Is walking great exercise or just okay?
Options
Replies
-
I'll agree with the OP. As a distance runner who runs 60+ miles a week, walking doesn't do a lot for me as far as exercise because it cannot elevate my HR to a point of any consequence. It does however, as someone else stated, help to get me loosened up. After a long morning session pushing 2-3 hours of running, I'll ALWAYS shoot to get a 45 minute to hour walk after dinner to get some blood flowing to the legs before doing some stretching before bed. It serves a lot more purpose than exercise since it's something I can do with my wife and kids as well. I think at best my garmin gives my 50-60 calorie adjustment after a walk.0
-
It depends on what you expect out of walking; what your goals are. It's a good place to begin and no equipment or membership needed. It's also a good cool down. I use walking as my "think time". The terms excellent and great may be over used, but I agree walking can have a place in an exercise plan.
I find walking calming and meditative. I don't like running, but some people say they get the same feeling from running, using their run times to think and focus on breathing.0 -
i love walking, i think its great exercise
Me too and I think that to confine it to the obese, elderly, frail, and beginners is to miss out on some of the benefits and advantages.- It's a great way of recovering from a hard work out
- The cals/hour is nothing to write home about but it's easy and per mile not much less than running
- It's hard to over-do it
- When your other training is taxing I find I come out of a 5 mile walk feeling better but a 5 mile run feeling worse (for what? a 25% uplift in cals burnt?)
Don;t get me wrong, I enjoy running and I participate frequently but I'm more careful with it (not because of loss of "de gainz" but because it's bloody tiring). I don;t have to apply that caution with walking.
0 -
So really, the only issue you have is with the choice of adjectives used to describe walking? And you seem to acknowledge that for some people it is "excellent" or "great" but for others you feel it is just "pretty good".
I wasn't aware that we all had to have the same descriptor for every single possible form of exercise? I would assume that the appropriateness of an exercise is specific to the individual... their current level of physical fitness, their goals, their interests... If a person can't swim, they would probably say swimming is a terrible form of activity. Does that mean that swimming is not good for anyone? No, of course not.
I really am perplexed lately at this attempt to put every single person, every single food, every single exercise in the same category and the inability to consider situational variables, context and dosage...7 -
I'll agree with the OP. As a distance runner who runs 60+ miles a week, walking doesn't do a lot for me as far as exercise because it cannot elevate my HR to a point of any consequence. It does however, as someone else stated, help to get me loosened up. After a long morning session pushing 2-3 hours of running, I'll ALWAYS shoot to get a 45 minute to hour walk after dinner to get some blood flowing to the legs before doing some stretching before bed. It serves a lot more purpose than exercise since it's something I can do with my wife and kids as well. I think at best my garmin gives my 50-60 calorie adjustment after a walk.
Again, I think you have to look at it from different perspectives...from a fitness perspective it isn't going to do much, particularly for someone who is already well trained. From a general health perspective (controlling blood pressure, blood glucose, etc)...it's pretty dang good.
I am a cyclist so yeah...from a fitness standpoint it's not going to do a whole lot for me or help me up my game but moving in general is great for your overall health.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I'll agree with the OP. As a distance runner who runs 60+ miles a week, walking doesn't do a lot for me as far as exercise because it cannot elevate my HR to a point of any consequence. It does however, as someone else stated, help to get me loosened up. After a long morning session pushing 2-3 hours of running, I'll ALWAYS shoot to get a 45 minute to hour walk after dinner to get some blood flowing to the legs before doing some stretching before bed. It serves a lot more purpose than exercise since it's something I can do with my wife and kids as well. I think at best my garmin gives my 50-60 calorie adjustment after a walk.
Again, I think you have to look at it from different perspectives...from a fitness perspective it isn't going to do much, particularly for someone who is already well trained. From a general health perspective (controlling blood pressure, blood glucose, etc)...it's pretty dang good.
I am a cyclist so yeah...from a fitness standpoint it's not going to do a whole lot for me or help me up my game but moving in general is great for your overall health.
My point was that yes it's beneficial, but even for someone seriously overweight it's not going to give enough calorie burn to be super beneficial. Even if in an hour walk you burn 200 calories over your BMR, that takes 18 days to lose 1 pound.0 -
As a baseline for this discussion, please define the following: "great," "good," "super," "excellent," "super duper," and "fan-f'ing-tactic." Can we put some numbers to these or something? I personally use "pleasant and beneficial" for walking, and "f'ing A, I want to kill something" for deadlifts, but I could be wrong.6
-
I think it's excellent exercise for your heart and your mind.3
-
It's all relative and I guess it all depends on what you are looking to get out of it. If a person is very obese and hasn't moved beyond the couch to fridge to car for some numbers of years, a 30min walk is huge and probably pretty great exercise for them.
I'm Currently doing SL 5x5 and squatting heavy 3x a week. If I want my legs to recover I can't incorporate HIIT or distance running on off days. I've done it in the past and it hampered my lifting progress. So, I get in a 30min walk every day with a pretty good 10-12min hill climb. Try and maintain a 3.5-4mph pace. Gives me some extra calories to eat and stretches out my legs without over taxing them and hampering recovery. For that I think it's beneficial for sure.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »So really, the only issue you have is with the choice of adjectives used to describe walking? And you seem to acknowledge that for some people it is "excellent" or "great" but for others you feel it is just "pretty good".
I wasn't aware that we all had to have the same descriptor for every single possible form of exercise? I would assume that the appropriateness of an exercise is specific to the individual... their current level of physical fitness, their goals, their interests... If a person can't swim, they would probably say swimming is a terrible form of activity. Does that mean that swimming is not good for anyone? No, of course not.
I really am perplexed lately at this attempt to put every single person, every single food, every single exercise in the same category and the inability to consider situational variables, context and dosage...
Do you realize that if anything, your objection would apply just as well to all those posters and articles which declare that walking is "great," "wonderful," "excellent," "fantastic," or whatever superlative they choose to come up with? Why is it that when using such superlatives, speaking in generalities is okay, whereas it's not acceptable when opining that such high-faluting praise is over-the-top?
I think it's perfectly reasonable to state that walking is good, but as a rule, not absolutely excellent or <insert superlative here>. Most people understand generalities, after all. This doesn't preclude exceptional circumstances under which walking may indeed be the best option for someone, or perhaps even the only option.
This makes me wonder how many people actually read the article in the OP. The research cited in that article emphasizes that walking is good, but that its benefits aren't as high as people tend to expect. As one of the researchers cited said,"Exercise lite has given many Americans a false sense that a stroll through the neighborhood is all you need to stay healthy. Instead of pushing people to be more active, it's given them an excuse to do as little as possible."0 -
I actually have little choice in the matter. I have spinal stenosis, and 4 previously injured discs in my back, one that has been partially removed. Running not only isn't an option for me, it isn't physically possible without injury. However, I do walk as fast as I can, and since I am 6'2" tall, I can walk quite fast, 3.5-4mph and manage to get my HR up to 120-130 in the process. So for me it works to burn a lot of calories each day, especially on the routes I take which are usually with lots of inclines.
After my walk (I use it as a warm-up of sorts) of around 45-75 minutes (45 minutes during the week, up to 75 minutes on the weekends) I transition into my own version of cross training which incorporates body weight training, free weights, etc for an additional 30-45 minutes. My fitness level after doing this for the last 1.5 years is nothing short of miraculous. I'm 120 lbs down from my starting weight and have maintained my goal weight or below it for the last two months. I'm stronger now than I have been most of my life.
So yea, it's a good, if not excellent, exercise for me and others like me. Done on a regular basis (I do it 6 days a week) it can really contribute to overall fitness and weight loss. And yes, you can burn almost as many calories as a jogger if done correctly (keep the arms moving and walk as fast as possible).
I also own a Bowflex M5 which I use in the winter when I can't walk outside, but I prefer walking and can burn the same amount of calories, although I'll admit it takes longer walking than on the machine to burn the same amount of calories.3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I'll agree with the OP. As a distance runner who runs 60+ miles a week, walking doesn't do a lot for me as far as exercise because it cannot elevate my HR to a point of any consequence. It does however, as someone else stated, help to get me loosened up. After a long morning session pushing 2-3 hours of running, I'll ALWAYS shoot to get a 45 minute to hour walk after dinner to get some blood flowing to the legs before doing some stretching before bed. It serves a lot more purpose than exercise since it's something I can do with my wife and kids as well. I think at best my garmin gives my 50-60 calorie adjustment after a walk.
Again, I think you have to look at it from different perspectives...from a fitness perspective it isn't going to do much, particularly for someone who is already well trained. From a general health perspective (controlling blood pressure, blood glucose, etc)...it's pretty dang good.
I am a cyclist so yeah...from a fitness standpoint it's not going to do a whole lot for me or help me up my game but moving in general is great for your overall health.
My point was that yes it's beneficial, but even for someone seriously overweight it's not going to give enough calorie burn to be super beneficial. Even if in an hour walk you burn 200 calories over your BMR, that takes 18 days to lose 1 pound.
I don't personally rate exercise as good or great or whatever as per the calorie burn...I don't even think about the calorie burn when I'm training...I'm just training.
Yoga burns very few calories but it is an excellent exercise for balance and flexibility...by your logic, yoga would only be an ok exercise...2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »So really, the only issue you have is with the choice of adjectives used to describe walking? And you seem to acknowledge that for some people it is "excellent" or "great" but for others you feel it is just "pretty good".
I wasn't aware that we all had to have the same descriptor for every single possible form of exercise? I would assume that the appropriateness of an exercise is specific to the individual... their current level of physical fitness, their goals, their interests... If a person can't swim, they would probably say swimming is a terrible form of activity. Does that mean that swimming is not good for anyone? No, of course not.
I really am perplexed lately at this attempt to put every single person, every single food, every single exercise in the same category and the inability to consider situational variables, context and dosage...
Do you realize that if anything, your objection would apply just as well to all those posters and articles which declare that walking is "great," "wonderful," "excellent," "fantastic," or whatever superlative they choose to come up with? Why is it that when using such superlatives, speaking in generalities is okay, whereas it's not acceptable when opining that such high-faluting praise is over-the-top?
I think it's perfectly reasonable to state that walking is good, but as a rule, not absolutely excellent or <insert superlative here>. Most people understand generalities, after all. This doesn't preclude exceptional circumstances under which walking may indeed be the best option for someone, or perhaps even the only option.
This makes me wonder how many people actually read the article in the OP. The research cited in that article emphasizes that walking is good, but that its benefits aren't as high as people tend to expect. As one of the researchers cited said,"Exercise lite has given many idiots who don't read and ignore context a false sense that a stroll through the neighborhood is all you need to stay healthy. Instead of pushing people to be more active, some people look for any excuse to do as little as possible."
FIFY
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »So really, the only issue you have is with the choice of adjectives used to describe walking? And you seem to acknowledge that for some people it is "excellent" or "great" but for others you feel it is just "pretty good".
I wasn't aware that we all had to have the same descriptor for every single possible form of exercise? I would assume that the appropriateness of an exercise is specific to the individual... their current level of physical fitness, their goals, their interests... If a person can't swim, they would probably say swimming is a terrible form of activity. Does that mean that swimming is not good for anyone? No, of course not.
I really am perplexed lately at this attempt to put every single person, every single food, every single exercise in the same category and the inability to consider situational variables, context and dosage...
Do you realize that if anything, your objection would apply just as well to all those posters and articles which declare that walking is "great," "wonderful," "excellent," "fantastic," or whatever superlative they choose to come up with? Why is it that when using such superlatives, speaking in generalities is okay, whereas it's not acceptable when opining that such high-faluting praise is over-the-top?
I think it's perfectly reasonable to state that walking is good, but as a rule, not absolutely excellent or <insert superlative here>. Most people understand generalities, after all. This doesn't preclude exceptional circumstances under which walking may indeed be the best option for someone, or perhaps even the only option.
This makes me wonder how many people actually read the article in the OP. The research cited in that article emphasizes that walking is good, but that its benefits aren't as high as people tend to expect. As one of the researchers cited said,"Exercise lite has given many Americans a false sense that a stroll through the neighborhood is all you need to stay healthy. Instead of pushing people to be more active, it's given them an excuse to do as little as possible."
But why does it matter to you whether one person calls it "excellent" and someone else says "it isn't my primary form of exercise but it has benefits to helping me maintain an overall active lifestyle".
I just don't understand this tendency to assume that people aren't capable of applying logic and considering their own individual needs to determining what they should eat, how they should exercise, etc. Are people really only walking because someone else said it was "excellent" and they don't then stop to think, "you know, when I first started, walking was difficult, but now that I'm in better physical shape, then maybe I should challenge myself more".
4 -
Everything is relative. Walking is "great" compared to doing nothing. Some people also have joint problems or other health problems that makes it other more intense exercises dangerous for them.
HIIT/Interval paired with strength training tends to be the most effective combo. HIIT/Interval means intense cardio followed by an interval of lower, more moderate cardio. Rinse and repeat.
I'm asthmatic, so for instance, with exercise-exacerbated asthma, so running is a very risky activity for me, but I can still often get my BPM up in the HIIT range using higher resistance ellipticals or incline treadmills. If you're walking, I recommend trying for a specific vigorous pace.0 -
Everything is relative. For they larger BMI person it's good. For the lighter BMI person it's good as a cool-down day workout. I will say it's good for the soul and mind no matter your BMI.1
-
Walking is really the only exercise that I get. Running is too high impact (it hurts my knees), I don't currently have a bike, I can't afford a gym membership, I don't have space in my little apartment for ellipticals/etc.
I'll also add that when I walk, I'm not talking about a pleasant stroll through my neighborhood. I walk as quickly as I possibly can, usually passing everyone around me, except for runners and cyclists.
I know that I could burn more calories doing other activities, but walking fits into my day, doesn't require extra expense on my part and isn't painful in the long run. For me: it's an excellent way to keep active. When I exercise, that's my real goal.3 -
Why is there an argument on the choice of words, "great", "excellent". OP seems to have a strong sense of self and his beliefs on what this should be conveyed to the masses out there as it relates to context of this thread.
And his opinion is subjective and not based on facts from the general population out there that do walk or not walk or do any steady state cardio, are too heavy to do steady state cardio or walk, have medical conditions, are elderly, and some that simply just do not want to walk or exercise at all (there is still nothing wrong with hating cardio by the way)..
It does boil down to the fact you really do not have to exercise if you do not want to. What about those that DO NOTHING??
So walking is great for every single person on the planet. And if you plan any "purposeful walk" that is exercise (great exercise as a matter of fact). There are health benefits, even mental and emotional benefits, even if it is just to take a break from the world for 30 minutes to walk.
That is my story and I am sticking to it..6 -
I'm a fast walker. I walk as fast some people jog. I walk lots of hills. I sweat and get my heart rate up. That's about all I want out of my exercise.
Not all of us are aiming for some supreme level of fitness -- I just want to be active, get outside, and keep my body strong-ish, lean-ish, flexible enough to enjoy regular, everyday stuff.
So, for me, walking is great exercise.
2 -
And his opinion is subjective and not based on facts from the general population out there that do walk or not walk, are too heavy to walk, have medical conditions, are elderly, and some that simply just do not want to walk or exercise at all (there is still nothing wrong with hating cardio by the way)..
Again, absolutely not. As I said, those are special circumstances. As a general rule, walking is good but comparatively ineffective. This does not, as I acknowledged and emphasized, preclude specific circumstances in which it may be one of the few (or even the only) reasonable option available.It does boil down to the fact you really do not have to exercise if you do not want to. What about those that DO NOTHING??
Walking is most certainly better than doing nothing. Did I deny that? Not at all. In fact, I took pains to emphasize that it is worthwhile.
As I said in the OP, some people get riled up if you say that walking is anything less than absolutely fantastic. They equate that to saying that you may as well do nothing, even though that is not the logical implication at all.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions