Short people get the shaft
Replies
-
TheMothership71 wrote: »Hmmm...I’m over 6 foot tall and my calories are under 1500 a day.
Hmm, I'm 5'5", age 62, and can maintain a weight in the 120s on well over 2000.
What do either of these things have to do with short people?
@WinoGelato is trying to helpful, to her credit . . . I'm just confused.
I assumed poster was trying to say that even as a tall woman she also feels calorie deprived but i suspect as is so common, that too aggressive of a goal was chosen for the amount of weight she has to lose.
2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »TheMothership71 wrote: »Hmmm...I’m over 6 foot tall and my calories are under 1500 a day.
Hmm, I'm 5'5", age 62, and can maintain a weight in the 120s on well over 2000.
What do either of these things have to do with short people?
@WinoGelato is trying to helpful, to her credit . . . I'm just confused.
I assumed poster was trying to say that even as a tall woman she also feels calorie deprived but i suspect as is so common, that too aggressive of a goal was chosen for the amount of weight she has to lose.
Perhaps, but people seem to make the same assumption about my low calorie levels based on my gender. It seems like some people can't believe that a man could have anything less than 3K as an RMR (maybe a slight exaggeration in some cases, but there are others who really think it should be 3K because of gender alone). My RMR tested in a lab was 1,500. I have a desk job so if I don't intentionally exercise, my TDEE estimate is around 1,800.
For me to lose weight at a noticeable rate means either exercising or eating very little or both. I have an incredible appetite (especially with carbs), and that is why I recently gained about 19 lbs. of fat during a 3 week unrestricted diet break... plus 13 lbs. of water weight, which mostly came off in the first week returning to carb restriction.0 -
43 year old 5'8" midget currently bulking on 2200 cals a day!1
-
I don't feel very hungry unless I have a busy day and skip meals (I can't eat OMAD, I get too ill), but it is kinda sucky, cause to lose weight right now, I actually have to eat less than 1k calories, so logging here is a pain (besides the excessive lag).
Short people also tend to be disproportionate, meaning their clothing size tends to be bigger than it should with their weight.
An example, at 130lb, I'm wearing the same size that 150lb people wear o.o
But I don't mind being short most of the time. We fit in small spaces, and have a smaller food budget.1 -
Shorter muscles build faster, you don't bump your head on things, they made 3 sports just for you. Crossfit, Broken Skull Ranch, Obstacle course racing and American Ninja....oops thats 4. Only draw back is you feel slighted and end up with weeman syndrome. You can always grow a manbun to make you taller.5
-
Shorter muscles build faster, you don't bump your head on things, they made 3 sports just for you. Crossfit, Broken Skull Ranch, Obstacle course racing and American Ninja....oops thats 4. Only draw back is you feel slighted and end up with weeman syndrome. You can always grow a manbun to make you taller.
is that why the man bun is so popular
1 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »Shorter muscles build faster, you don't bump your head on things, they made 3 sports just for you. Crossfit, Broken Skull Ranch, Obstacle course racing and American Ninja....oops thats 4. Only draw back is you feel slighted and end up with weeman syndrome. You can always grow a manbun to make you taller.
is that why the man bun is so popular
I'm not sure. Saw the mantail the other day,lol.0 -
As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.
I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P
I get confused by these arguments that short people can't move fast.
I'm short, have a shorter inseam than you, and can walk 4mph and start to run any faster than that. I'm confused by this assertion about short legs. You just have to take more steps than a taller person to get the same pace they do.
ETA: Trust me, I've spent 30 years keeping up with a 6'2" partner. I'm only 5'1".1 -
The one major downside is that, at least in America, society is made with taller people in mind.
Many restaurant meal portions can reasonably fit in a taller person's daily caloric allowance, but usually they'll only fit in mine if it's the only meal I eat that day...
Restaurant portions are massively out of whack in North America (especially the USA), tall or short.2 -
Doesn't matter how tall you are, portions in America are ridiculous.0
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.
I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P
I get confused by these arguments that short people can't move fast.
I'm short, have a shorter inseam than you, and can walk 4mph and start to run any faster than that. I'm confused by this assertion about short legs. You just have to take more steps than a taller person to get the same pace they do.
ETA: Trust me, I've spent 30 years keeping up with a 6'2" partner. I'm only 5'1".
And I get confused by your posts. I move my little legs as fast as I can. I doubt I could talk except in huffs. It is 3 mph. ( Apple Watch). Any faster and I have moved into a jog. And I swim 3 miles or so most weeks, it is not a question of fitness.
I’m walking to work (1.5 miles) 3 or 4 days a week for 4 months now and am working it. Trust me, my legs don’t and don’t seem to be able to move 3.5 mph. Unless I’m running.
It sounds like something other than height/ leg length is involved but I can’t think of anything.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.
I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P
I get confused by these arguments that short people can't move fast.
I'm short, have a shorter inseam than you, and can walk 4mph and start to run any faster than that. I'm confused by this assertion about short legs. You just have to take more steps than a taller person to get the same pace they do.
ETA: Trust me, I've spent 30 years keeping up with a 6'2" partner. I'm only 5'1".
And I get confused by your posts. I move my little legs as fast as I can. I doubt I could talk except in huffs. It is 3 mph. ( Apple Watch). Any faster and I have moved into a jog. And I swim 3 miles or so most weeks, it is not a question of fitness.
I’m walking to work (1.5 miles) 3 or 4 days a week for 4 months now and am working it. Trust me, my legs don’t and don’t seem to be able to move 3.5 mph. Unless I’m running.
It sounds like something other than height/ leg length is involved but I can’t think of anything.
Hip strength/practice. Some people just have a naturally brisker/stronger walking/running pace.1 -
http://blog.airiarunning.com/height-impact-running-speed/
Height and Stride Length
The most obvious way that height will impact running speed is by increased stride length. Research indicates that stride length is proportional to height, as well as to race distance. For instance, researchers investigated elite triathletes and found that stride length was positively correlated with height. However, stride length did not have a correlation with performance.
Alternatively, stride length has also been shown to be a function of running speed. In general, the faster a person runs, the longer his or her stride. This relationship was observed in the Olympic setting, where Dr. Jack Daniels determined that female marathoners had stride lengths almost 2 feet shorter than those of female 800 m runners. But, does a longer stride length necessarily mean faster running?
According to the legendary coach, a long stride length is not necessarily a good thing. As Dr. Jack Daniels notes, “The main problem associated with a [long stride length]…the longer the time you spend in the air.” This displaces your body mass higher and leads to a greater ground landing shock. A shorter stride means a lighter stride. The difference between marathoners and 800 m runners is that the 800 m runners can more efficiently sustain the longer stride length for the duration of their race.
Height and Stride Rate
A recent buzzword in the running community has been stride rate, also known as cadence or turnover. This term describes the number of times a runner’s feet hit the ground per minute. Researchers have observed that races are won by athletes with an average cadence of 180 – 190 beats per minute. Additionally, exercise physiologists have determined that higher stride rates are more efficient than lower stride rates, and that improved turnover can reduce injury risk.
Tall runners are disadvantaged in this regard. In general, taller runners tend to have a longer stride, as mentioned above, resulting in a lower stride rate. However, this generality does not always hold true. There are many short runners with low stride rates and plenty of tall runners with short strides, and therefore high stride rates.
Tall runners (i.e. taller than 5’8’’) should first determine their stride rate by counting how many times the right leg touches the ground in the course of a minute, and then double that number. If cadence is below 150, chances are good that your stride is too long and is negatively affecting your running speed. To improve stride rate, focus on workouts that improve turnover, such as intervals, hill repeats, and fartleks.2 -
Shorter muscles build faster, you don't bump your head on things, they made 3 sports just for you. Crossfit, Broken Skull Ranch, Obstacle course racing and American Ninja....oops thats 4. Only draw back is you feel slighted and end up with weeman syndrome. You can always grow a manbun to make you taller.
Not all short men can grow a man bun. Some of us may be short, but are still taller than our own hairline.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.
I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P
I get confused by these arguments that short people can't move fast.
I'm short, have a shorter inseam than you, and can walk 4mph and start to run any faster than that. I'm confused by this assertion about short legs. You just have to take more steps than a taller person to get the same pace they do.
ETA: Trust me, I've spent 30 years keeping up with a 6'2" partner. I'm only 5'1".
I'm 5'3, and above 4 mph is when I move into a run too. 3 mph is neither fast nor particularly slow for me, although on the leisurely side, and my normal walking speed unless I'm tired or choosing to stroll is faster. I've always thought it was a city thing, I get impatient walking slowly or behind slow people (and my sister who is the same height as me is a faster natural walker than me).
Admittedly I don't enjoy walking at 4 mph -- I'd rather run. If I'm walking it will be more like 3.5 mph or maybe faster if I'm running late to something.
Agreed that it's cadence, not stride length, that makes the main difference, as I learned re running (when I had to train myself to stop thinking I should increase stride to speed up).0 -
I treat manbun and mantail like the mullet. Very bad ideas that need to disappear and never return. Mantail is the re-invention of the mullet with a small difference.
2 -
@CSARdiver am I reading this right? My long stride (and people have told me I walk funny with a ridiculously long stride for my height) could be slowing my walk speed down?
I’m gonna time myself (cadence) at normal fast walk (normal stride trying to get to work as quick as possible) and a intentionally shortened stride and start to see if I can move faster! Admittedly the research you post is for running (both feet off ground at same time) and I’m walking but it should be interesting.1 -
@CSARdiver am I reading this right? My long stride (and people have told me I walk funny with a ridiculously long stride for my height) could be slowing my walk speed down?
I’m gonna time myself (cadence) at normal fast walk (normal stride trying to get to work as quick as possible) and a intentionally shortened stride and start to see if I can move faster! Admittedly the research you post is for running (both feet off ground at same time) and I’m walking but it should be interesting.
I believe so. I am no expert, but this thread piqued my interest. My biggest frame of reference being formation marching/running. I at 6'4" running next to my dive buddy at 5' 6" and yet we are in perfect synch - left, right, left, right....due to our stride and rate adapting to one another - and everyone in the formation.
I do know that my stride length decreases on long runs and I have learning to modify my rate and length to speed up or conserve.
Curious as to your results on this. Please let me know how this works.0 -
@CSARdiver am I reading this right? My long stride (and people have told me I walk funny with a ridiculously long stride for my height) could be slowing my walk speed down?
I’m gonna time myself (cadence) at normal fast walk (normal stride trying to get to work as quick as possible) and a intentionally shortened stride and start to see if I can move faster! Admittedly the research you post is for running (both feet off ground at same time) and I’m walking but it should be interesting.
When I was training for 10km races, walking, the first thing I learnt was the faster I went, the shorter I had to make my stride.
Cheers, h.0 -
Shorter muscles build faster, you don't bump your head on things, they made 3 sports just for you. Crossfit, Broken Skull Ranch, Obstacle course racing and American Ninja....oops thats 4. Only draw back is you feel slighted and end up with weeman syndrome. You can always grow a manbun to make you taller.
You left out jockey and gymnast.
I'm under 5'3 and walk faster than most of my taller friends...but I think that comes from living in NYC. I will say that a few years ago when I was taking part in a walk-a-thon fundraiser, in which steps were being counted, that my short legs did give me the advantage of more steps per mile than my 5'9" colleague got.
I'm accustomed to being fuel-efficient. I figure I'll do well in the event of global famine.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.
I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P
I get confused by these arguments that short people can't move fast.
I'm short, have a shorter inseam than you, and can walk 4mph and start to run any faster than that. I'm confused by this assertion about short legs. You just have to take more steps than a taller person to get the same pace they do.
ETA: Trust me, I've spent 30 years keeping up with a 6'2" partner. I'm only 5'1".
And I get confused by your posts. I move my little legs as fast as I can. I doubt I could talk except in huffs. It is 3 mph. ( Apple Watch). Any faster and I have moved into a jog. And I swim 3 miles or so most weeks, it is not a question of fitness.
I’m walking to work (1.5 miles) 3 or 4 days a week for 4 months now and am working it. Trust me, my legs don’t and don’t seem to be able to move 3.5 mph. Unless I’m running.
It sounds like something other than height/ leg length is involved but I can’t think of anything.
I don't know whether this generalizes or is just my weird body, but I'll throw it out here:
I found that when I started focusing on glute engagement on every step, my exercise/serious-transport walking speed picked up from around 3.6-3.7mph to around 3.9-4mph. This is average pace, measured by Garmin, over walks of a couple miles and up.
I wasn't trying at all to increase speed. I was trying to make better friends with my own glutes , and see if it would take a little stress off my bad knee (torn meniscus, a little OA) - it did. I perceive that doing this automagically increased my cadence and shortened my stride, but I have no objective measurements for that.
My inseam is around the same as yours, BTW, though I'm not super short (5'5").1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.
I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P
I get confused by these arguments that short people can't move fast.
I'm short, have a shorter inseam than you, and can walk 4mph and start to run any faster than that. I'm confused by this assertion about short legs. You just have to take more steps than a taller person to get the same pace they do.
ETA: Trust me, I've spent 30 years keeping up with a 6'2" partner. I'm only 5'1".
I'm 5"8, my daughter is 5"2 and we walk at the same fast speed, she just does more steps than me, she does 2 steps to my one.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.
I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P
I get confused by these arguments that short people can't move fast.
I'm short, have a shorter inseam than you, and can walk 4mph and start to run any faster than that. I'm confused by this assertion about short legs. You just have to take more steps than a taller person to get the same pace they do.
ETA: Trust me, I've spent 30 years keeping up with a 6'2" partner. I'm only 5'1".
And I get confused by your posts. I move my little legs as fast as I can. I doubt I could talk except in huffs. It is 3 mph. ( Apple Watch). Any faster and I have moved into a jog. And I swim 3 miles or so most weeks, it is not a question of fitness.
I’m walking to work (1.5 miles) 3 or 4 days a week for 4 months now and am working it. Trust me, my legs don’t and don’t seem to be able to move 3.5 mph. Unless I’m running.
It sounds like something other than height/ leg length is involved but I can’t think of anything.
I don't know whether this generalizes or is just my weird body, but I'll throw it out here:
I found that when I started focusing on glute engagement on every step, my exercise/serious-transport walking speed picked up from around 3.6-3.7mph to around 3.9-4mph. This is average pace, measured by Garmin, over walks of a couple miles and up.
I wasn't trying at all to increase speed. I was trying to make better friends with my own glutes , and see if it would take a little stress off my bad knee (torn meniscus, a little OA) - it did. I perceive that doing this automagically increased my cadence and shortened my stride, but I have no objective measurements for that.
My inseam is around the same as yours, BTW, though I'm not super short (5'5").
Consistent with that, I found out my running stride was too long (which I think was a side effect of overcompensating for being short and thinking I should take longer strides to go faster) when I hurt my knee. My physical therapist (who was also a runner who had had classes in running stride and injury) watched me run and then showed me how my stride was putting too much pressure on/jostling my knees, and one of my things to work on going forward was running more with the glutes.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.
I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P
I get confused by these arguments that short people can't move fast.
I'm short, have a shorter inseam than you, and can walk 4mph and start to run any faster than that. I'm confused by this assertion about short legs. You just have to take more steps than a taller person to get the same pace they do.
ETA: Trust me, I've spent 30 years keeping up with a 6'2" partner. I'm only 5'1".
I'm 5'3, and above 4 mph is when I move into a run too. 3 mph is neither fast nor particularly slow for me, although on the leisurely side, and my normal walking speed unless I'm tired or choosing to stroll is faster. I've always thought it was a city thing, I get impatient walking slowly or behind slow people (and my sister who is the same height as me is a faster natural walker than me).
Admittedly I don't enjoy walking at 4 mph -- I'd rather run. If I'm walking it will be more like 3.5 mph or maybe faster if I'm running late to something.
Agreed that it's cadence, not stride length, that makes the main difference, as I learned re running (when I had to train myself to stop thinking I should increase stride to speed up).
Wow, this is me exactly (5'3")! I trained myself to walk 4 mph by learning to bring my legs around faster (i.e. increasing the rpms). I prefer to walk around 3.5 - 3.8 mph, though, after awhile the faster walking makes my hips ache.
Fun fact - my husband is 6', but he takes smaller steps than I do because of a back injury. If we're out walking all day he'll get a couple of thousand more steps in than me, even though we've covered the same distance.
edited for grammar.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.
I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P
I get confused by these arguments that short people can't move fast.
I'm short, have a shorter inseam than you, and can walk 4mph and start to run any faster than that. I'm confused by this assertion about short legs. You just have to take more steps than a taller person to get the same pace they do.
ETA: Trust me, I've spent 30 years keeping up with a 6'2" partner. I'm only 5'1".
I walk at 4.2 mph just fine and start slow jogging at 4.5. I'm 5'3".1 -
@CSARdiver am I reading this right? My long stride (and people have told me I walk funny with a ridiculously long stride for my height) could be slowing my walk speed down?
I’m gonna time myself (cadence) at normal fast walk (normal stride trying to get to work as quick as possible) and a intentionally shortened stride and start to see if I can move faster! Admittedly the research you post is for running (both feet off ground at same time) and I’m walking but it should be interesting.
I believe so. I am no expert, but this thread piqued my interest. My biggest frame of reference being formation marching/running. I at 6'4" running next to my dive buddy at 5' 6" and yet we are in perfect synch - left, right, left, right....due to our stride and rate adapting to one another - and everyone in the formation.
I do know that my stride length decreases on long runs and I have learning to modify my rate and length to speed up or conserve.
Curious as to your results on this. Please let me know how this works.
Life happened and today I didn’t get to this. But thinking about it, I’ll do several walks around the block. Time them and try to time my cadence as well. I have tomorrow off, so I can do this several times and see some data! I’ll let you know.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I'm 5"8 and often wonder how short petite women manage on low calories and not be ravenous. But as mentioned above, the less mass one has, the less energy one needs, correct?
I'm taller and heavier, so i need more food/energy. But what about appetite.. My daughter is only 5"2 and can put me to shame at a buffet restaurant lol
Yeah, that's my biggest problem. Sure, I feel completely fine with 1000-1200 calories. It fulfils my energy needs perfectly. But most of the days, my appetite is much bigger. So I totally feel your daughter... me + buffet = caloric disaster!
But seriously: who's paying for a full buffet and stops at 1200 calories? That's a total waste of money! Most restaurant food/portions are at least 600 for a single meal already and I'm not going to a restaurant for ordering a salad w/o any dressing and a dry chicken breast with broccoli. I'm not eating out that often, but if I do, I want to enjoy some yummy goodness and not restrict myself.
Plus: for short people, the difference between diet and maintenance is minimal. When I go into maintenance, I might have 3-400 calories more than I have right now and will still have to skip lunch or overeat each time when I go out (and I don't even drink alcohol with my dinner)2 -
@CSARdiver am I reading this right? My long stride (and people have told me I walk funny with a ridiculously long stride for my height) could be slowing my walk speed down?
I’m gonna time myself (cadence) at normal fast walk (normal stride trying to get to work as quick as possible) and a intentionally shortened stride and start to see if I can move faster! Admittedly the research you post is for running (both feet off ground at same time) and I’m walking but it should be interesting.
I believe so. I am no expert, but this thread piqued my interest. My biggest frame of reference being formation marching/running. I at 6'4" running next to my dive buddy at 5' 6" and yet we are in perfect synch - left, right, left, right....due to our stride and rate adapting to one another - and everyone in the formation.
I do know that my stride length decreases on long runs and I have learning to modify my rate and length to speed up or conserve.
Curious as to your results on this. Please let me know how this works.
Ok. I’m a female, 53 yo and 5’3” and 3/4 with 29” inseam. I did two laps around the block, an hour apart.
Lap 1: my normal hurry pace (long stride) - I counted 421 steps. Timed at 6min 59 seconds. Apple Watch says 17’24” pace, 26 cal burned, 107 bpm average.
Lap 2: short stride hurry walk - I counted 431 steps. Timed at 6min 21 seconds. Apple Watch says 17’03” pace, 26 cal burned, 137 bpm average.
I say: I sorta had to shuffle, almost a jog to move the legs fast but keep my stride short. Even this short distance made my calf muscles and hips HURT (the reason I don’t jog/run). Won’t be doing it again. Oddly, almost the same number of steps both times. Short shuffle step clearly quicker (but seemed subjectively longer).
I was going to do this a few more times for more data, but it is too uncomfortable to walk that way.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.
I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P
I get confused by these arguments that short people can't move fast.
I'm short, have a shorter inseam than you, and can walk 4mph and start to run any faster than that. I'm confused by this assertion about short legs. You just have to take more steps than a taller person to get the same pace they do.
ETA: Trust me, I've spent 30 years keeping up with a 6'2" partner. I'm only 5'1".
I'm 5'3, and above 4 mph is when I move into a run too. 3 mph is neither fast nor particularly slow for me, although on the leisurely side, and my normal walking speed unless I'm tired or choosing to stroll is faster. I've always thought it was a city thing, I get impatient walking slowly or behind slow people (and my sister who is the same height as me is a faster natural walker than me).
Admittedly I don't enjoy walking at 4 mph -- I'd rather run. If I'm walking it will be more like 3.5 mph or maybe faster if I'm running late to something.
Agreed that it's cadence, not stride length, that makes the main difference, as I learned re running (when I had to train myself to stop thinking I should increase stride to speed up).
I don't necessarily enjoy walking 4 mph, that's my exercise pace. My normal walking pace is around 3.5
1
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
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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