Exercise Research Is Fundamentally Flawed and We Should Stop Trying to Optimize Workouts
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/by/emily-oster. "Opinion | This Exercise Research Tells Us Nothing - The New York Times." February 23, 2026. www.nytimes.com
The Gist
Most studies claiming one type of exercise is better than another are flawed because they compare different types of people, not just different exercises. Instead of obsessing over the 'perfect' workout, people should just find something they enjoy and can stick with regularly.
Conclusion
People should stop trying to optimize their exercise routines based on current research and instead focus on finding sustainable activities they can stick with long-term
Premises
- Most exercise research relies on observational studies that confuse correlation with causation rather than randomized controlled trials
- Observational studies show systematic differences between groups that do different exercises, making it impossible to isolate the effects of the exercise itself
- Large randomized trials comparing different exercise types are prohibitively expensive and difficult to conduct
- Current research creates misleading and constraining advice that can make people feel inadequate about perfectly good exercise programs
- What matters most for health benefits is adherence to regular exercise, not the specific type or optimization of the routine
- High-quality randomized studies consistently show benefits from any regular exercise that raises heart rate for about 2.5 hours per week
Assumptions
- People's primary goal should be long-term exercise adherence rather than theoretical optimization
- The health differences between various forms of exercise are likely small compared to the difference between exercising and not exercising
- Research resources would be better spent studying adherence strategies rather than comparing exercise types
- People can make reasonable exercise choices without detailed scientific optimization