of artificial intelligence in this field is not fully acknowledged." "We also need an objective framework for change to better science, such as the evidence-based toxicology approach," he said.
