Steps Question. Better to spread them out, or do them all at once?

riffraff2112

While I do lots of things for cardio, jogging and cycling/elliptical machine. I also try to keep my steps above 10,000.


Yesterday I went for a long walk, spend nearly two hours at a good pace. I surpassed my 10,000 step goal before noon. However the rest of the day was spent pretty much chillin' and my total steps for the day were almost exactly the same as a typical day for me (about 12500).

While I hear spreading your steps around throughout the day, is just as beneficial as doing a long session of activity I truly find that hard to believe. My legs are actually feeling the effects of that walk far more than they would a typical day that has me walking back and forth to the office, and visiting different classrooms etc (I am a teacher).

What do you guys think?

Katerbels

Do you think your 2 hour walk was more strenuous, and that's why you're feeling it today? I'm a preschool teacher and am on my feet a lot, but I don't find myself really walking at a brisk pace around here BUT when I go out for walks or even on a treadmill it's totally different. Just a thought.

SarahPeters3

If you did that much activity all at once it's okay to take it easy the rest of the day (not being sedintary) but doing some activity. Spreading it out over the course of the day will help keep your metabolism up better though and help you burn more calories over a longer period. Honestly whatever fits best with your schedule and what you enjoy doing! I do both just depends how I am feeling that day

NorthCascades

riffraff2112 wrote: »

What do you guys think?

I don't have a coherent answer but I have a few thoughts that are related:

(1) If you're doing lots of cardio like cycling, running, and the elliptical, plus weights (guessing based on your profile photo), steps probably aren't a quality workout for you. If you were pressed for time, you'd be better off taking fewer steps and doing more cycling. If you're not pressed for time, you get benefits from everything but the steps are probably the least beneficial.

(2) Even if you have bouts of being very active, it's still bad for your health to be sedentary for long periods of time. It's really easy to think "I exercised today so I've earned this couch time" but even athletes can be too sedentary. (Links below)

(3) Continuous exercise is usually better for you than broken up exercise, at least for cardio. Breaking an exercise up lets your heart rest, which is less stressful and means less cardiovascular improvement. (Note I'm not talking about intervals which are meant to produce specific adaptations, I'm talking generally.) But the effect is probably small.

How you balance 2 and 3 is up to you. As long as you're getting the exercise, you're better off.


Sitting is the New Smoking- Even for Runners
Why not even exercise will undo the harm of sitting all day—and what you can do about it

riffraff2112

Katerbels wrote: »

Do you think your 2 hour walk was more strenuous, and that's why you're feeling it today? I'm a preschool teacher and am on my feet a lot, but I don't find myself really walking at a brisk pace around here BUT when I go out for walks or even on a treadmill it's totally different. Just a thought.

That seems pretty reasonable. Not all steps are equal. Pushing the pace definitely puts more stress on the legs and heart.

Would the same apply to walking vs jogging? Again i have read that all things being equal walking 5km burns the same calories as jogging 5km. I realize from a pure physics standpoint, you are moving the same weight, the same distance, you should do the same work but yet I am pretty certain that you burn more calories jogging.

blues4miles

riffraff2112 wrote: »

Would the same apply to walking vs jogging? Again i have read that all things being equal walking 5km burns the same calories as jogging 5km. I realize from a pure physics standpoint, you are moving the same weight, the same distance, you should do the same work but yet I am pretty certain that you burn more calories jogging.

Not true. Even the most conservative counts are:
.3 x lbs x miles = calories burned walking
.63 x lbs x miles = calories burned running

So a little over 2x as much for the same mile. And there are lots of folks here using a lot less conservative calculators. There's a lot of mechanical reasons running burns more than walking, it's not the same movement.

riffraff2112

blues4miles wrote: »

riffraff2112 wrote: »

Would the same apply to walking vs jogging? Again i have read that all things being equal walking 5km burns the same calories as jogging 5km. I realize from a pure physics standpoint, you are moving the same weight, the same distance, you should do the same work but yet I am pretty certain that you burn more calories jogging.

Not true. Even the most conservative counts are:
.3 x lbs x miles = calories burned walking
.63 x lbs x miles = calories burned running

So a little over 2x as much for the same mile. And there are lots of folks here using a lot less conservative calculators. There's a lot of mechanical reasons running burns more than walking, it's not the same movement.

I did suspect that it wasn't true. Hear it so often, I kind of assumed it was though. Funny how no matter long I have been involved in fitness and health something as simple as that could fool me.

Katerbels

Every topic is debated back and forth, it's difficult to know what's truth on here lol

riffraff2112

So true. Fortunately it isn't a critical issue.