How running for 75 minutes a week could help you live longer — and feel younger
It's no secret that regular exercise is good for your health, but new research has uncovered a fascinating link between running and biological aging.
In a study of over 4,400 U.S. adults, researchers found that those who jogged or ran for at least 75 minutes per week had significantly longer leukocyte telomeres. That might sound like something out of a science textbook, but it's really just a fancy way of saying your cells look younger on the inside. Telomeres sit at the ends of your chromosomes and act like little caps that protect your DNA. The longer they are, the better off you tend to be when it comes to aging.
If you're looking to get started or find the right shoes for your runs, check out our guide to the best running shoes for every type of runner.
This Brooks sneaker offers excellent comfort and support for everyday runs. The 27% saving applies to the women's model, but you'll find the same deal on the men's version as well. Just double-check that your size and favorite color are included in the offer before buying.View Deal
The magic number is 75 minutes a week
The study used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and grouped people into three categories based on how much they ran each week. Only those who hit 75 minutes or more saw significant benefits to their telomere length, even after researchers controlled for differences in age, lifestyle, and medical history.
In fact, the difference was big enough to suggest runners could be roughly 12 years biologically younger than those who don't run regularly. People who ran less than that? Well, they pretty much looked the same as the non-runners.
While the results are compelling, it's worth being cautious. The results come from a single snapshot in time and rely on people accurately reporting their exercise, which can sometimes be optimistic. Still, the message is clear and encouraging: making running a regular habit might just be one of the simplest ways to help your cells stay spry.
How to make it work for you
The best part is that 75 minutes per week breaks down to just over 10 minutes (and 43 seconds if we are being pernickety) a day. That's a realistic goal for many people. If you're just getting started, try alternating walking and running using a beginner-friendly approach like Jeffing. This run-walk method can help you build endurance while easing the impact on your joints. Our fitness editor Jane swapped running for 'Jeffing' for a week and found it surprisingly enjoyable.
And if running isn't your thing, other vigorous activities like swimming, cycling, or cardio workouts could offer similar benefits. Whichever route you choose, the science is stacking up in favor of getting your heart rate up.
Follow Tom's Guide on Google News to get our up-to-date news, how-tos, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button.
More from Tom's Guide
Forget the sauna — soaking in a hot tub could be better for your health, says new study
No, not crunches — trainer says these 5 bodyweight moves are the secret to building stronger abs
Fibermaxxing is the latest gut health trend, but does it really work?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
a minute ago
- Medscape
Every Step Counts, But Do You Really Need 10,000?
Good news for the sole: Contrary to popular wisdom, people can get the same health benefits from walking 7000 steps a day as they do from walking 10,000 paces, according to a comprehensive review and meta-analysis published in The Lancet Public Health . 'For all outcomes, health benefits continued to accrue until around 7000 steps,' said Katherine Owen, PhD, biostatistician at the University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, who led the review. 'After 7000 steps, benefits either plateaued or there were very small additional benefits.' Owen and her colleagues reviewed 57 studies and conducted a meta-analysis on 31 of them, examining the relationship between health and physical activity based on daily steps. The researchers looked at nine different health outcomes: all-cause mortality, the incidence of and deaths from cardiovascular disease, dementia, cancer incidence and mortality, the incidence of type 2 diabetes, depressive symptoms, and falls. Every outcome showed improvement as the amount of daily activity increases, but for most people the benefits tapered off at around 5000-7000 steps per day. Compared with taking just 2000 steps per day, walking approximately 7000 steps per day reduced all-cause mortality by 47% and decreased the incidence of cardiovascular disease by 25%, of cancer by 6%, of type 2 diabetes by 14%, of dementia by 38%, of depression by 22%, and of falls by 28%. The study also highlighted that even modest step counts of around 4000 per day were beneficial compared with lower activity of just 2000 steps. 'Every step counts,' Owen said. 'All physical activity is beneficial, but increasing daily steps to around 7000 steps is optimal to improve all health outcomes.' The conventional wisdom that 10,000 steps per day was the optimal amount has no real basis in fact, said I-Min Lee, MD, epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was the first to show that the health benefits of daily exercise leveled off after 7500 steps. 'There are quite a bit of data now showing that fewer than 10,000 steps per day brings health benefits,' she said. Lee said that most studies to date have focused on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular health. The new study expands the evidence to other health outcomes, although the data for some conditions, such as diabetes, are relatively sparse. Current guidelines for physical activity, such as those from the US Department of Health and Human Services, recommend 150 minutes per week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. However, due to lack of evidence at the time of publication, these guidelines do not include daily step targets. As step tracking technologies have become more common, and data on step-based activity have improved, Lee wants future guidelines to incorporate step targets. 'I don't believe they should replace time targets, since not everybody wants to track their steps,' she said. 'But they should be included.' Owen and Lee declared having no competing interests.
Medscape
a minute ago
- Medscape
5-Grass SLIT Shows Benefit in Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis
TOPLINE: Five-grass-pollen liquid sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) reduced symptoms and the need for medications to treat symptoms in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) with or without asthma — while maintaining a favorable safety profile and providing consistent benefits across ages, comorbidities, and treatment durations. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of five-grass-pollen liquid SLIT in patients with ARC with or without asthma. Nine studies comparing the efficacy of interventional immunotherapy with that of placebo in this population were included. The key outcomes comprised symptom severity, assessed as the symptom score; a reduction in medication use, assessed as the medication score; and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). TAKEAWAY: A pooled analysis of eight studies showed a significant reduction in symptom score in the interventional immunotherapy group vs the placebo group (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.34; 95% CI, -0.62 to -0.06; P < .05) over a mean follow-up of 19 months. Analysis of data pooled from six studies showed a significant reduction in use of drugs for symptoms in the interventional immunotherapy group vs the placebo group (SMD, -0.54; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.10; P < .05) over a mean follow-up of 20 months. AEs occurred in 20.6% of participants in the interventional immunotherapy group vs 17.5% in the placebo group (P = .46), with treatment discontinuation rates due to AEs of 3.0% and 1.8%, respectively (P = .41). Treatment efficacy remained consistent regardless of cumulative dose, treatment duration, or asthma status. IN PRACTICE: '[The findings] suggest that the dose of five-grass SLIT-liquid can be safely adjusted for better adverse event management without compromising treatment outcomes,' the authors of the study wrote. 'This flexibility makes it possible to tailor treatment according to the patient's condition while addressing their needs and expectations,' they added. SOURCE: Danilo Di Bona, with the University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy, was the corresponding author of the study, which was published online on July 17 in the Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical Immunology. LIMITATIONS: The analysis had a relatively small sample size, variation in dosages and treatment durations across studies, and incomplete reporting of AEs in some studies. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Stallergenes Greer, a pharmaceutical company. One author declared receiving fees from this company. Some authors reported receiving consulting fees; payments or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events; or support for attending meetings or travel and serving on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for various pharmaceutical companies. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Medscape
31 minutes ago
- Medscape
More Data Cement COVID's Impact on Patients With Cancer
TOPLINE: New data confirm the impact COVID infection can have on patients with cancer and identified several risk factors associated with hospitalization and death. Receipt of chemotherapy as well as a baseline history of stroke, atrial fibrillation, or pulmonary embolism were each associated with nearly double the risk for COVID-related hospitalization. Prior vaccination halved this risk. Older age and earlier hospitalization were associated with a greater risk for death. METHODOLOGY: Patients undergoing active cancer treatment are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 due to immunosuppression, but risk factors for hospitalization and death are not well-defined. Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study involving 1572 patients with cancer (median age, 60 years; 53.4% women), enrolled within 14 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test; participants had received active treatment for cancer within 6 weeks before testing or had undergone prior stem cell transplant or CAR T-cell therapy. Patient screening and enrollment took place between May 2020 and February 2022. Treatments included chemotherapy (34.3%), targeted therapy (27.7%), and immunotherapy (10.6%). Breast (23.6%) and lung (13.9%) cancers were the most common cancer types. Overall, 64% of participants had metastatic disease, and at enrollment, 64% had not received a COVID vaccine. Study outcomes were COVID-related hospitalization or death. Risk factors for hospitalization and for death among hospitalized patients were evaluated separately. TAKEAWAY: At 90 days after an initial positive test, COVID-related mortality was 3% and remained stable at subsequent follow-ups. The highest incidence occurred in patients with lymphoma, followed by those with acute leukemia or lung cancer; the lowest incidence occurred in those with other types of solid tumors and blood cancers. Hospitalization for COVID-19 occurred in 18.4% of patients within 90 days of enrollment. The risk for hospitalization was elevated among patients who received chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.97) and those with a history of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and pulmonary embolism (HR, 1.78). Vaccination prior to infection reduced the risk for hospitalization by nearly half (HR, 0.52). Hospitalization for COVID-19 within 30 days of infection was associated with an increased risk for death (HR, 14.6). Among patients hospitalized for COVID within 30 days, age 65 years or older was the only significant predictor of COVID-specific death (HR, 3.49). Over the 2-year follow-up, there were 1739 disruptions to cancer treatment; 50.7% of these were attributed to COVID-19, and most occurred within 30 days of a positive test. IN PRACTICE: 'The data from this prospective cohort study confirm and expand previous retrospective case series that have found factors, including hematologic cancers, chemotherapy receipt, and lung cancer, as associated with COVID-19 severity,' the authors of the study wrote, noting that the results 'showed that COVID-19 had a significant impact on patients with cancer, including hospitalization, treatment disruptions, and death.' SOURCE: This study, led by Brian I. Rini, MD, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, was published online in JAMA Oncology. LIMITATIONS: Information on specific strains was not available. This study lacked a control group of patients without COVID-19, which limited causal inference. Additionally, as participants were enrolled through the National Cancer Institute trial networks, generalizability to a broader population could be limited. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded in part by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and the National Cancer Institute National Clinical Trials Network, Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network, and Community Oncology Research Program grants via the U10 funding mechanism. Several authors declared receiving grants and/or personal fees and having other ties with various sources. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
