Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pmarreck 22 days ago
Cool, now combine this with being a parent of young kids in a 2-income family without any other assistance.
7 comments

It's difficult but where there's a will there's a way. I know plenty of parents who find time to get exercise in. And even if you don't hit ~600 minutes in a week, any amount of exercise is beneficial.

Go for a run pushing your kids in the stroller (even more cardiovascular benefit than just running by itself tbh). Do a bunch of squats at home while cradling your toddler (it becomes funtime for them, like they're on a mini rollercoaster ride). Take your kids for a hike, whether they're tiny and need to be brought along in a baby carrier or they can walk by themselves.

Basically, you can make it happen if you really want it to happen.

Side benefit: Your kids grow up seeing you build habits that keep you healthy long-term. Eventually, they get involved and that helps them learn self-care skills.

Plus, going for a walk/run in the stroller with Dad has to be developmentally healthier than staring at a tablet on the couch.

> Cool, now combine this with being a parent of young kids in a 2-income family without any other assistance.

For anyone literally in this situation: start small and consistent. Your goal is not to pencil in 10 hours a week of cardio. Instead, try to do 30 seconds of the same calisthenics exercise with your child before work/school consistently for 6 months. Perhaps pushups.

Over time you'll find the 30 seconds grows because you want it to. You might learn that warming up with jumping jacks helps you do pushups more comfortably. You might watch videos with your child about pushup variations and incorporate them into your routine together. Perhaps invest a few $$ into small equipment to support activities you're already doing, like pushup handles. Or maybe an over-the-door pullup bar.

Your routine won't be "optimal" in the 600 minutes sense, but a suboptimal routine that you do consistently is infinitely better for you than an ideal routine you don't, and it can expand/contract based on your needs.

I have two kids and recently I started cycling to work. I can get maybe half the new recommended number on a good week. That apparently translates to a 20% reduction.

Upon reading the article:

> The average age was 57 years and 56% were female and 96% were white.

My take is that all this study says is that's kind of late to try to tackle this problem in one's 50s. That being said it's nice to know that I could maybe get a 30% reduction if I were to start spitting my lungs out at this age doing 10h of intense cardio.

It's even easier with young kids, you just play with them. Once they get older and too cool it becomes a pain.
"Moderate exercise" is not a very high bar. Chores and playing with your kids probably count. There's a good chance you're already getting the required amount.
I frequently see couples who have a baby buggy with big wheels that allows jogging. Or a trailer for the bike. Or a backpack where you can put a baby on top.
I wonder why this gets downvoted. Nowadays people are aware of what they sacrifice economically and physically when they have kids. It changes the incentives.
People choose between staying physically fit or have kids? I find that hard to believe.