Is walking great exercise or just okay?

Options
13

Replies

  • Montepulciano
    Montepulciano Posts: 845 Member
    Options
    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.
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,488 Member
    Options
    @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?

  • Soccermavrick
    Soccermavrick Posts: 405 Member
    Options
    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.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    Options
    spartan_d wrote: »
    RoxieDawn wrote: »
    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...
  • spartan_d
    spartan_d Posts: 727 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    RoxieDawn wrote: »
    @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.

    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.
  • hmltwin
    hmltwin Posts: 116 Member
    Options
    spartan_d wrote: »
    RoxieDawn wrote: »
    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.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    Options
    spartan_d wrote: »
    RoxieDawn wrote: »
    @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.

    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.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    This is silly.
    spartan_d wrote: »
    RoxieDawn wrote: »
    @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.
  • DrifterBear
    DrifterBear Posts: 265 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    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.
  • Cherimoose
    Cherimoose Posts: 5,209 Member
    Options
    spartan_d wrote: »
    I would strongly encourage people to walk more, but to call it "excellent exercise" is an overstatement.

    I'll play the semantics game. What do you think is excellent? And why?
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    7elizamae wrote: »
    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:
    1. I enjoy it
    2. It is something I know i will do everyday, 7 days a week
    3. I hate gyms, and if i joined one it would be a struggle to force myself to go, and i'd eventually drop out.
    4. Walking significantly ups my TDEE
    5. Walking at least 15kms a day most days is more than enough for me
    6. Walking has given my legs shape, and my calves are solid muscle.
    7. I don't have to leave home to do it

    There's more reasons, but these are the main ones.
  • TrueHeart1430
    TrueHeart1430 Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    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!!
  • niblue
    niblue Posts: 339 Member
    Options
    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.
  • shadowfax_c11
    shadowfax_c11 Posts: 1,942 Member
    Options
    Walking is great. You can do it anywhere. It doesn't require special equipment. It's free.

  • arditarose
    arditarose Posts: 15,573 Member
    Options
    I don't do anything but walk, so for me it's great. If I didn't walk I'd be sedentary, right?
  • Ben_there_done_that
    Ben_there_done_that Posts: 732 Member
    Options
    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.
  • arditarose
    arditarose Posts: 15,573 Member
    Options
    captbklee wrote: »
    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.

    :D No comment
  • dutchandkiwi
    dutchandkiwi Posts: 1,389 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    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.
  • BarbieAS
    BarbieAS Posts: 1,414 Member
    Options
    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.

Categories