How important is exercise intensity in reducing your risk of chronic disease? 

Amy Hudson and Dr. James Fisher break down the real science behind intensity, longevity, and disease risk using data from over 73,000 adults tracked for eight years. They discuss why higher intensity training may deliver outsized returns for heart health, metabolic function, and overall mortality risk. Tune in for a deeper, research-driven look at intensity and longevity.

• Dr. Fisher breaks down a research article about vigorous versus moderate or light cardiovascular activity. The conversation sets the stage for a deeper look at whether intensity changes long-term health outcomes.
• Dr. Fisher covers what the researchers did. They analyzed fitness tracker data from tens of thousands of individuals and followed them for eight years. Then they examined mortality, cardiovascular disease risk, and other comorbidities to see how exercise intensity related to long-term outcomes.
• Dr. Fisher explains how we equate exercise intensity using METs, where one MET equals the energy you burn sitting quietly. 
• According to the research findings, one minute of vigorous activity may equal anywhere from 53 to 156 minutes of light activity, depending on the outcome measured.
• Dr. Fisher explains how this challenges older thinking. Historically, one minute of vigorous activity was considered equal to about two minutes of moderate activity. This research suggests the gap may be much wider, strengthening the case for adding higher-intensity work or strength training that builds muscle and raises resting metabolic rate.
• Amy and Dr. Fisher cover the question marks in the research paper. Participants wore trackers for three to seven days per week over eight years. We have no insight into changes in exercise habits, illness, nutrition, sleep, substance use, or socioeconomic factors during that time.
• Dr. Fisher explains a key limitation of fitness trackers. If you hike uphill with a heavy backpack, the device mainly detects wrist movement, not load or incline. That means muscular effort and true intensity can be underestimated, especially during resistance-based or loaded activities.
• Amy shares why working with a personal trainer can change how you think about intensity. She reveals that not all movement is equal, and a skilled coach can help you focus on vigorous training instead of just exercising longer.
• Amy asks the bigger question: if someone simply wants to lower overall disease risk, where should they focus? 
• Dr. Fisher explains why movement is foundational. The body is built to contract muscles and move, and without that stimulus, very little functions optimally. He pairs that with practical advice: prioritize whole foods, limit processed options, and focus on fruits, vegetables, and protein in their natural form.
• Learn why sleep can’t be ignored. You can train hard and eat well, but chronic poor sleep undermines everything. Research consistently links low-quality or insufficient sleep to obesity, diabetes, and even certain cancers.
• Dr. Fisher’s closing remarks: Exercise, nutrition, and sleep are the core pillars. If you consistently check those three boxes, you dramatically improve your odds of a longer, healthier life.
• Why personal training supports long-term health, not just fitness. Strength, cardiovascular health, and metabolic improvements all depend on consistency and proper load. A good strength coach ensures your body moves efficiently, reduces injury risk, and makes every workout count toward longevity.

Mentioned in This Episode:

The Exercise Coach – Get 2 Free Sessions!

Submit your questions at StrengthChangesEverything.com

This podcast and blog are provided to you for entertainment and informational purposes only. By accessing either, you agree that neither constitute medical advice nor should they be substituted for professional medical advice or care. Use of this podcast or blog to treat any medical condition is strictly prohibited. Consult your physician for any medical condition you may be having. In no event will any podcast or blog hosts, guests, or contributors, Exercise Coach USA, LLC, Gymbot LLC, any subsidiaries or affiliates of same, or any of their respective directors, officers, employees, or agents, be responsible for any injury, loss, or damage to you or others due to any podcast or blog content.

Based on this data, it makes a good case for adding more vigorous physical activity.

If we can get those three pieces of our life dialed in and in check, we will feel good today too. do our work of decreasing our disease risk later on. Welcome to the Strength Changes Everything podcast, where we introduce you to the information, latest research, and tools that will enable you to live a strong, healthy life. On this podcast, we will also answer your questions about strength, health, and well -being. I’m Amy Hudson. I own and operate three exercise coach studios.

My co -hosts are Brian Sagan, co -founder and CEO of The Exercise Coach, and Dr. James Fisher, leading researcher and evidence based strength training. And now for today’s episode. Welcome back to the Strength Changes Everything podcast. Today we have a special treat. Dr. Fisher is going to be breaking down an article that’s kind of circulated on social media all about the connection between what they call vigorous activity or more intense cardiovascular activity as compared to moderate activity or light activity. You may have recalled us talking in the past about the difference between maybe concentrated cardio or more intense bursts of effort.

as being more time efficient than standard steady state cardio. And this article kind of measures, or it goes through a study where people were measured using wearable health trackers, their activity as it relates to disease risk. So we’re going to talk about what this article has to say. Dr. Fisher will break down sort of how it was set up. And we’re going to go through questions about, you know, how we should take this information and apply it to ourselves or not and why. So we are happier with us today.

Dr. Fisher, what is this article and us at a high level kind of what we’re going to be talking about today.

Okay, thanks, Amy. So this is a really interesting article published in about October of 2025 in the Nature theme of journals, so a very highbrow journal. And the title, and I’ll put the title up on the screen for those people watching on YouTube, but the title is Wearable Device -Based Health Equivalents of Different Physical Activity Intensities Against Mortality, Cardiometabolic Disease, and Cancer. So a real mouthful, typical of academics in scientists and so forth. But really what this is looking at is it’s kind of challenging our understanding of the value of higher intensity exercise compared to lower intensity exercise. So the historic thinking has been that one minute of vigorous physical activity is equivalent to two minutes of moderate physical activity.

And that’s kind of been the accepted wisdom, and of course, equivalent to many more minutes of light physical activity. And that’s kind of fit in with our previous understanding of recommendations of, you know, we should do 150 minutes of, you know, light to moderate cardiovascular exercise or 30 minutes of, of hard cardiovascular exercise and so forth. And there’s always a bit of a range in there. So, uh, so that might not fit with certain, um, institutions guidelines, but it is that kind of general theme that harder work is more valuable than lighter work. So what these guys did is they went back and they looked at some data from the UK Biobank. So it’s kind of a data set that exists.

And they looked at health tracker data and they compared it across tens of thousands of individuals. and eight years beyond that, they looked at mortality and they looked at cardiovascular disease risk and comorbidities and so forth. So, but it’s worth taking a step back from that and talking about how we can kind of consider the rating of intensity as kind of light, moderate or vigorous. So historically we’ve used this term of a MET or a metabolic equivalent. And if somebody goes now to a gym and they get on a treadmill, then they can probably find a setting where it tells them how many METs they’re working at. And if they’re walking, it’s probably relatively low.

And if they’re jogging or running, it will increase. So just for absolute clarity, the way that that’s kind of compared is that one met is the energy that you would use while you’re sitting quietly. So basically when you’re sitting at rest, not asleep, but not doing any physical activity. And then they’ve kind of historically, scientists have categorized light, moderate and vigorous physical activity as light is three met or less. And that might be day -to -day household tasks that are not physically demanding like washing, ironing, or maybe slow walking. Moderate physical activity is three to six mets, and that’s generally thought of as brisk walking or equivalent.

And then vigorous physical activity is running or swimming laps, and that’s thought of as anything greater than six mets. Now, to put this in context, if you jump rope, then that can be equivalent to around 12 nets. So what that means is for every minute that you’re jumping rope, it’s the equivalent you’re burning the equivalent calories to 12 minutes of sitting on the couch. So, and that’s kind of how that works. Now it’s, there’s a big gray areas within that, but it’s kind of a nice concept to think about, um, how we can equate, uh, intensities of physical activity.

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, wouldn’t it be cool if we had like a little number in the air that we could see like a hologram and say, right now you’re working at six months, you know, and kind of to see what we’re doing and how much metabolically challenging it is. That would be really, really cool. Obviously, we don’t have that. it helps to break down the different levels of effort, if you will.

Yeah, 100%, 100%. And of course, that’s what wearable technology is trying to do and what treadmills and cross trainers and stationary bikes try to give you is that feedback as to how hard you’re actually working. Well, so what this study did is it looked at data for 73 ,000, just over 73 ,000 adults in an age range of 40 to 69 years. And they wore a wearable technology. They wore a fitness tracker for a minimum of three days, including a weekend day or up to seven days. And then they later, and in fact it was eight years later, they looked at mortality and co -morbidities.

One of the things that they report within the paper is that there were 2 ,675 mortality events. So for clarity, what that means is that 2 ,675 people had died. Now, the reason this of course is important is because that death is attributed to a cause and they can then go back and look at how much exercise that person was doing based on the fitness tracker and cause of death and so forth. And hence the relationship. Now, many people will already have seen the potential limitations of this, which we will certainly discuss at the end of this podcast. But for now, I’ll just go through the paper as is.

So what they did is, or what they use when they look at wearable fitness technology is, is the watch or the fitness tracker has what’s called acceleration, an acceleration monitor in it. So it basically measures movement. Um, and it looks at those acceleration thresholds that are measured in milligravities. So every time you move your wrist or you string your arm, it assumes a certain amount of physical activity from the body. And again, we can start to see flaws with this. So they kind of get into the detail of this.

They say less than a hundred milligravities is light physical activity. more than 100 milligravities is moderate activity, and more than 400 milligravities is vigorous physical activity. And therefore we can equate that less than 100 milligravities is around three mets, more than 100 is three to six mets, and greater than 400 is greater than six mets. And hence we can kind of start to make this equation or this calculation between the amount of wrist -based movement from these wearable fitness trackers to how hard physically a person is working, how many calories they’re burning, how much muscular activity there is, and so forth like that. So it’s quite interesting from that perspective that they’ve been able to kind of create these algorithms and look at this technology. They then kind of get into the weeds of it all a little bit, and ultimately the bit that we’re interested in, this is the bit that’s been big on social media and on multiple news sites, is how they’ve equated one minute of vigorous activity to moderate or light physical activity.

And so one of the things that they say is that for an equivalent of five to 35 % risk reduction, which again is a very large range, but somewhere within that risk reduction of these things, one minute of vigorous physical activity is equivalent to four minutes of moderate physical activity for reduction in all cause mortality. Around 8 minutes for mortality by cardiovascular disease or death by cardiovascular disease. Around 5 minutes for major adverse cardiovascular events. Around 9 minutes for reduction in type 2 diabetes. Around 4 minutes, 3 .5 to 4 minutes for cancer mortality.

And they then sort of talk about the equivalent for one minute of vigorous physical activity as an equivalent to light physical activity. And of course, these numbers are much higher. And they go on to say that without talking about cancer, they talk about One minute of vigorous physical activity is equivalent to 53 minutes of light physical activity for reductions in all -cause mortality, and we should clarify all -cause mortality is death by any means, but it’s also equivalent to around 94 minutes of light physical activity for a reduction in risk of diabetes. And in fact, What I’ve done is I’ve put this up on the screen now as well, and I’ve created a table just to kind of really give these numbers to all the viewers that are watching on YouTube. So if you’re listening, I’ve kind of read through it there, but if you’re watching on YouTube, I’ll put these back up on the screen now so that everybody can see. There’s our moderate physical activity ranging from three and a half to about nine minutes for a five to 35 % reduction.

And for our light physical activity, the authors reported that between 53 minutes and 156 minutes. So we should clarify, they’re saying that one minute of vigorous physical activity can be equivalent to between 53 and 156 minutes of light physical activity. Those are quite kind of a shocking statistics. Many people might think, you know, that one minute of hard exercise can be equivalent to two and a half hours of light physical activity for a potentially a 35 % reduction in risk of cancer mortality. I think most people would be quite happy to trade in two and a half hours of light housework for one minute of hard exercise.

But there’s a few things that we should kind of clarify, if that’s okay. I should pause for a second. Amy, any thoughts or any comments so far?

I mean, how do they come up with this minimum amount of time needed to reduce the risk?

Yeah. So what they did is in the period of time that people were wearing a fitness tracker, they obviously looked at the amount of light, moderate or vigorous physical activity they were doing. And then they looked at the data eight years down the line and they said, well, this person maybe died from cancer or this person had a cardiovascular event and they were only doing a certain amount of vigorous physical activity or they were doing a certain amount of moderate or a certain amount of light physical activity. So they’ve created calculations based on that. But you’re absolutely right to raise the question because one of the first things that we should think about is that The participants wore a fitness tracker for three to seven days, and then they looked at mortality or health eight years later. And what we don’t know is what happened in those eight years.

We don’t know if there was illness. We don’t know how much the person exercised. We don’t know what their nutrition was like and not just nutrition on a single day, but nutrition habits in general. We don’t know how much the person slept. We don’t know if they were tobacco users or smokers. We don’t know if they use drugs or alcohol.

Uh, we certainly don’t know about, you know, their socioeconomic environment, which might be a factor that impacts nutrition or, or. tobacco use and so on and so forth. So in an eight year time period, a lot can change. So there are some quite considerable assumptions from that three to seven day period of wearing a fitness tracker. Now let’s assume that for many people that was truly representative of their general physical activity, but it would also be fair to say that for many other people. it was not representative of their normal physical activity.

Maybe they typically do more or maybe in that eight -year period they completely changed their lifestyle for the better or for worse. So there’s some pretty big kind of assumptions within all of that. And then the other factor that we should really think about is, and this is particularly pertinent for us because of course we talk about strength training, is that movement trackers consider movement, not load. So the argument that’s always made around fitness trackers is if you walk uphill wearing a heavy backpack, then a fitness tracker will only really look at your, the movement from your wrist, so a relatively slow stride, albeit maybe a bigger or a smaller arm swing, but it won’t consider the extra weight that you’re carrying or the extra force through your muscles based on you moving uphill and so forth. So it doesn’t take into account the load.

It just considers the movement itself. And the big part of this, and the reason that I raised this is, a fitness tracker, if you wear it for strength training, will really not report a great deal with regards to physical activity. Because you’re not moving fast, you’re not moving frequently, you’re just simply loading the muscle. And then moving up, hopefully a slow and controlled tempo for, you know, only a handful of repetitions for only a handful of exercises. And that arguably is the most vigorous exercise. And yet a fitness tracker is not picking it up.

And then we might also think about things like a fitness tracker that you wear on your wrist. won’t give you much in terms of if you’re a cyclist. So if you cycle up Alpe d ‘Huez, which is a thousand meters of climbing, an incredibly hard cycle, a fitness tracker wouldn’t really pick up much at all. So again, movement at the wrist, not whole body movement or lower body movement, and certainly not load in terms of how much weight you might be carrying, how hard the walk or the movement might be. or certainly not including resistance training.

So a couple of big limitations there of the paper itself. Yeah, what I’m gathering so far then is the data set that we’ve gleaned from the three to seven days of wearing this device is probably not indicative of a lot of other factors that may or may not have contributed to the ultimate mortality or disease that these people developed.

Is that a fair statement? I think that’s completely a completely fair statement. And this is not to berate the research or the researchers, because, of course, what they’ve done is add to the body of literature. And this is quite typically of some research that, you know, somebody needs to kind of put their head out there and look at some data and say, well, what if we think about it from this perspective? And, of course, this is, you know, an observational epidemiological study.

So it’s taking an observational study, of course, just takes a snapshot in time and says, how does this relate to this? And in that case, it’s how does fitness tracker movement relate to comorbidities and mortality, you know, further down the line. But of course, as we’ve highlighted, and as we’ve said previously, on the show, a lot of research has significant limitations. And that’s part of the point of discussing this research, to say, hey, there are some things that we should think about when we read it, don’t just see it on the news and think, wow, one minute of vigorous physical activity is equivalent to 156 minutes or so forth. But we can give a relatively clear takeaway message from this. So historically, it’s been thought that one minute of vigorous physical activity is equivalent to around two minutes of moderate or more of light.

And it would be fair to say based on this data that Certainly, different intensities of exercise are not equal in the fitness and more so in health -related outcomes. That each minute of vigorous physical activity has a value equivalent to, let’s say, multiple minutes of moderate or light physical activity. Now, what those minutes might be is probably far more than only two for moderate, but it’s probably not quite as extreme as 150. for light physical activity. And of course, light, moderate, hard are somewhat subjective terms, you know, a minimum hard running at six mats is not the same as a minute of sprinting at 10 mats.

And I would, I would suggest that in this case, of course, most people will do the light physical activity in terms of washing, ironing, walking and so forth, they probably already do a reasonable amount of light physical activity. But based on this data, it makes a good case for adding more vigorous physical activity, or in our case, adding strength training, which is what loads the muscles accordingly, increases strength and increases muscle mass, which increases metabolic rate, even while you’re at rest on the couch at that one met. So it’s an interesting paper, and it certainly kind of raises the point quite nicely.

But I think that the values provided are to be taken with a pinch of salt, let’s say. Absolutely. Yeah, no, I appreciate you breaking all that down. And I guess my only My concluding question for you, then, you know, if somebody is interested in reducing disease risk, let’s say they know that diabetes runs in their family or there’s a cancer, you know, that runs in the family. There’s a lot we hear, you know, like eat blueberries or, you know, this, you know, where it’s like you can, this one thing may help with reducing the risk. What are the holistic areas of our lifestyle that, you know, we should be thinking about versus zoning in on one thing?

You know, if somebody just wants to, you know, decrease their overall disease risk in general. How should we think about that globally? That’s a great question. And there are three facets of life that we can really take control of, or we should take control of. The first of which, and the main theme of this podcast, has been exercise. Our body is designed to move.

We had Doug McGough, Dr. Doug McGough on the podcast recently, and we talked in detail about that, that our body is simply built to move. Without muscular contraction, we really don’t exist. We really don’t have anything happening. There should be a range of exercise that we engage in, some light, some moderate intensity, and certainly some vigorous physical activity, which should really include strength training to build and retain muscle. We’ve also on the podcast quite recently talked about nutrition, and we should really take a whole food approach. You know, more recently, governing bodies have now highlighted that processed meats are considered kind of type 1 or grade 1 carcinogens.

So we want to avoid processed foods wherever we can. We want to eat kind of a whole food diet that would include a degree of fruit and as fruit, not as a smoothie, vegetables and proteins and so forth. So managing our nutrition in that way, and I’m not going to kind of drive people down specific nutritional recommendations, other than to say, if you’re opening a packet, it’s been processed in some form. And then the last one that I think is really important is sleep. So we manage our exercise, we manage our nutrition, and then we might often fall into really bad sleep habits. And we’ve talked on the podcast before about the importance of sleep and even wearing a tracker to monitor our kind of sleep activity and the amount of sleep that we’re getting.

But certainly there’s been a lot of research that links poor sleep or low amounts of sleep to comorbidities including obesity and diabetes and even risks for types of cancer. So exercise, nutrition, sleep.

sleep. If we tick those boxes, we’re really putting ourselves in a good place and giving ourselves the best chance of a long and healthy life. Yeah, I mean, and not only that, we feel better in the moment too. So it’s so hard with disease or future outcomes for people to have that be a motivation because it’s so far in the future. Some people are like motivated by something that may or may not happen in 20 years. And most people are not though.

And so, um, yeah, though, you know, if we can get those three pieces of our life dialed in and in check, we will feel good today too. And do our work of decreasing our disease risk later on versus maybe like zoning in on one thing that I have to do every day for one minute of jump ropes, you know, or something like that for the rest of my life. I mean, that’s not.

Think how easy that would be to fail, right? But if we can do like habitual behaviors that reinforce us succeeding in the exercise realm, nutrition realm, and healthy sleep hygiene realm, you’re saying, you know, that’s going to set us up for success long term. Yeah, 100%. And of course, we often talk about things in terms of playing the long game. We want good quality life, you know, right through our lifespan. But you’re absolutely right.

Good nutrition and good sleep habits and especially exercise habits can really set us up for the rest of the day or the next day or, you know, in the short term as well as the long term.

So, yeah, I think that’s a really important point. Excellent. Well, thanks for tuning in today to this episode. And again, I love this because it breaks down and combines, you know, a lot of the things we talk about in a general capacity on this podcast, how to spot reliable fitness advice online, what to do with studies that we come across, how to interpret things, and what are the most important underlying factors in our best health. And so, Dr. Fisher, thank you so much. all this down for us, and we will see you next week on the podcast.

Until then, we hope you remember strength changes everything. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed today’s episode, please share it with a friend. You can submit a question or connect with the show at strengthchangeseverything . com. Join us next week for another episode and be sure to follow the show on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts so that you never miss another episode.

Here’s to you and your best health.