The speaker: acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Stephen Ostroff.

The statement: "This action is expected to reduce coronary heart disease and prevent thousands of fatal heart attacks each year."The action: The removal of trans fat from the U.S. food supply by June 2018.The told-you-so: The first "Fitness Master" column on trans fat was published on Sept. 20, 1997. It explained why trans fat was far worse than saturated fat - the "feared" fat at the time - that it was legally hidden on food labels as "partially hydrogenated oil," and how its use had spread to virtually every processed food in grocery stores, including "healthy" foods, like whole wheat breads and granola cereals, and "healthier-alternative food options," like margarines and coffee creamers.The logical thought: What took the government so flipping long?While the aforementioned question would require a month's worth of columns to adequately address, it proves the value of a health-and-fitness column not written by a doctor, a nutritionist, or anyone else whose beliefs must take a backseat on the bus chartered by the medical mainstream.ImmediacyThis column advised against the use of trans fat 12 years before the FDA forced manufacturers to list it on Nutrition Facts labels and 21 years before a ban of its use is scheduled to occur.Yet this column can't solely focus on the next big thing. You need to know the end result of those former big things or how they are progressing. Here's an example of the latter.Exercise: More proof that harder is betterThink about the dozens of letters you receive each month in the mail asking you for donations. They usually suggest an amount of money you should give, but make it clear that less than that is still helpful.Now think of exercise frequency, intensity, and duration as a charitable donation you give to yourself, and you know where I stand on the matter.More is better, but anything at all helps.Surprising proof of this came from a study performed with subjects suffering from arthritis. While you'd expect that engaging in moderate exercise following a gentle warm up would help ease the discomfort and inflammation from the condition, harder exercise actually helped more.Researchers at the K.G. Jebsen Centre for Exercise and Medicine at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology had 18 women between the ages of 20 and 49 suffering from arthritis ride spinning bicycles twice a week for 35 minutes a pop. After a proper warm-up, the subjects did four high-intensity intervals four minutes in length where they reached at least 85 percent of their maximal heart rate. A three-minute recovery period at 70 percent of heart rate max followed each interval.After 10 weeks of this, researchers found subjects to have less measured inflammation. In other words, working out hard actually made the arthritis better - as well as many other fitness factors.The group's maximum oxygen intake, one of the best indicators of overall fitness, "experienced a solid increase," according to Anja Bye, a researcher at the Jebsen Centre, an increase that also reduces the subjects' risk of cardiovascular disease. Additionally, the subjects recorded slight reductions in BMI, body fat, and waist circumference, as well as an increase in muscle mass.Bye also shared in a media release that rather than counting the days until the hard workouts were over "the women . . . are mostly very motivated to continue because of the progress they have seen."More mainstream proof that harder is better comes from Australian research published this June in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study of over 200,000 45- to 76-year-olds spanning 6.5 years found any vigorous exercise added to a moderate exercise routine lowered mortality rate, but those whose vigorous-activity time accounted for more than 30 percent of overall exercise time reduced the risk more substantially - by 13 percent.And unlike another recent study that suggested extreme amounts of vigorous exercise might increase mortality rate, the Australian study found no increased risk for those in the study who engaged in the greatest amounts of vigorous exercise.Despite knowing that more is better, the question of how much vigorous exercise is best for you is still difficult to answer. It's best answered by assessing your present fitness level, your degree of motivation, any physical restrictions, and your goals.Surprisingly, the benefits of vigorous exercise derived in the Norwegian University of Science and Technology study were achieved in about half of the 75 minutes per week of vigorous exercise prescribed by the U.S. Government's Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans published in 2008. In that document, however, doubling the amount time and lessening the intensity is said to be just as effective.One final consideration is the rather nebulous use of the terms "moderate" and "vigorous." For your purposes, consider vigorous exercise to occur when a typical conversation cannot. If you can't finish a short answer without pausing for air, you're probably working at between 80 and 85 percent of your maximal heart rate, the most commonly used definition of "vigorous."