Is walking great exercise or just okay?
Replies
-
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 -
So people who are older are pone to falling. My thought is this, it is because they no longer walk. They no longer know how to catch themselves when they stumble over nothing, or something, and as a result they fall and tend to break things like hips. I have not done a study, but I am gonna bet that people that continue to walk, fall less. So is walking excellent, at least in my book, yes it is.
Is it a replacement for strength building? No. At some point your cardio is going to need more, if you are looking to burn calories. There is no one true exercise, but I will not give up my walks.0 -
@spartan_d, I am not riled up at all (pretty relaxed for a friday and after my "cardio" this morning")..LOL
Then tell me in your words what the point? Or better yet, what is the end game you hope to achieve from all of us here writing on this thread our opinions and experiences?
0 -
The problem with this line is that Good, Great, etc.. are somewhat subjective. And we are not defining the type of walking. A slow stroll, brisk walk, brisk walk uphill. I think a lot of how great of a workout something is for me depends on my goals and how much your heart rate is increasing. I love cardio, but honestly my current goals are fat loss, so I am finding myself having to ratchet things back a little. So uphill briskly has significant benefits to me.0
-
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.
Comparatively ineffective to what? To running a marathon? To swimming 3 miles? To bench pressing your own body weight?
I'm a 41 year old female who is at a healthy weight (now) and walking is my primary form of exercise. I have bad knees so running isn't an option. I'm not interested in cycling, and I'm not a great swimmer. I average 15k steps a day from purposeful walks and general activities. I do light weight circuit routine 3 times a week. I'm in the best shape I've ever been even comparable to when I was a college cheerleader (other than being less flexible now). I'm not sure when this ineffectiveness is supposed to kick in but so far it's been pretty darn effective for me...4 -
My point is pretty much what was stated in the article that I cited. Walking IS beneficial. It IS worthwhile. However, its benefits are fairly modest, and so speaking exultantly about how it is so utterly excellent and wonderful is over-the-top. It greatly exaggerates the actual benefits.@spartan_d, I am not riled up at all (pretty relaxed for a friday and after my "cardio" this morning")..LOL
Then tell me in your words what the point?
Again, I fully acknowledge that there are people for whom walking may be the most convenient or only option. Does this really mean that the exercise itself is excellent, or simply that it is one of the few options available? If most of us lived in a big city and didn't have a car, I doubt we'd be declaring that riding the subway is "excellent." Rather, we'd simply acknowledge that it's the best option we have available.
I'm saying these things because people keep talking about how great and wonderful walking is as an exercise. I do plenty of walking myself, so I certainly have nothing against it. I simply echo the sentiment stated in the article -- namely, that people have been oversold on its benefits. Health professionals tend to recommend walking, not so much because of its effectiveness, but because it's often the most that they can get people to do.
I'm sorry that this clearly upsets some people. Based on past experience though, I knew that it would.0 -
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.
I'd agree with the previous poster. What do you mean by "comparatively ineffective"? I've lost 34 pounds already with just walking and watching my calorie count.0 -
My point is pretty much what was stated in the article that I cited. Walking IS beneficial. It IS worthwhile. However, its benefits are fairly modest, and so speaking exultantly about how it is so utterly excellent and wonderful is over-the-top. It greatly exaggerates the actual benefits.@spartan_d, I am not riled up at all (pretty relaxed for a friday and after my "cardio" this morning")..LOL
Then tell me in your words what the point?
Again, I fully acknowledge that there are people for whom walking may be the most convenient or only option. Does this really mean that the exercise itself is excellent, or simply that it is one of the few options available? If most of us lived in a big city and didn't have a car, I doubt we'd be declaring that riding the subway is "excellent." Rather, we'd simply acknowledge that it's the best option we have available.
I'm saying these things because people keep talking about how great and wonderful walking is as an exercise. I do plenty of walking myself, so I certainly have nothing against it. I simply echo the sentiment stated in the article -- namely, that people have been oversold on its benefits. Health professionals tend to recommend walking, not so much because of its effectiveness, but because it's often the most that they can get people to do.
I'm sorry that this clearly upsets some people. Based on past experience though, I knew that it would.
I'm getting deja vu. Are you by chance the poster who started a thread about not understanding why people though Activity Trackers like FitBit were so wonderful, that you felt they were overrated? It turned into a very long thread, if I remember correctly.
Regardless, I really don't understand why you care. You think walking has benefits. What does it matter if people use superlatives to describe it. Plenty of people get *kitten* excited about things that I don't care a whit about. I don't go around telling them that they should use different adjectives... that they are overstating the benefits of The Bachelor, or Pokemon Go, or adult coloring books. People like different things and should be able to choose the exercise that works best for them and describe it the way they want to describe it. I'm really not sure why that impacts you in the slightest.1 -
This is silly.@spartan_d, I am not riled up at all (pretty relaxed for a friday and after my "cardio" this morning")..LOL
Then tell me in your words what the point?
My point is pretty much what was stated in the article that I cited. Walking IS beneficial. It IS worthwhile. However, its benefits are fairly modest, and so speaking exultantly about how it is so utterly excellent and wonderful is over-the-top. It greatly exaggerates the actual benefits.
I haven't seen any OTT posts, just people saying that walking can be a beneficial exercise, so I think you are arguing against a straw man.
Also, when people talk about how great some form of exercise is, they are usually speaking from a personal perspective. I think running is great (although it has drawbacks) because I, personally, enjoy it. Similarly, I think walking is great, because it has many benefits for me. It's also easy to start and unlikely to lead to injuries and something almost everyone can work into their lives in a greater amount if they are relatively sedentary.Again, I fully acknowledge that there are people for whom walking may be the most convenient or only option. Does this really mean that the exercise itself is excellent, or simply that it is one of the few options available?
Arguing about what excellent means to me or you seems, again, silly. I do lots of types of exercise, but might argue that walking is "excellent" for a variety of reasons.If most of us lived in a big city and didn't have a car, I doubt we'd be declaring that riding the subway is "excellent."
I ride the L, but I might argue that it's excellent (although I do have a car). Convenient, fits in with my desire to get some walking in ;-), beats paying for parking or driving in rush hour, good opportunity to read or listen to a podcast, grocery store is between the stop and my house -- lots of reasons to see it as excellent! Or maybe it sucks, just depends on perception and what I want out of it.I simply echo the sentiment stated in the article -- namely, that people have been oversold on its benefits.
Maybe you are making assumptions that are not warranted?
Also, I note that one thing the article said is that people who "walk" often don't walk very often. That's different from saying walking is not useful. I do other exercise to get my heart rate up, since I often don't like walking that vigorously (in the winter I do, and I do enjoy hiking when I have a chance, and I walk faster than the average person on the sidewalk, but I don't get my heart pumping necessarily during a regular walk). It's still extremely beneficial since including lots of walking in my day ends up making a huge difference in TDEE given that I perceive 0 extra effort.I'm sorry that this clearly upsets some people. Based on past experience though, I knew that it would.
I don't think people are upset. Maybe they just think, as I do, that this is silly and based on odd assumptions.2 -
It's good but slow. You'd have to walk for hours to equal 20 minutes of running. Same reason you have to bike twice as long to get similar burn to running. Pick what you like. I think the 10k step rule is a good guideline if you're not working out. If you have a desk job, you're probably not getting 10k steps and will find you have to purposefully walk 20-30 minutes to get there. That's certainly better than someone who does nothing.0
-
-
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.
Ditto this.
Walking is the only exercise I do, not strolling, I walk at a pace that i can't have a conversation due to huffing and puffing.
I walk because:- I enjoy it
- It is something I know i will do everyday, 7 days a week
- I hate gyms, and if i joined one it would be a struggle to force myself to go, and i'd eventually drop out.
- Walking significantly ups my TDEE
- Walking at least 15kms a day most days is more than enough for me
- Walking has given my legs shape, and my calves are solid muscle.
- I don't have to leave home to do it
There's more reasons, but these are the main ones.0 -
I use walking just too burn a little extra or to walk off food. 60 min burn a little over 200, so yeah I think that's great!!0
-
Walking is a great exercise especially as a low impact intro to exercising. It can also be a fairly tough workout - either by walking at speed or hillwalking.1
-
Walking is great. You can do it anywhere. It doesn't require special equipment. It's free.
1 -
I don't do anything but walk, so for me it's great. If I didn't walk I'd be sedentary, right?1
-
I've always thought the same thing about swimming. Everyone says it's great, but when I show up at the pool for a swim work-out, it's only bigger, older people there. It's like the elephant graveyard of exercise.1
-
-
Personally, I think it is a great exercise for me and not only for the obese (I have a normal BMI). I love walking long distance/hiking (20-30 km) and find it incredibly satisfying. I do other more calorie/timunit intense exercise too. Though I love doing the other stuff, when given a choice I'd keep the walking.
Just seeing the world around me change with every season, people and just being outside will IMO beat a gym any time, because it is more than just exercise (same for cycling outdoors). As an outdoors type of person, that hates running it is a perfect combination in life.
When going to the gym, though having a more intense exercise, I really do not have the additional benefits (well I get them from walking to and from the gym). Plus if I do my weight training, my calorie burn isn't that much off from my rather brisk walk to and from work (50 min each way). Only when going through my aerobics class it is a significant difference. The best and greatest exercise for people is that what they enjoy and keep doing regardless of calorie burn.2 -
This is such an odd thing to make a thread about. You are arguing over a personal preference for adjective usage.
Off to the Food section to debate the use of the word "delicious" when describing turkey bacon...8 -
I just don't understand why this needs to be an argument. If someone believes that walking is "great" exercise, how does that impact anyone else? Are there people out there who are saying "why on earth would you bother marathon training/bench pressing/running wind sprints/practicing your aerial cartwheel/riding horses/whatever when walking is such great exercise?" Of course not. I think everyone understands that it's means to an end. If your goal is to run a marathon or bench press your body weight or do an Olympic level tumbling pass or to burn 700 calories in an hour, of course walking isn't "great." If your goal is general health rather than fitness (not everyone's ideal is to be able to heavy lift or run a marathon or even a 5K, many people just want to maintain an appropriate weight and body fat %, their general mobility and ability to be active in life, and good health markers), if you're just starting out with activity, if you don't have a lot of time and you need to squeeze in workouts where you can, if you don't have the ability to go to a gym or purchase special equipment, or even if you just plain old enjoy walking, it IS "great" exercise.2
No comment 
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions