75 Hard Challenge: Experts Weigh Risks & Benefits of Intense Fitness Trend
The 75 Hard challenge, a self-improvement program demanding strict adherence to a set of daily tasks for 75 consecutive days, is drawing scrutiny from health and fitness experts who warn its rigid structure may be more harmful than helpful. Created by entrepreneur Andy Frisella, the program has gained popularity on social media, marketed as a mental toughness regimen.
The challenge’s rules are straightforward: follow a diet of one’s choosing, drink one gallon of water daily, read ten pages of nonfiction, take a progress photo, and complete two 45-minute workouts, with one outdoors, every day. Failure to complete any task necessitates restarting the entire 75-day cycle.
Chicago runner Sarah Lyons experienced firsthand the demands of the program. Initially seeking structure to rebuild discipline, Lyons found the challenge’s inflexibility created stress. “There were many days when I delayed tasks until late in the evening, which added pressure rather than making me feel healthier,” she said, according to CNN reporting.
Experts caution that the “start over” rule can reinforce a cycle of perceived failure, hindering sustainable behavioral changes. Dana Santas, a certified strength and conditioning specialist and mind-body coach, stated that sustainable fitness is “about building habits that integrate into your lifestyle in a way that feels supportive and repeatable,” not through “punishment or proving discipline through extremes.”
The program’s strictness may also negatively impact eating behaviors, potentially contributing to disordered eating patterns and negative self-talk, warns Bethany Doerfler, a senior clinical research dietitian at Northwestern Medicine Digestive Health Institute. Individuals may also have differing interpretations of what constitutes a “slip-up,” potentially leading to unhealthy behaviors.
Whereas participants choose their own diet, experts emphasize the importance of a realistic approach. Doerfler recommends the Mediterranean diet, emphasizing fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, and nuts, with limited ultraprocessed foods. She suggests meal prepping – dedicating time to wash and chop produce – and planning for social situations to maintain consistency.
The requirement to drink one gallon of water daily has raised concerns among medical professionals. Doerfler notes that this equates to 16 cups, exceeding recommended daily fluid intake for most individuals (9 cups for females, 12.5 cups for males). Combined with a strict diet and increased exercise, this could lead to an electrolyte imbalance, specifically hyponatremia, which can cause seizures, muscle cramping, nausea, and vomiting, according to the Cleveland Clinic.
The exercise component, requiring two 45-minute workouts daily – one outdoors – also presents risks. Santas points to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Physical Activity Guidelines, which recommend 150 to 300 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week, emphasizing customization and recovery. The 75 Hard structure, she argues, exceeds these recommendations without providing individualized guidance or recovery periods.
Lyons found the outdoor workout requirement challenging, particularly during Chicago winters. She prioritized safety and consistency over strict adherence to the rule when temperatures dropped below zero.
Katy Milkman, a professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, emphasizes the importance of repetition and positive associations in habit formation. She notes that making a habit difficult to execute hinders its formation. For individuals already engaged in regular exercise, reading, and hydration, 75 Hard may be achievable, but for beginners, the logistical burden could be a significant obstacle.
Adaptations of the challenge, such as 75 Medium or 75 Soft, which allow for flexibility and customization, may be more conducive to long-term behavioral change. Lyons believes the challenge can be effective for those motivated by strict structure, but cautions against its extreme approach, advocating for adaptability and recovery.