Am I moving enough?
This is educational, not diagnostic. These questions help you notice a pattern in your own routine. They cannot tell you what is causing it, and they are not a substitute for care from a doctor or clinician.
Your answers are scored on your device. Nothing you enter here is sent to us or saved.
In a typical week, how many minutes do you spend moving hard enough that your breathing picks up and you could not sing?
Brisk walking counts. So do classes, cycling, swimming, gardening that gets you warm, and carrying a toddler up a hill.
Across how many days of the week is that spread?
If you know roughly how many steps you average a day, which band is closest?
Skip this if you do not track steps. It does not change your result: it is here so we can show you where your number sits against the research rather than against the 10,000-step myth.
In a typical week, how many times do you do something that works your muscles against resistance?
Weights, machines, resistance bands, bodyweight work, a strength or Pilates class with real load. Yoga counts if it is the strong kind.
Over the past few months, has what you lift or push got heavier?
Is any of your movement done on your feet, carrying your own weight?
Walking, running, dancing, stairs, racket sports. Cycling and swimming are not.
On a normal weekday, roughly how many hours are you sitting down?
Desk, sofa, car, train. Add them up.
Do you get up and move about during long stretches of sitting?
When you exert yourself, do any of these happen?
Answer only what you are comfortable answering. You can skip this and still get a result.
Do any of these apply to you?
Answer only what you are comfortable answering. You can skip this and still get a result.
Are you pregnant, trying to conceive, or breastfeeding?
Answer only what you are comfortable answering. You can skip this and still get a result.
Please speak to a doctor today
Please act on this today.
You told us you get chest pain, pressure or tightness when you exert yourself. That needs assessing before anything changes about how you move, so we have not scored your answers.
Please speak to a doctor today: contact your GP practice, or in the UK call 111. If it is happening right now, is severe, or comes with breathlessness that will not settle, call 999.
Please book a GP appointment soon
Please arrange this soon.
You told us that exertion has been feeling different recently: things you could do easily a few months ago now feel hard, or you get breathless and dizzy sooner than you would expect. A change like that is worth assessing rather than training through, so we have not scored your answers.
A GP appointment is a good next step, and it is fine to bring exactly what you told us here. It is a short appointment, and it is worth booking soon.
Your result: Building
Your week currently sits below both published targets. Here is the part that matters more than the gap: the benefit curve is steepest at the bottom. Pooled across 57 studies, going from around 2,000 steps a day to around 7,000 was associated with 47% lower all-cause mortality, and most of the flattening had happened by 7,000. The first thirty minutes a week are worth more than the last thirty, and you have the first thirty available.
You have told us you sit for a long stretch most days and that your moving is currently light. That combination is the one the research actually flags: among the least active third of adults, mortality risk climbed across increasing thirds of sitting time, reaching a hazard ratio of 2.63. The useful part is that the same work shows the association fading in people who are more active, so this is a reason to add movement, not a reason to buy a standing desk.You sit for a long stretch most days, and you are also at or above the activity guideline. That matters: in a harmonised analysis of over a million adults, the mortality risk associated with high sitting time was attenuated or eliminated among the most physically active. Your desk job is not undoing your training. Breaking up the sitting is still worth doing for other reasons, short light walks after meals beat standing breaks on blood sugar and insulin, but it is a refinement, not a rescue.Your sitting hours are not long enough to be the thing worth working on. Whichever target is short above is the better use of your attention.
Under 4,000 steps a day sits at the bottom of the normative adult range, which reviews put at roughly 4,000 to 18,000 for healthy adults.Four to seven thousand steps a day is inside the normal adult range and just below the point where the mortality curve starts to flatten, which in pooled data is around 7,000 rather than 10,000.Seven to ten thousand steps a day is at or above the point where the pooled mortality curve flattens. Pooling 57 studies, 7,000 steps against 2,000 was associated with 47% lower all-cause mortality, with the reduction levelling off around 5,000-7,000 for most outcomes.Over ten thousand is more than the data require. The mortality curve in older women plateaued around 7,500, and 10,000 was never a research figure in the first place: it came from a pedometer marketing campaign.
You are training well above the guideline figures, which is fine for most people and worth a sentence of caution for some. If your periods have stopped or become irregular alongside this training load, that combination is worth discussing with a clinician before you add anything: it is a recognised pattern and not something to work around.
- Start with minutes, not sessions. Three ten-minute brisk walks in a day is a legitimate way to hit the target: the guideline dropped its ten-minute minimum bout rule in 2020, and one-to-three-minute bursts of activity carry real association in people who do no formal exercise.
- Add one thing that loads your muscles, at a weight that feels easy. Once a week counts as a start, and it is the target women are most likely to be missing entirely.
- Put it on your feet where you can. Weight-bearing movement does something for bone that cycling and swimming do not.
Where this goes in Femy: Movement Snacks: sub-one-minute movement bouts
Start with: Stage 03 Strength, 'Movement That Actually Helps'
This is an educational description of the pattern in your answers. It is a description of your current activity, not a fitness assessment or a training prescription. If you have a heart, joint, or pregnancy-related condition, check with a clinician before increasing what you do. If something here is new, getting worse, or worrying you, speak to a clinician rather than wait.
Your result: Cardio covered, strength missing
You are at or above the activity guideline and below the strengthening one. This is the commonest genuine pattern and it is worth knowing how common: only about 30% of adults meet the muscle-strengthening guideline, and women meet it less often than men.
It is also the gap with the most to gain. Muscle-strengthening activity has been associated with 10-17% lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, total cancer and diabetes, and it is the only one of the two targets that does anything meaningful for bone.
You have told us you sit for a long stretch most days and that your moving is currently light. That combination is the one the research actually flags: among the least active third of adults, mortality risk climbed across increasing thirds of sitting time, reaching a hazard ratio of 2.63. The useful part is that the same work shows the association fading in people who are more active, so this is a reason to add movement, not a reason to buy a standing desk.You sit for a long stretch most days, and you are also at or above the activity guideline. That matters: in a harmonised analysis of over a million adults, the mortality risk associated with high sitting time was attenuated or eliminated among the most physically active. Your desk job is not undoing your training. Breaking up the sitting is still worth doing for other reasons, short light walks after meals beat standing breaks on blood sugar and insulin, but it is a refinement, not a rescue.Your sitting hours are not long enough to be the thing worth working on. Whichever target is short above is the better use of your attention.
Under 4,000 steps a day sits at the bottom of the normative adult range, which reviews put at roughly 4,000 to 18,000 for healthy adults.Four to seven thousand steps a day is inside the normal adult range and just below the point where the mortality curve starts to flatten, which in pooled data is around 7,000 rather than 10,000.Seven to ten thousand steps a day is at or above the point where the pooled mortality curve flattens. Pooling 57 studies, 7,000 steps against 2,000 was associated with 47% lower all-cause mortality, with the reduction levelling off around 5,000-7,000 for most outcomes.Over ten thousand is more than the data require. The mortality curve in older women plateaued around 7,500, and 10,000 was never a research figure in the first place: it came from a pedometer marketing campaign.
You are training well above the guideline figures, which is fine for most people and worth a sentence of caution for some. If your periods have stopped or become irregular alongside this training load, that combination is worth discussing with a clinician before you add anything: it is a recognised pattern and not something to work around.
- Two sessions a week is the figure, and they do not need to be long. That is the guideline target and the point at which the benefits in the research start appearing.
- Pick the weight you can move ten times without drama, and make it slightly heavier next month. Progression is where the bone and muscle results come from, not attendance.
- If you cycle or swim for your cardio, add something on your feet. Weight-bearing loading has its own effect on bone density that non-weight-bearing exercise does not reproduce.
Where this goes in Femy: Progressive Loading
Start with: Stage 03 Strength, 'What Women Are Not Told' and 'Movement That Actually Helps'
This is an educational description of the pattern in your answers. It is a description of your current activity, not a fitness assessment or a training prescription. If you have a heart, joint, or pregnancy-related condition, check with a clinician before increasing what you do. If something here is new, getting worse, or worrying you, speak to a clinician rather than wait.
Your result: Strength covered, cardio light
You are at or above the strengthening target, which most adults are not, and below the activity one. This is the easier of the two gaps to close, because the aerobic target no longer requires you to do it in blocks of ten minutes or more.
You have told us you sit for a long stretch most days and that your moving is currently light. That combination is the one the research actually flags: among the least active third of adults, mortality risk climbed across increasing thirds of sitting time, reaching a hazard ratio of 2.63. The useful part is that the same work shows the association fading in people who are more active, so this is a reason to add movement, not a reason to buy a standing desk.You sit for a long stretch most days, and you are also at or above the activity guideline. That matters: in a harmonised analysis of over a million adults, the mortality risk associated with high sitting time was attenuated or eliminated among the most physically active. Your desk job is not undoing your training. Breaking up the sitting is still worth doing for other reasons, short light walks after meals beat standing breaks on blood sugar and insulin, but it is a refinement, not a rescue.Your sitting hours are not long enough to be the thing worth working on. Whichever target is short above is the better use of your attention.
Under 4,000 steps a day sits at the bottom of the normative adult range, which reviews put at roughly 4,000 to 18,000 for healthy adults.Four to seven thousand steps a day is inside the normal adult range and just below the point where the mortality curve starts to flatten, which in pooled data is around 7,000 rather than 10,000.Seven to ten thousand steps a day is at or above the point where the pooled mortality curve flattens. Pooling 57 studies, 7,000 steps against 2,000 was associated with 47% lower all-cause mortality, with the reduction levelling off around 5,000-7,000 for most outcomes.Over ten thousand is more than the data require. The mortality curve in older women plateaued around 7,500, and 10,000 was never a research figure in the first place: it came from a pedometer marketing campaign.
You are training well above the guideline figures, which is fine for most people and worth a sentence of caution for some. If your periods have stopped or become irregular alongside this training load, that combination is worth discussing with a clinician before you add anything: it is a recognised pattern and not something to work around.
- Accumulate rather than schedule. Brisk walking between other things counts, and short bursts of one to three minutes were associated with meaningfully lower mortality than bursts under a minute in people doing no formal exercise.
- Aim for spread across three or more days rather than one long session. Same minutes, better fit, and the research supports counting it.
- Keep the strength work exactly as it is. It is the harder of the two habits to build and the one most women never manage.
Where this goes in Femy: Movement Snacks
Start with: Stage 03 Strength, 'Movement That Actually Helps'
This is an educational description of the pattern in your answers. It is a description of your current activity, not a fitness assessment or a training prescription. If you have a heart, joint, or pregnancy-related condition, check with a clinician before increasing what you do. If something here is new, getting worse, or worrying you, speak to a clinician rather than wait.
Your result: Well covered
You are at or above both published targets, which puts you in a genuine minority: in one analysis of 383,928 adults, 23.5% met the combined aerobic and strengthening guidelines. Nothing here needs adding.
There are two refinements worth naming, and neither is more volume.
You have told us you sit for a long stretch most days and that your moving is currently light. That combination is the one the research actually flags: among the least active third of adults, mortality risk climbed across increasing thirds of sitting time, reaching a hazard ratio of 2.63. The useful part is that the same work shows the association fading in people who are more active, so this is a reason to add movement, not a reason to buy a standing desk.You sit for a long stretch most days, and you are also at or above the activity guideline. That matters: in a harmonised analysis of over a million adults, the mortality risk associated with high sitting time was attenuated or eliminated among the most physically active. Your desk job is not undoing your training. Breaking up the sitting is still worth doing for other reasons, short light walks after meals beat standing breaks on blood sugar and insulin, but it is a refinement, not a rescue.Your sitting hours are not long enough to be the thing worth working on. Whichever target is short above is the better use of your attention.
Under 4,000 steps a day sits at the bottom of the normative adult range, which reviews put at roughly 4,000 to 18,000 for healthy adults.Four to seven thousand steps a day is inside the normal adult range and just below the point where the mortality curve starts to flatten, which in pooled data is around 7,000 rather than 10,000.Seven to ten thousand steps a day is at or above the point where the pooled mortality curve flattens. Pooling 57 studies, 7,000 steps against 2,000 was associated with 47% lower all-cause mortality, with the reduction levelling off around 5,000-7,000 for most outcomes.Over ten thousand is more than the data require. The mortality curve in older women plateaued around 7,500, and 10,000 was never a research figure in the first place: it came from a pedometer marketing campaign.
You are training well above the guideline figures, which is fine for most people and worth a sentence of caution for some. If your periods have stopped or become irregular alongside this training load, that combination is worth discussing with a clinician before you add anything: it is a recognised pattern and not something to work around.
- If what you lift has not got heavier in a few months, that is the refinement. Progressive loading is where the bone and muscle results in the trials came from.
- If your movement is mostly cycling, swimming or machines, add something weight-bearing. Bone responds to loading specifically, and this is the gap a very fit woman is most likely to have.
- Consider whether the lever that is actually short for you is somewhere else. Movement is not your gap, and the programme works on four.
Where this goes in Femy: Progressive Loading, run as maintenance
Start with: Stage 03 Strength, 'Understanding Your Hormones' for the life-stage context
This is an educational description of the pattern in your answers. It is a description of your current activity, not a fitness assessment or a training prescription. If you have a heart, joint, or pregnancy-related condition, check with a clinician before increasing what you do. If something here is new, getting worse, or worrying you, speak to a clinician rather than wait.
Not enough answers for a full result
This check rests on two anchor questions: the one about weekly minutes of harder movement and the one about strength sessions. You skipped at least one of them, so the read it anchors is not assessed and we have left the combined result off rather than guess. Anything we could read from the answers you did give is shown below.
For reference, adults are generally advised to aim for 150 to 300 minutes a week of moderate activity, or 75 to 150 vigorous, plus muscle-strengthening work on two or more days. Those are recommendations for adults in general, not a range you have fallen outside of.
You have told us you sit for a long stretch most days and that your moving is currently light. That combination is the one the research actually flags: among the least active third of adults, mortality risk climbed across increasing thirds of sitting time, reaching a hazard ratio of 2.63. The useful part is that the same work shows the association fading in people who are more active, so this is a reason to add movement, not a reason to buy a standing desk.You sit for a long stretch most days, and you are also at or above the activity guideline. That matters: in a harmonised analysis of over a million adults, the mortality risk associated with high sitting time was attenuated or eliminated among the most physically active. Your desk job is not undoing your training. Breaking up the sitting is still worth doing for other reasons, short light walks after meals beat standing breaks on blood sugar and insulin, but it is a refinement, not a rescue.Your sitting hours are not long enough to be the thing worth working on. Whichever target is short above is the better use of your attention.
Under 4,000 steps a day sits at the bottom of the normative adult range, which reviews put at roughly 4,000 to 18,000 for healthy adults.Four to seven thousand steps a day is inside the normal adult range and just below the point where the mortality curve starts to flatten, which in pooled data is around 7,000 rather than 10,000.Seven to ten thousand steps a day is at or above the point where the pooled mortality curve flattens. Pooling 57 studies, 7,000 steps against 2,000 was associated with 47% lower all-cause mortality, with the reduction levelling off around 5,000-7,000 for most outcomes.Over ten thousand is more than the data require. The mortality curve in older women plateaued around 7,500, and 10,000 was never a research figure in the first place: it came from a pedometer marketing campaign.
You are training well above the guideline figures, which is fine for most people and worth a sentence of caution for some. If your periods have stopped or become irregular alongside this training load, that combination is worth discussing with a clinician before you add anything: it is a recognised pattern and not something to work around.
- If one bar is shown below, that read still stands on its own: compare it with the guideline figure above.
- Answer both anchor questions next time for the full picture of which target to close first.
This is an educational description of the pattern in your answers. It is a description of your current activity, not a fitness assessment or a training prescription. If you have a heart, joint, or pregnancy-related condition, check with a clinician before increasing what you do. If something here is new, getting worse, or worrying you, speak to a clinician rather than wait.
Most answers to this question are either a number somebody made up or a training plan you did not ask for. The 10,000-step target is the famous example: it came from a pedometer marketing campaign, not from research, and the actual data put the useful range well below it.
This check does something narrower and more useful. There are two published targets for adults, one for the moving that makes you breathe harder, one for the work that loads your muscles, and they are separate targets for a reason. We ask what your week actually looks like, compare it to both, and tell you which of the two to close first. Most women are much closer on one than the other, and it is almost always the same one.
It is a description of your current week, not a fitness test and not a training prescription. We compare your answers to published general guidance for adults. We have not tested this quiz against any clinical measure.
How this self-check is put together
There are two separate published targets for adults, and we score them separately rather than blending them. The World Health Organization's 2020 guidelines recommend 150-300 minutes a week of moderate activity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous, plus muscle-strengthening activity on two or more days, and they removed the old requirement that activity be accumulated in bouts of at least ten minutes (Bull 2020). That removal matters for how this quiz scores: minutes spread across the day count.
Why two reads instead of one number. Because the two targets are met at very different rates, and blending them would hide the gap that matters. Across 1,735,626 US adults, the share meeting the muscle-strengthening guideline rose only from 29.1% to 30.3% over six years, with women consistently less likely to meet it than men (Bennie 2020); among 383,928 adults, just 23.5% met the combined aerobic and strengthening guidelines (Bennie 2019). A single fitness score would let a good walking habit conceal a zero on the target you are most likely to be missing.
What we do with steps, and why 10,000 is not the figure. The step question is optional and does not affect your result: it is there so we can show you where your number sits. The pooled evidence puts the useful range well below the familiar target: across 57 studies, 7,000 steps a day against 2,000 was associated with 47% lower all-cause mortality (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.46-0.60), with the risk reduction flattening around 5,000-7,000 for most outcomes (Ding 2025). In a harmonised analysis of 15 cohorts the dose-response inflection sat at 6,000-8,000 steps a day in adults over 60 (Paluch 2022). In older women specifically, mortality declined until roughly 7,500 steps and then plateaued, with the top step quartile at HR 0.42 (95% CI 0.30-0.60) (Lee 2019); in US adults, 8,000 steps against 4,000 carried HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.44-0.55) (Saint-Maurice 2020). Step intensity was not significant after adjusting for total steps in either. And for context on what is normal rather than optimal, normative reviews put healthy adults at roughly 4,000 to 18,000 steps a day (Tudor-Locke 2011), with older adults averaging 2,000 to 9,000 (Tudor-Locke 2011b).
Why the strength questions ask about progression and weight-bearing. Because those are where the results in the trials came from. Muscle-strengthening activity has been associated with 10-17% lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, total cancer, diabetes and lung cancer (Momma 2022). For bone specifically, eight months of high-intensity resistance and impact training in postmenopausal women with low bone mass improved lumbar spine bone density by 2.9% against a 1.2% loss in controls (Watson 2017); high-load resistance training pools at SMD 1.40 for lumbar spine density (Kitsuda 2021); and across exercise types in postmenopausal women, dynamic resistance training (SMD 0.40) and weight-bearing exercise (SMD 0.26) both improved lumbar spine density (Kemmler 2020). One network meta-analysis found three sessions a week better than two for lumbar spine density (Wang 2023), which is why the third session earns a point. There is also a life-stage reason this target matters for Femy's readers: premenopausal middle-aged women had greater appendicular lean mass and femoral neck bone density than postmenopausal women of similar age (Sipilä 2020).
An important limit on that evidence. LIFTMOR and the high-load trials were supervised programmes, and the supervision is part of why they were safe. Nothing on this page recommends heavy or high-impact loading, and if you have been told you have low bone density, have broken a bone from a minor knock, get pain when you load a joint, or have had joint surgery recently, we leave the progression advice out entirely and point you at a physiotherapist or your GP.
Why sitting is not scored. Because its association with mortality is conditional on how active you are, and scoring it additively would state a claim the evidence does not support. Among the least active third of adults, mortality risk rose across increasing thirds of sedentary time to HR 2.63 (95% CI 1.93-3.57), and the association attenuated in more active participants (Ekelund 2020), consistent with the harmonised analysis of over a million adults which found the risk of high sitting time attenuated or eliminated in the most active (Ekelund 2016). So your sitting hours change the sentence we show you rather than your score. Where breaking up sitting is worth doing, the specific thing that works is short light walks rather than standing: light-intensity walking breaks reduced post-meal glucose (d = -0.72) and insulin (d = -0.83) and outperformed standing breaks (Buffey 2022).
Why there is no fitness score, fitness age or VO2 estimate. Equations exist that estimate cardiorespiratory fitness without an exercise test (Jurca 2005), and we have deliberately not used one. A fitness estimate is a claim about your body; this page describes your week. The same reasoning rules out a 'fitness age' figure.
Limits of this estimate. Self-reported activity is only loosely related to measured activity. The IPAQ's own 12-country study found test-retest repeatability clustering around 0.8 but criterion validity against accelerometry with a median correlation of about 0.30 (Craig 2003). People generally over-report. Read your result as a rough placement, not a measurement.
The guideline figures are recommendations for adults in general. They are not a range you have fallen outside of, and the population adherence figures we quote describe adults, not you. We compare your answers to published general guidance for adults. We have not tested this quiz against any clinical measure. Pregnancy has its own activity guidance, which is a conversation for your midwife or GP.
Persistent problems deserve support. If you get chest pain, pressure or tightness when you exert yourself, that needs assessing before you change anything about how you move: please contact your GP today or call 111. And if things you could do easily a few months ago now feel hard, that change is worth an appointment rather than pushing through.
Common questions
How should I use this estimate?
Close the target that came out short, and ignore the other one for now. The whole point of scoring the two separately is that they need different actions and almost nobody is equally short on both.
Is this medical advice?
No. Femy is educational content about wellness habits. It does not diagnose, treat, or replace care from a doctor or clinician. If you have a heart, joint, or pregnancy-related condition, check with a clinician before increasing what you do.
Is 10,000 steps a day the target?
No, and it never was a research figure: it came from a pedometer marketing campaign. The pooled data put the flattening of the mortality curve nearer 7,000 steps a day, with the plateau in older women around 7,500. If you are on 7,000 you are not falling short.
Does my desk job cancel out my exercise?
Largely, no, and this is where most content gets it wrong. The risk associated with long sitting hours is much clearer in people who are otherwise inactive, and in a million-participant analysis it was attenuated or eliminated among the most active. Breaking up sitting is still worth doing, and short light walks do more for it than standing does.
Why does it ask whether my weights have got heavier?
Because progression is where the results in the trials came from, not attendance. That said, nothing here recommends heavy lifting: the trials that produced the bone-density gains were supervised, and if you have any bone or joint concern we leave the progression advice out and point you at a physiotherapist instead.
What happens to what I enter?
It is scored on your device against figures that ship with the page. Nothing you enter is sent to us or saved. We count how many people finish and which of the four results they get, as totals only.
Sources checked
Built from published research, with every source listed below. We checked these sources for the figures we quote: the typical ranges, the guideline targets, and the doses used in the trials we describe. We compare your answers to published general guidance for adults. We have not tested this quiz against any clinical measure.
- Bull (2020). World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. British Journal of Sports Medicine. doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-102955
- Ding (2025). Daily steps and health outcomes in adults: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. The Lancet Public Health. doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(25)00164-1
- Paluch (2022). Daily steps and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis of 15 international cohorts. The Lancet Public Health. doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00302-9
- Lee (2019). Association of Step Volume and Intensity With All-Cause Mortality in Older Women. JAMA Internal Medicine. doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0899
- Saint-Maurice (2020). Association of Daily Step Count and Step Intensity With Mortality Among US Adults. JAMA. doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.1382
- Tudor-Locke (2011). How many steps/day are enough? for adults. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-8-79
- Tudor-Locke (2011). How many steps/day are enough? For older adults and special populations. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-8-80
- Ahmadi (2023). Brief bouts of device-measured intermittent lifestyle physical activity and its association with major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality in people who do not exercise: a prospective cohort study. The Lancet Public Health. doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(23)00183-4
- Ekelund (2020). Joint associations of accelerometer-measured physical activity and sedentary time with all-cause mortality: a harmonised meta-analysis in more than 44 000 middle-aged and older individuals. British Journal of Sports Medicine. doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-103270
- Ekelund (2016). Does physical activity attenuate, or even eliminate, the detrimental association of sitting time with mortality? A harmonised meta-analysis of data from more than 1 million men and women. The Lancet. doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30370-1
- Ekelund (2019). Dose-response associations between accelerometry measured physical activity and sedentary time and all cause mortality: systematic review and harmonised meta-analysis. BMJ. doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4570
- Buffey (2022). The Acute Effects of Interrupting Prolonged Sitting Time in Adults with Standing and Light-Intensity Walking on Biomarkers of Cardiometabolic Health in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01649-4
- Bennie (2020). Trends in Muscle-Strengthening Exercise Among Nationally Representative Samples of United States Adults Between 2011 and 2017. Journal of Physical Activity and Health. doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2019-0472
- Bennie (2019). The epidemiology of aerobic physical activity and muscle-strengthening activity guideline adherence among 383,928 U.S. adults. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-0797-2
- Momma (2022). Muscle-strengthening activities are associated with lower risk and mortality in major non-communicable diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. British Journal of Sports Medicine. doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2021-105061
- Watson (2018). High-Intensity Resistance and Impact Training Improves Bone Mineral Density and Physical Function in Postmenopausal Women With Osteopenia and Osteoporosis: The LIFTMOR Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3284
- Kitsuda (2021). Impact of high-load resistance training on bone mineral density in osteoporosis and osteopenia: a meta-analysis. Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism. doi.org/10.1007/s00774-021-01218-1
- Kemmler (2020). Effects of Different Types of Exercise on Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Calcified Tissue International. doi.org/10.1007/s00223-020-00744-w
- Wang (2023). Comparative efficacy different resistance training protocols on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Frontiers in Physiology. doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2023.1105303
- Nelson (1994). Effects of High-Intensity Strength Training on Multiple Risk Factors for Osteoporotic Fractures. JAMA. doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03520240037038
- Sipilä (2020). Muscle and bone mass in middle‐aged women: role of menopausal status and physical activity. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle. doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12547
- COLEMAN (2012). Initial Validation of an Exercise “Vital Sign” in Electronic Medical Records. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. doi.org/10.1249/mss.0b013e3182630ec1
- CRAIG (2003). International Physical Activity Questionnaire: 12-Country Reliability and Validity. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. doi.org/10.1249/01.MSS.0000078924.61453.FB
- Jurca (2005). Assessing Cardiorespiratory Fitness Without Performing Exercise Testing. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.06.004
- Mountjoy (2023). 2023 International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) consensus statement on Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (REDs). British Journal of Sports Medicine. doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2023-106994