Weekly blog

June 19

As we navigated the switchback and glanced down into the riverbed, we finally saw it. It was the item we had been hiking toward for a few miles, but having only heard about it secondhand, we weren’t exactly sure when we’d get there. For movie lovers, it felt a little like the scene in “Stand By Me” when they find Ray Brower. For those who don't get the reference, you’re missing a classic - make time to watch it - but I digress. Rusted and broken apart many feet below, the remains of a steam engine and the site of an on-the-job accident from 100 years prior were on display.

Of course, the steam-engine was a good excuse, but the real reason we were out there was to make the most of the season, enjoy the natural beauty of one of the national parks, and perhaps gain some of the well-documented direct physical, mental and even social health benefits of hiking—that is, MOVE, ENDURE, and CONNECT all in one—with the indirect benefits on FUEL via metabolic efficiency and RECOVER via improved sleep quality. This 2026 review does a great job outlining the cardiovascular, metabolic, psychosocial, neurological, and even immune benefits of hiking, something that might be particularly important for us middle-aged Americans if the decline discussed in this paper is accurate. However, one of the more interesting bits, in my opinion, is that, with a little external resistance—like a day pack or rucksack for the ambitious—it may provide a rare all-in-one activity that achieves both the aerobic and strength stimulus needed for longevity and quality of life.

According to new research published in the British Medical Journal earlier this month, which reviewed data from nearly 150,000 people over 30 years, the optimal mix of physical activity requires both aerobic and strength work. Those who performed only aerobic exercise needed more than 45 MET-hours per week to achieve optimal results (cutting their risk in half). However, when combined with 2 hours of strength training per week, the required aerobic dose dropped significantly, in some cases to 30 MET-hours or less. This, of course, begs 2 important questions:

1. What does this actually mean?

2. How do we know if we're getting close?

We don't often discuss metabolic equivalents of task (METs) or their time-bound counterparts, MET-minutes and MET-hours. In fact, looking back in the archive, I found they were mentioned only 3 times since 2020, but that doesn't diminish their importance. Very briefly, they are one way we compare physical activities by considering both time and intensity. For example, we know running is more demanding than walking, even if on the same course, because running is more intense. However, there is a point in time when, after walking long enough, the walker has done more work than the runner. The MET-minute (or hour) levels this playing field by considering the work intensity, which is defined by the average amount of Oxygen consumed while performing the task (the MET) and the duration. Using data from the 2024 version of the Compendium of Physical Activities (here), we can compare various activities. 

Leisurely walking alone would require almost 18 hours per week, a fairly steep commitment without strength training. That number drops to 12 hours for those who incorporate strength training, which is doable but still a lot. However, finding some trails with hills and adding ski poles for greater balance (Nordic walking) cuts the commitment down to just over 5 hours for the week or 3.5 hours if a couple of strength sessions are also included. Adding on a daypack cuts the time requirement even further. Of course, the Compendium contains thousands of different activities, ranging from household chores and yard work to athletic endeavors; all of them count. To see how much you need, divide 45 by the MET value of your chosen activity if you're not logging any strength training, or divide by 30 if you are in the gym at least 90 minutes each week.

Summer officially starts on Sunday. I hope you've got some fun and active health investments planned.

Have a great weekend,

Mike E.