Read Original Story

Walk A Little Faster To Get The Most Out of Your Exercise Time


4 Star



Walk A Little Faster To Get The Most Out of Your Exercise Time

Our Review Summary

This is a solid look at a study of the effects of exercise at different intensities and durations in obese people who were sedentary at the start of the study. The explanation of what the researchers did and what they found is careful, and the take-home messages are reasonable. The story didn’t, however, acknowledge that subjects in the higher-intensity exercise group had a higher rate of injuries that were not trivial. In addition, a bit more discussion of how cost can affect the availability of exercise would have been welcome.


Why This Matters

Many overweight, out-of-shape people want to begin exercise programs and are looking for guidance on how much is enough. This story highlights findings showing that exercising a bit harder and longer leads to a modest improvement in one risk factor for heart disease compared with a less intense regimen. While that’s one way to look at these results, you might also say that the results vindicate those who do the bare minimum that the government recommends. In this study, those who walked slowest, for the shortest amount of time, lost the same amount of bodyweight, the same number of inches from their waists, and had fewer injuries than those who exercised more vigorously. That might be a more relevant and inclusive message for a nation where getting no exercise at all is far too common.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Fitting exercise time into a life can be tricky if you are in poverty, working two jobs, or don’t have a safe neighborhood. The story delivers an implicit acknowledgment of such concerns in the first line when it says, “Some people — who are they? — have no problem fitting regular aerobic exercise into their lives.” But that’s not quite enough for a satisfactory rating here. The study involved “supervised” training sessions, which we assume means with some kind of trainer. How much would it cost to hire someone like that or join a gym that offers exercise equipment? A quick statement about those costs would’ve earned the story a pass here.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


The story (complete with table) did a fair job of balancing a digestible message with the caveats of research. It tells us that all the exercise groups lost about 2 inches off their waistline and about 5% to 6% of their bodyweight. Since average people don’t really think about weight loss in terms of “percentage bodyweight,” however, it would have been better for the story to tell us how much participants weighed at the start of the study and how much weight each group lost in pounds.

And while the story suggests that brisker walking gives more benefit by improving glucose tolerance, it expressly cautions that this change may not be meaningful to patients: “It’s unclear whether the 9 percent improvement seen will be enough to cut their risk of heart disease, though.” That’s a useful distinction.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The high-intensity exercisers in this study had higher rates of musculoskeletal issues (cramping, strains, bone breaks — several of which required hospitalization) than other groups. Adverse effects caused more people to drop out of the study in the high-intensity group compared with the other groups. The story did not mention this.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?


The story thoroughly describes the study in broad strokes, although it could have clarified for readers that this was a randomized study — a strong type of design that reduces the risk of bias.

We also like the way the story helps readers parse the Goldilocks style levels of low, moderate and high intensity exercise. And it clarifies that all participants were told to keep a food diary and to eat a healthful diet that would keep their calorie intake constant. That’s valuable context, since changes in diet between the groups could have affected many of these outcomes.

But what’s not clear — either in this story or in the original study — is how much the “healthful diet” prescribed during the study differed from what the participants were eating at the start of the study, and how much that change contributed to the benefits that were seen in all of the exercise groups. The story focuses on exercise being the critical factor producing the benefits, but a better diet could arguably have contributed to improvements in many of these outcomes. We wish the story had inspected that aspect of the study more closely, but we won’t penalize it for not doing so.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?


There was no disease mongering.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?


The story quotes an exercise expert who was not affiliated with the study. He provides some useful context on the value of strength training.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?


The story discusses the benefits of aerobic exercise on obesity and cardiovascular outcomes. It also mentions strength training, which we’ll consider good enough for a satisfactory rating. A mention of other approaches — calorie-restricted diet, medications, even surgery in some cases — would also have earned the story a pass on this one.

[Editor’s note: this story was originally graded Not Satisfactory on this criterion, but has been change to Satisfactory for the reasons discussed below in the comments.] 

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


Walking and other forms of exercise are widely available for most. As noted above, however, some mention of the cost of a gym membership would have been helpful in a story like this.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?


The story reminds readers that these results build on material already explored and reported. It establishes that the current study was investigating potential benefits — beyond saving time via a shorter workout — of higher exercise intensity.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?


Direct quotes from both the study author and an exercise expert show original reporting beyond any news release.


Total Score: 8 of 10 Satisfactory

Comments (3)

Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Laurence Alter

March 16, 2015 at 10:47 am

Dear Gary,

I think I would ask you to re-consider two matters (in an otherwise commendable analysis).

One: “costs of the intervention” means monetary outlay. It appears you’re really *stretching* the definition of expense here when you mention the luxury of hiring a trainer/equipment/gym or the luckless person living in poverty. By those loose measurements, any form of therapy or healthy lifestyle can be construed as requiring costs. I might have to take a bus and leave my low-class neighborhood: that costs too, but how can you hold the news writer responsible for that?!

Two: “new approach with existing alternatives” – well, I would assume those alternatives would be *within* the nature of the news article’s subject matter, NOT for any alternatives under the sun. Again, if you’re going to ask for a comparison with all types of methods, this can be used against any news article. You ask for comparisons to one’s diet, one’s medications, and even surgery! Basically, the whole nature of health should be compared. Why not include genetic diseases and childhood traumas as well! I believe that if the article made comparisons germane to the subject – various types of exercise, i.e., yoga, say, – that is sufficient.

Thank you for your general look at the news. I know you have helped me overcome my prejudice IN FAVOR of highly reputable news sources. I am now much less trusting of the reputations of the the supposed finest print news publications (you have yet to find fault with “The New Yorker,” however or did I miss that glorious day?….)

Sorry to not have answered any reply you might have made to my last letter a few months back – I can not locate it now to see if you answered. (Perhaps you could include a feature where the letter-writer is notified when a reader responds, with a corresponding link.)


Laurence Alter


Laurence Alter

March 17, 2015 at 8:22 am

Dear Kevin/Gary/other staff members:

Gee. The last time I changed anyone’s mind (to my knowing) was about 20 years ago in Germany: I managed to talk a German female medical student to move up her course in Obstetrics/Gynecology in the hopes he might consider that specialty earlier. Every 20 years, I “alter” someone’s mind. I have to live with that record (give me some latitude in satirical commentary, here).

Less comically, thanks for your studious consideration.

Before you know it, I might be able to change some of your criteria in measuring a news article’s worthiness. See? You’ve got me indulging in fantastical fantasizing.

Respectfully & Satirically,

Laurence Alter