What’s the “Best” Exercise? (Ep. 150 Rebroadcast)

Listen now:
(Photo: UNE Photos)

(Photo: UNE Photos)

This week’s Freakonomics Radio episode is a rebroadcast of the episode “What’s the “Best” Exercise?” (You can subscribe to the podcast at iTunes or elsewhere, get the RSS feed, or listen via the media player above. You can also read the transcript, which includes credits for the music you’ll hear in the episode.)

Our latest podcast is called “What’s the ‘Best’ Exercise?” (You can subscribe to the podcast at iTunes, get the RSS feed, or listen via the media player above. You can also read the transcript; it includes credits for the music you’ll hear in the episode.) Exercise is always on a lot of people’s minds around this time of year, what with all those resolutions just waiting to be broken …

By “best,” we really mean “most efficient,” since people who don’t exercise — and that’s roughly 80 percent of us — often blame lack of time. (The American College of Sports Medicine recommends about thirty minutes of moderate exercise most days of the week; here are its guidelines.) Read more…

Findia Group

Thanks for sharing!

Howard Brazee

When I mention to people where I live that squats are the best exercise for longevity, the response almost always is that their knees won't allow them to squat.

But I know that if it is hard to get out of a chair, people sit a lot.

Legs start getting weaker at a young age. Even professional boxers know that.


Agree with the guest on the show who said squats are the single best exercise. But like virtually every Freakonomics podcast or "study" this is full of so much simplistic naivety. For example they claim that the best way to measure exercise efficiency is through METS. Is this 1980?? METS is simplistic and has long been known to be a bad way to measure exercise effectiveness. Sure it is what is often mentioned in pedestrian articles like you'd find in glossy magazines but any physiologist or conditioning expert or fitness fanatic knows that measure VO2 Max is the best way. And looking at VO2 Max the results are strikingly different than the simplistic conclusions Freakonomics come up with.

I find this entire podcast to be mildy irritating. I like the host, but it gets especially irritating when Levitt comes on as he's the type of person who just picks and chooses what data he wants to look at and ignores any other, then he uses that data to make conclusions through big leaps without any real diligence. I now understand why actual economists, mathematicians, and statisticians are so critical of Freakonomics and argue that these guys do more harm then good just by pushing sensational simplistic nonsense to the masses.



"Do more harm THEN good?"

I find it mildly irritating - bordering on really irritating - that so many in 2015 do not know the difference between the words then and than.

Stacy Braslau-Schneck

Who the heck is Jasmine? Sounds like Siri...