[Fire-Dragon-DoL]

I don't understand how walking in the study is considerate moderate.

Like my heartrate for sure goes higher when lifting weights than when I walk. If I walk fast, it might get closer, but I am not that confident.

300 minutes of HIIT per week are equal to 10 HIIT sessions per week, I would argue that's outright impossible, the body cannot handle that, I don't think even an Olympic athlete can handle more than 3 times per week HIIT.

Vigorous might be possible, that's still 5 times 1 hour cardio sessions, on top of which you have to add 3 sessions of weight lifting for bone density, on top of which you have to add balance training and stretching.

There isn't enough time in a day to do that if you work, let alone if you have kids

[j_w]

HIIT is far beyond vigorous.

Vigorous would be Z2/3 cardio, so like 120-160 BPM for most adults. Moderate would be Z1 90-120.

Once you are capable of doing cardio consistently in Z4/5 with HIIT and tempo training you really don't need to worry about "am I doing enough exercise."

[Fire-Dragon-DoL]

I mean, according to this study I would still need that. I can average 165 BPM (because I'm trained, used to average 175) and max 180 in a session. But that's all the cardio I get. I walk 20 minutes per day to bring the kids to school, and lift weight.

Weight lifting doesn't count, but I tested yesterday and I average 110 bpm during a workout (it's constant ups-and-downs). Based on that, it would count for moderate exercise.

The time investment is steep if we cannot count weight lifting, there is no escape.