The latest large-scale analysis suggests men often need far more exercise than women to achieve the same reduction in coronary heart disease risk, with wearable data revealing clear sex-based differences in how physical activity protects the heart. This article walks through the study’s methods, the headline comparisons in minutes-per-week, mortality versus incidence effects, expert reaction, and what the numbers imply for prevention strategies. The focus stays squarely on coronary heart disease and how activity levels translate into real-world risk shifts. Expect concrete figures and a frank take on why tailored guidance matters.
Researchers mined wearable accelerometer data from more than 85,000 people tracked through the U.K. Biobank to measure moderate to vigorous physical activity over a defined window. Participants were free of coronary heart disease at baseline and then followed for nearly eight years to see who developed the condition and who died from it. The dataset skewed older, with mean ages around the early 60s for incidence and mid-60s for mortality analyses, and women represented a larger share in the incidence arm.
After accounting for usual risk factors such as body mass index and smoking, the investigators found a consistent pattern: women gained measurable heart protection at lower activity volumes than men. A modest bump—30 extra minutes of exercise per week—correlated with a 2.9% lower incidence risk in women compared with a 1.9% lower risk in men. That difference scaled up at higher activity levels, revealing a sex gap in the dose-response curve between activity and disease prevention.
Standard public health guidance of 150 minutes per week translated differently by sex in this dataset. Meeting that guideline lowered coronary heart disease incidence by roughly 22% for women and about 17% for men. Pushing to 300 minutes a week—five hours—was tied to a 21% lower incidence in women but only an 11% reduction in men, suggesting diminishing returns for men unless activity is substantially increased.
The study spelled out how many minutes are needed for similar relative benefits: for about a 30% reduction in incidence, women needed roughly 250 minutes per week while men needed about 530 minutes. Mortality outcomes showed an even sharper split, with 150 minutes per week linked to a 70% lower risk of death from coronary heart disease in women but only a 19% reduction in men. To cut mortality by 30%, women needed about 51 minutes per week and men about 85 minutes, according to the analysis.
The authors summed up the practical upshot by saying these findings “underscore the value of sex-specific tailored coronary heart disease prevention strategies using wearable devices, which may help bridge the ‘gender gap’ by motivating females to engage in physical activity.” That line drives home the idea that wearable tech can quantify differences and potentially inform personalized targets rather than a one-size-fits-all prescription.
On television, Fox News senior medical analyst Dr. Marc Siegel reacted candidly to the numbers, offering a mix of observational and physiological explanations. “I can tell you, having been married for almost 30 years, that women are better than men. There’s no question about it,” he said. “Physiologically, spiritually, women are superior.”
Siegel pointed to biological and behavioral drivers for the gap, noting higher testosterone in men can act “bad for cholesterol,” and men tend to store fat “in the wrong places” in the gut, driving inflammation. He also summarized lifestyle patterns bluntly: “We smoke more, we drink more, we don’t exercise as much,” Siegel said about men in general. “All of that puts us at risk for heart disease.”
The study also acknowledged that women’s risk profile shifts with age, observing that women “start to catch up” after menopause, although the process can be gradual. For clinicians and people tracking activity with wearables, the message is practical: women may reach protective thresholds with less exercise, while men may need substantially higher volumes to match the same relative risk reduction. Those are testable, actionable numbers you can use when planning prevention strategies or counseling patients.
