Tools Self-checks up to 13 questions

Am I doing enough to recover?

up to 13 questions · about 3 minutes · scored on your device, nothing saved

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.

Most advice about recovery is either vague, rest more and be kind to yourself, or a list of twenty things nobody has time for. Neither tells you whether what you are already doing counts.

This one is different in a specific way that is worth understanding before you start. Six recovery habits have real trial evidence behind them, and those trials used specific amounts: so many minutes a week of moving, so many minutes of breathing, so long outdoors. We ask what you actually do and compare it to those amounts. So the score is not a rating of you: it is a measure of how close your current week sits to the doses that were tested.

That means every part of the score can be traced to a published number, and we have listed all of them at the bottom of this page. It also means the score can go up this week, which is rather the point.

How this self-check is put together

This is a dose-attainment index. That phrase is doing real work, so here is what it means: for six recovery habits, researchers have run trials at specific amounts, and we compare what you told us to those amounts. Being at the tested amount earns the lever's full points. Being at nothing earns none. The six lever scores add up to a number out of 100.

Why the levers are not weighted equally. Because the evidence behind them is not equal, and pretending otherwise would be the easy dishonest choice. Moving, slow breathing and sleep opportunity carry twenty points each: those are the three where a specific amount has been tested and the outcome data are strongest. Social contact and deliberate attention practice carry fifteen: the first has excellent long-run evidence but no tested weekly amount, the second has a tested amount but the most rigorous review found no advantage over other active approaches. Time outdoors carries ten, because the study behind its threshold looked at people at a single point in time. The six add up to one hundred. Each ceiling is set by the quality of the research behind the lever, not by how much we like it.

Moving: 150-300 minutes a week of moderate activity is the WHO recommendation (Bull 2020). Full marks start at 150 rather than 300 because the relationship curves: around the recommended volume, 8.8 marginal MET-hours a week, was associated with 25% lower depression risk (95% CI 18-32%) compared with no activity, with returns diminishing above it (Pearce 2022). In randomised trials, walking or jogging, yoga and strength training all beat active controls, with effects proportional to intensity (Hedges' g -0.62, -0.55 and -0.49 respectively, Noetel 2024); higher activity was also associated with lower odds of developing anxiety (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.88, Schuch 2019). Two muscle-strengthening sessions a week is the guideline figure.

Breathing: five minutes a day of slow breathing is a real tested dose. In a month-long randomised comparison, cyclic sighing improved mood more than mindfulness meditation did (Balban 2023). Across twelve randomised trials the pooled effect of breathwork on self-reported stress was g -0.35 (95% CI -0.55 to -0.14, Fincham 2023): real, and modest.

Sleep opportunity: seven to nine hours in bed. Seven to eight hours is one of five components of a sleep composite whose bands carry published hazard ratios (Hu 2024) and which replicated in 384,758 people (Bai 2024). Note that we ask how much time you allow, not how well you sleep: this is a habit question, not a sleep measurement.

Social contact: here we have to be honest that no trial gives a weekly dose, so the boundary is frequency logic. What justifies the fifteen-point ceiling is how strong the long-run evidence is: across 148 studies and 308,849 people, stronger social relationships were associated with a 50% greater likelihood of survival (Holt-Lunstad 2010), and social isolation and loneliness each carried elevated mortality risk (Holt-Lunstad 2015).

Deliberate attention practice: mindfulness-based stress reduction pooled at g = 0.55 across 29 studies of healthy adults (Khoury 2015). The ceiling is fifteen rather than twenty because the most rigorous review found only low-strength evidence for stress specifically, and no evidence of superiority over other active approaches (Goyal 2014), which is what keeps its ceiling below the three levers above.

Time outdoors: 120 minutes a week is the threshold above which reporting good health was more likely (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.31-1.92), with benefits peaking at 200-300 minutes (White 2019). That study looked at people at a single point in time, so it shows an association rather than a dose-response, which is exactly why this lever carries the smallest ceiling.

Where the band boundaries come from. The lower one, at 40, is the point below which you cannot be at the tested dose on both of the two best-evidenced levers at once: those two total 40 points on their own. The upper one, at 70, is the lowest score at which you can be at the tested dose on the four best-evidenced levers. Both are statements about dose attainment. Neither is a clinical threshold, and neither came from a population distribution.

What this score cannot do. It cannot predict how you will feel, and we will not imply otherwise. The cautionary case is a smartphone app trialled for preventing depression in workers: no effect at all in the intention-to-treat analysis, and benefit only among the people who genuinely engaged with it (Deady 2023). A score is a description of a week, not a forecast.

Common questions

How should I use this estimate?

Look at the lowest bar and ignore the number. The index exists to make the six bars comparable; the bar is what tells you where the next thirty minutes should go.

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.

Why is my score not 100 when I do all six?

Because the six levers carry different maximums by design: twenty for moving, breathing and sleep opportunity, fifteen for social contact and attention practice, ten for time outdoors. And because within a lever there is no extra credit above the tested amount. Doing more than the trials tested is not something we can claim a benefit for. The top band starts at 70 for the same reason: it asks that at most one of the three highest-weighted levers is missing, not that all six are maxed.

Why does moving count for more than time outdoors?

Because the evidence is stronger: twenty points against ten. Exercise has been tested in randomised trials against active comparators at specified amounts; the nature figure comes from a large study of people at one point in time, which can show an association but not a dose. We would rather weight the levers by the quality of their evidence and tell you we have done it.

What happens to what I enter?

It is scored on your device against a table of thresholds that ships with the page. Nothing you enter is sent to us or saved. We count how many people finish and which of the three results they get, as totals only.

Will raising my score make me feel better?

We are not going to promise that. The habits behind each lever have evidence for average benefit in groups of people; that is not the same as a prediction about you, and app-based programmes in particular have a track record of working only for the people who genuinely engage with them. What we can say is that the score describes something you control.

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.

  1. Pearce (2022). Association Between Physical Activity and Risk of Depression. JAMA Psychiatry. doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0609
  2. Noetel (2024). Effect of exercise for depression: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-075847
  3. Schuch (2019). Physical activity protects from incident anxiety: A meta‐analysis of prospective cohort studies. Depression and Anxiety. doi.org/10.1002/da.22915
  4. 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
  5. Fincham (2023). Effect of breathwork on stress and mental health: A meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials. Scientific Reports. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-27247-y
  6. Balban (2023). Brief structured respiration practices enhance mood and reduce physiological arousal. Cell Reports Medicine. doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100895
  7. Goessl (2017). The effect of heart rate variability biofeedback training on stress and anxiety: a meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine. doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717001003
  8. Khoury (2015). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for healthy individuals: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2015.03.009
  9. Goyal (2014). Meditation Programs for Psychological Stress and Well-being. JAMA Internal Medicine. doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13018
  10. White (2019). Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Scientific Reports. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44097-3
  11. Holt-Lunstad (2010). Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review. PLoS Medicine. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
  12. Holt-Lunstad (2015). Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality. Perspectives on Psychological Science. doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352
  13. Hu (2024). Sleep patterns and risks of incident cardiovascular disease and mortality among people with type 2 diabetes: a prospective study of the UK Biobank. Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome. doi.org/10.1186/s13098-024-01261-8
  14. Bai (2024). Sleep patterns, genetic susceptibility, and venous thromboembolism: A prospective study of 384,758 UK Biobank participants. PLOS ONE. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309870
  15. Smith (2008). The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. doi.org/10.1080/10705500802222972
  16. Kunzler (2018). Construct Validity and Population-Based Norms of the German Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). European Journal of Health Psychology. doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000016
  17. Deady (2023). Selective Prevention of Depression in Workers Using a Smartphone App: Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research. doi.org/10.2196/45963
  18. COLEMAN (2012). Initial Validation of an Exercise “Vital Sign” in Electronic Medical Records. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. doi.org/10.1249/mss.0b013e3182630ec1
  19. 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