Women reach heart health goals with less exercise than men, new study suggests
A woman runs along a palm tree-lined street in La Jolla as the sun sets on the horizon of the Pacific Ocean on October 23, 2025 in San Diego, California. Kevin Carter/Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — Women may need less exercise than men to gain similar protection against coronary heart disease, according to a new study published in Nature Cardiovascular Research.
The findings come from an observational study of more than 85,000 adults in the United Kingdom who were followed for about seven years. Researchers used data from a one-time “snapshot” — a weeklong period of wrist-worn fitness tracker measurements — to examine how physical activity relates to heart disease risk and death rates.
The study found that women who got around four hours of moderate exercise each week lowered their risk of coronary heart disease by about 30%. However, men needed nearly twice as much — about eight hours of similar activity — to achieve the same level of heart protection. Additionally, women who already had heart disease experienced a threefold decrease in the risk of death compared with men with similar medical histories, who needed nearly twice as much weekly exercise to achieve a similar reduction in the risk of dying from any cause.
Moderate-intensity exercise includes activities like brisk walking or gardening — enough to get the heart pumping but not to the point of exhaustion, according to Dr. Jennifer Miao, a board-certified cardiologist and fellow of the ABC News Medical Unit. More vigorous workouts such as running, swimming laps or hiking uphill push the body harder and lead to a greater rise in heart rate, she explained.
The American Heart Association recommends that adults get at least two-and-a-half hours per week of moderate-intensity physical activity, or one-and-a-half hours per week of vigorous activity, or a combination of both. But even when following those exercise recommendations, the study found that differences between the sexes emerged.
Across all groups, the study confirmed that being active at any level was associated with a lower risk of heart disease compared with leading a sedentary lifestyle, with active women experiencing a 5% greater reduction in risk than active men.
And the more exercise someone got, the lower their risk of heart disease and death, highlighting what experts refer to as a clear dose-response relationship between physical activity and heart health.
There are two possible reasons women may benefit more from physical activity than men, according to the study authors. One explanation could be hormones.
“Physiologically, circulating estrogen levels are much higher in females than in males, and estrogen can promote body fat loss during exercise,” Dr. Jiajin Chen, one of the study’s authors and a researcher at the Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases in China, told ABC News.
Another possible reason has to do with muscle type. Men tend to have more “fast-twitch” muscles, which are great for quick, powerful movements. Women, on the other hand, usually have more “slow-twitch” muscles, which may help their bodies work a bit more efficiently during workouts.
“These physiological differences may partly explain the increased sensitivity to physical activity and greater cardiovascular benefit observed in females,” Chen said.
It’s also important to recognize how men and women can experience and be treated for coronary artery disease differently, Miao noted.
Women often develop the condition later in life, face a higher risk of death following a heart attack, and are less likely than men to undergo diagnostic procedures such as coronary angiography or receive standard medical care for coronary artery disease, she said.
Public health guidelines will benefit from acknowledging these sex-based differences to more effectively prevent cardiovascular disease, which is the world’s leading cause of death, the study authors suggest.
Miao agreed. She advised talking with your doctor before starting a new exercise routine, since physical activity recommendations depend on your fitness level, medical conditions, recent events like a stroke or heart attack, and overall mobility.
“Exercise routines should be personalized; it’s not a one-size-fits-all plan,” Miao said.
Dr. Cyrus Mowdawalla, MD, is a resident physician in internal medicine from Montefiore Medical Center and a contributing correspondent of the ABC News Medical Unit.
(NEW YORK) — During a speech earlier this week, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced the implementation of new fitness standards for the military.
In addition to the newly proposed annual fitness exam, Hegseth’s speech emphasized “gender-neutral” testing with men and women required to meet the same minimum physical performance benchmarks.
Speaking to hundreds of high-ranking military officials in Quantico, Virginia, Hegseth said it was important that certain combat positions return “to the highest male standard,” acknowledging that it may lead to fewer women serving in combat roles.
The current training is not different for male and female servicemembers.
“If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is,” he said on Tuesday. “If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it. That is not the intent, but it could be the result.”
“I don’t want my son serving alongside troops who are out of shape or in [a] combat unit with females who can’t meet the same combat arms physical standards as men,” Hegseth added.
Before becoming secretary, Hegseth had spoken out against women in combat roles, but softened his stance during his confirmation hearings, saying he supports women serving in combat roles so long as they meet the same standards as men — an approach the military says has been in place for nearly a decade.
Some experts in exercise science and in the history of women’s service in the military told ABC News that while there is room for improvement in military fitness, they are concerned there’s a false narrative that female servicemembers are the only ones not meeting certain fitness standards.
“To me, Hegseth wants a military that looks a certain way … which [is] definitely male and muscular,” Jill Hasday, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School with expertise in sex discrimination in the military, told ABC News. “It seems like his expectation is that once they enforce more ‘rigorous standards,’ more women will be pushed out.”
In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson for the Department of Defense said they did not “have anything to provide beyond Secretary Hegseth’s remarks.”
President Donald Trump also addressed officials at the Tuesday meeting, saying that “together, we’re reawakening the warrior spirit.”
Combat roles for women
In 2016, when the military opened certain high-intensity combat jobs to women, including the special operations forces, then-Secretary Ash Carter stated the importance of making sure female servicemembers “qualify and meet the standards.”
However, during his speech, Hegseth said the Department was issuing a directive that each military branch would ensure each requirement for “every designated combat arms position returns to the highest male standard only.”
In a follow-up memo from Hegseth, he stated the annual service test will require a passing grade of 70% and will be “sex-neutral” and “male standard.”
Additionally, beginning in 2026, the U.S. Army’s new fitness standards will require both male and female soldiers to meet the same minimum physical performance benchmarks for the demands of the battlefield.
Shawn Arent, a professor and chair in the department of exercise science at the University of South Carolina’s Arnold School of Public Health, said there’s nothing wrong with enforcing standards, but that there is a contradiction in Hegseth saying the tests will be “sex-normed” and also “male standard for combat roles.”
“I think we need to get away from referencing ‘male standards,'” Arent told ABC News. “They’re either standards or they’re a sex-specific standard. … I think there’s one really important caveat to this: those standards then need to make sense. In other words, what are they based on? And, if they’re arbitrary standards, then that feels certainly discriminatory.”
Arent said the standards need to be evidence-based and that it is possible the current standards need to be lowered or raised.
“It makes it sound like there’s this dramatic change, and that everything’s based on what a male can accomplish,” he said. “It should be what a combat soldier, Marine, sailor, airman, whatever, what they can accomplish in that particular role, male or female.”
Stewart Smith, a former Navy SEAL and current fitness trainer, including for those looking to enter the military, agreed, saying gender-neutral doesn’t equate to male standards.
“I don’t want to singularly say women can’t do these because there will be women that can, but I don’t think it’s a necessary focus,” Smith told ABC News. “Should [all servicemembers] be in shape and healthy and look good in a uniform? 100%. But … statistically speaking, these [maximum] standards are at a level that most men aren’t getting.”
He went on, “Saying something is gender-neutral doesn’t mean it’s the maximum male standard, right? Because, once again, if that’s the case, most males aren’t reaching that maximum male standard.”
What it would take to improve standards, according to experts
Smith and Arent said they are in favor of improving fitness standards across the military, but that Hegseth’s speech did not take into account all of the additional steps it would take to improve physical performance.
For example, Smith said improving fitness standards needs to come with improving food quality and sleep quality in the military.
“There’s a lot more problems than just high fitness standards,” he said. “Nutrition and sleep are required for that level of physical performance. … Those are the two biggest components to optimal performance that we’re stressing is you need to sleep well, you need to eat well, and you need time to train. All three are not a current priority in the military.”
Arent said this change in standards presents an opportunity for the military to examine how it can train people up to the new standards it will set.
He added that there’s a plethora of information on human performance and human optimization compared to even a decade ago
“As somebody who works with a lot of female athletes, there are ways to absolutely train them to be beasts,” Arent said. “Women are incredibly resilient, cognitively capable, and I think if you start thinking about combat roles, tactical decision-making, the ability to handle stress under these pressure situations — yes, physical fitness is a component to that, but what else are we assessing that goes with these roles?”
“We have a real opportunity here, if they lean into it to rather than setting these standards, like, ‘If you can’t meet it, too bad you suck. You’re out,'” he continued. “What are we going to do to modify how we’re approaching this to actually get more people to hit those standards?”
Too much focus on physical fitness and not other skills
The experts told ABC News that Hegseth’s speech did not focus on the other components that make people qualified to take on military combat roles.
“There’s more to leadership and service than the highest of [physical training] scores,” Smith said. “There’s learning tactics and leadership, and there’s more to leadership than great fitness tests.”
“Obviously, physical fitness can be important for many military roles, but it’s not the only thing that’s important. You don’t win a war through push-ups,” Hasday added. “Even when women were officially barred from combat, there were a lot of female troops that were essentially co-located with the troops, and they would go around with the combat troops.”
Hasday explained that in some countries where troops have been stationed, female civilians are not allowed to speak to men who are not members of their family. Having female service members with the male combat troops allowed the military to speak to female civilians to get information or to provide help.
“So, the idea, again, that you’re going to win a war by going outside someone’s house and doing push-ups, it just doesn’t seem realistic,” she said.
Female veterans hit back at Hegseth
Hegseth’s comments drew criticism from female veterans, particularly those who held combat roles.
Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat from New Jersey and a former Navy helicopter pilot, released a statement saying there is “no evidence that women cannot ably serve in combat positions.”
“Eliminating the current highly rigorous standards for women in combat positions has nothing to do with increasing lethality and everything to do with forcing women out of the Armed Forces,” she said.
Amy McGrath, a former Marine fighter pilot and Democratic Senate candidate in Kentucky, posted a video on Facebook stating there is no male standard or female standard for roles, including flying a fighter jet or being an artillery officer.
“Since combat roles have been open for qualified women, there have always been one standard for those jobs,” she said. “It’s a slap in the face and offensive to suggest otherwise.”
Arent said he can understand why this would be upsetting to former female servicemembers who held combat roles, particularly in reference to Hegseth’s comments about not wanting his son to be in a combat unit with women who weren’t meeting the same physical standards as men.
“Because of the way it [was] said, it makes it sound like it’s the females that are deficient,” he said. “But I would argue, by the same token, if they are physically capable, what if they’re more cognitively capable, more tactically capable, you would want them alongside your son, if that’s the case.”
Arent went on, “It’s not just women that aren’t meeting these standards. We have a whole lot of men that can’t meet some of these standards.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks at a press conference with other House Republicans on the 15th day of the government shutdown in Washington, DC on October 15, 2025. Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — As the federal government shutdown enters its third week, some Americans are worried about the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies.
The subsidies, or premium tax credits, help lower or eliminate the out-of-pocket cost of monthly premiums for those who purchase insurance through the health insurance marketplace.
They were enhanced during the COVID-19 pandemic and are currently set to expire at the end of 2025.
Democrats have been demanding that Republicans pass extensions of the subsidies before the government is reopened, while the GOP says it won’t negotiate until a clean funding bill passes and the government reopens.
A recent analysis from KFF found that premium payments could more than double in 2026 if the ACA enhanced premium tax credits expire.
Some Americans who rely on the tax credits to help pay for some or all of their or their family’s premiums told ABC News they’re worried that if the subsidies expire, they may be forced to choose a less comprehensive insurance plan or they may not be able to cover the cost of their premiums.
We ‘can’t afford to not have insurance’
Doug Butchart, 67, from Eglin, Illinois, told ABC News that his wife, Shadene, has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and currently receives her insurance through the health insurance marketplace.
Shadene Butchart, 58, started off on a Blue Cross bronze plan — or the lowest tier — but, as her disease progressed, the couple decided to upgrade to a gold plan, the highest tier, which covers a higher percentage of her health care costs.
The premium under this plan is $1,273.82 per month. The Butcharts receive enhanced premium tax credits that cover $670 of the monthly premium, leaving them to pay $603.82 per month themselves.
Without the premium tax credits, Doug Butchart said they cannot afford to pay the entire premium out of pocket each month.
“I’ve heard [premiums could rise] anywhere from 25 to 50%,” he said. “And that’s not sustainable because we can’t afford that but can’t afford to not have insurance.”
Doug Butchart said his wife doesn’t quality for Medicare and they don’t meet the income threshold to qualify for Medicaid.
“We’re stuck like in the middle because, normally with an ALS diagnosis, you’re automatically eligible for [Social Security Disability Insurance] and Medicare, but she doesn’t have any work credits, so she doesn’t qualify for Social Security Disability,” he explained. “So right now, we’re doing everything off of my Social Security, and it’s very hard to try and pay all the bills and keep insurance and, if they mess around with the marketplace insurance, it’s going to make it impossible for us to afford insurance.”
Now that the Butcharts have met the deductible for the year, combined with the anticipation of possibly losing tax credits and going to a lower tier insurance plan, the couple is trying to use insurance to get as much equipment as Shadene Butchart needs to manage her ALS before the end of the year.
This includes an order for a new wheelchair that Shadene Butchart could drive with her eyes, and that could cost anywhere from $65,000 to $95,000, Doug Butchart said.
Doug Butchart said they may have to downgrade to a lower-tier plan next year, but he’s not sure if the medications his wife currently takes will be covered by a “lesser plan.”
Doug Butchart, who is a retired mechanic, said he feels lucky that he does not need to worry about house or car payments — both of which are paid off — but there are other bills to pay and he did not expect to have to struggle to meet insurance costs every month.
“You work your entire life to make yourself comfortable and I’m sure there are things that we could do without but there’s not that much crazy spending to possibly have to cover $1,500 a month for insurance,” he said. “That’s a lot of money. … You don’t realize how important insurance is until you need it.”
‘It’s very much a worry’
Nancy Murphy, a retired registered nurse and insurance industry employee, was able to receive insurance through the ACA for the first time this year with Florida Blue.
Every month, her premium is $1,019 and the enhanced premium tax credits cover the total cost, she told ABC News. If there is no deal made before the Nov. 1 open enrollment deadline or the tax credits expire at the end of the year, she’s concerned about being able to cover the cost.
“It’s very much a worry. I definitely could not afford that if the tax credits expire,” said Murphy, 60, who lives in Fort Lauderdale. “It’s a scary thought as a type 1 diabetic.”
Murphy said she uses an insulin pump to manage her diabetes, which is covered by her insurance without a co-pay. However, she said she sometimes uses other medications that have a $30 a month co-pay.
She added that losing the tax credits is a concern because she has other costs she wants to make sure she can manage including property taxes and her daughter’s tuition for college in Boston.
Without knowing exactly how much premiums are going to increase by, she said she’s very anxious about what her budget will look like.
“I’m like in limbo and it’s a really uncomfortable feeling,” Murphy said. “I like to budget and plan out my budget. With tuition, property taxes and repairs that need to be done around the house, I need to map these out.”
She continued, “These things to me are so upsetting. We are American citizens. We should be able to access our tax dollars for our heath care needs.”
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. has confirmed the first case of a flesh-eating parasite in a human, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said on Monday.
New World screwworm (NWS) is a species of parasitic flies that feed on live tissue. The name refers to the way in which maggots screw themselves into the tissue of animals with their sharp mouth hooks, causing extensive damage and often leading to death.
The patient returned from travel to El Salvador, an HHS spokesperson told ABC News in a statement. The risk to the public in the U.S. is very low, they added.
Countries in Central America and Mexico have been dealing with an outbreak of the parasite among livestock.
Panama saw infections among livestock rise from an average of 25 cases annually to over 6,500 in 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) says. Since then, the parasite has been detected in seven other Central American countries, breaking a previously established barrier that contained the pest to South America for decades.
Screwworm has not been detected in animals within the U.S., the USDA noted. It was largely eradicated for decades in the U.S. through a technique in which male screwworm flies are sterilized and then released into the environment to mate with females until the population dies out.
But given the spread in neighboring countries, “[NWS] is not only a threat to our ranching community — but it is a threat to our food supply and our national security,” the USDA said in a press release where they outlined initiatives to prevent the parasite from crossing into the U.S.
Those initiatives include building a sterile fly production facility in Texas and hiring mounted patrol officers to track wildlife crossing as well as detector dogs to track imports along ports of entry. In May, the USDA banned imports of live cattle, horse and bison from Mexico and has since slowly re-opened trade.
Earlier this month, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for animal drugs to treat or prevent infestations caused by screwworm.
People who travel to outbreak areas, spend time among livestock animals, sleep outdoors, and have an open wound are at greater risk of becoming infested with screwworm, the CDC noted.
