Is walking every day enough?
Replies
-
Due to my extreme morbid obesity walking is just about all I can do at the moment. I do go to the gym once a week but do not fit onto / into most machines. However I can do water aerobics and it feels good for my joints.8
-
neugebauer52 wrote: »Due to my extreme morbid obesity walking is just about all I can do at the moment. I do go to the gym once a week but do not fit onto / into most machines. However I can do water aerobics and it feels good for my joints.
that's great. if it works for you, keep it up.
2 -
ramansuresh754 wrote: »It depends on how are you walking. Fast walking for 1-2 hours may be enough. But some other exercise is also required.
No exercise is required. It depends on goals.6 -
Of course, it's a marathon. That's why you shouldn't lose weight at an unrealistic, unhealthy pace. At anything short of that though, faster and more efficient is better than slower and less efficient.paperpudding wrote: »
Why would doing it more inefficiently be better?paperpudding wrote: »
There's a difference between slow and inefficiently slow. One should strive to lose weight at a moderate rate. Walking, however, is a really inefficient way to lose weight in comparison to other forms of exercise.estherdragonbat wrote: »What the heck is wrong with slow weight loss? Losing too rapidly isn't good for your body or your hunger levels.
"But I lost 60 lbs by walking!" some would say. Good for you, but you could have probably done that more quickly with some full body workouts and some more vigorous forms or cardio --- all without losing weight too rapidly.
Why would doing it more quickly be better ??
Time is limited and very few people come anywhere close to losing the maximum amount of fat per week. The more quickly you can lose the fat -- within a safe margin, that is -- the better.
Why would doing it more inefficiently be better?paperpudding wrote: »
There's a difference between slow and inefficiently slow. One should strive to lose weight at a moderate rate. Walking, however, is a really inefficient way to lose weight in comparison to other forms of exercise.estherdragonbat wrote: »What the heck is wrong with slow weight loss? Losing too rapidly isn't good for your body or your hunger levels.
"But I lost 60 lbs by walking!" some would say. Good for you, but you could have probably done that more quickly with some full body workouts and some more vigorous forms or cardio --- all without losing weight too rapidly.
Why would doing it more quickly be better ??
Time is limited and very few people come anywhere close to losing the maximum amount of fat per week. The more quickly you can lose the fat -- within a safe margin, that is -- the better.
I disagree that doing it slowly is doing it inefficiently.
and I disagree that the more quickly you can lose fat, even within a safe margin, the better.
Losing weight is a marathon not a sprint - and not a competitive race.
That is true insofar as personal preferences and limitations are concerned. Some people might really like Zumba and would stick with it longer, for example. That has more to do with one's mindset than any inherent superiority in going slowly though (again, within the constraint that one shouldn't lose weight at an unhealthy pace).What is better is individual -the way and the pace that suits the individual.
Or some people might have joint issues that prevent them from doing anything more vigorous. In this case though, it's not a question of losing weight more slowly being better. Rather, this is simply a case wherein one's personal limitations might limit one's options (and even then, there are generally more efficient alternatives, such as low-impact interval training, that provide more bang for the buck than walking alone would).4 -
It's almost as if you're having your own conversation independent of what everyone else is saying.
Of course, it's a marathon. That's why you shouldn't lose weight at an unrealistic, unhealthy pace. At anything short of that though, faster and more efficient is better than slower and less efficient.paperpudding wrote: »
Why would doing it more inefficiently be better?paperpudding wrote: »
There's a difference between slow and inefficiently slow. One should strive to lose weight at a moderate rate. Walking, however, is a really inefficient way to lose weight in comparison to other forms of exercise.estherdragonbat wrote: »What the heck is wrong with slow weight loss? Losing too rapidly isn't good for your body or your hunger levels.
"But I lost 60 lbs by walking!" some would say. Good for you, but you could have probably done that more quickly with some full body workouts and some more vigorous forms or cardio --- all without losing weight too rapidly.
Why would doing it more quickly be better ??
Time is limited and very few people come anywhere close to losing the maximum amount of fat per week. The more quickly you can lose the fat -- within a safe margin, that is -- the better.
Why would doing it more inefficiently be better?paperpudding wrote: »
There's a difference between slow and inefficiently slow. One should strive to lose weight at a moderate rate. Walking, however, is a really inefficient way to lose weight in comparison to other forms of exercise.estherdragonbat wrote: »What the heck is wrong with slow weight loss? Losing too rapidly isn't good for your body or your hunger levels.
"But I lost 60 lbs by walking!" some would say. Good for you, but you could have probably done that more quickly with some full body workouts and some more vigorous forms or cardio --- all without losing weight too rapidly.
Why would doing it more quickly be better ??
Time is limited and very few people come anywhere close to losing the maximum amount of fat per week. The more quickly you can lose the fat -- within a safe margin, that is -- the better.
I disagree that doing it slowly is doing it inefficiently.
and I disagree that the more quickly you can lose fat, even within a safe margin, the better.
Losing weight is a marathon not a sprint - and not a competitive race.
There's nothing less efficient about walking as the preponderance of caloric deficit and thus pace of weightloss comes from CI.
9 -
Of course, it's a marathon. That's why you shouldn't lose weight at an unrealistic, unhealthy pace. At anything short of that though, faster and more efficient is better than slower and less efficient.paperpudding wrote: »
Why would doing it more inefficiently be better?paperpudding wrote: »
There's a difference between slow and inefficiently slow. One should strive to lose weight at a moderate rate. Walking, however, is a really inefficient way to lose weight in comparison to other forms of exercise.estherdragonbat wrote: »What the heck is wrong with slow weight loss? Losing too rapidly isn't good for your body or your hunger levels.
"But I lost 60 lbs by walking!" some would say. Good for you, but you could have probably done that more quickly with some full body workouts and some more vigorous forms or cardio --- all without losing weight too rapidly.
Why would doing it more quickly be better ??
Time is limited and very few people come anywhere close to losing the maximum amount of fat per week. The more quickly you can lose the fat -- within a safe margin, that is -- the better.
Why would doing it more inefficiently be better?paperpudding wrote: »
There's a difference between slow and inefficiently slow. One should strive to lose weight at a moderate rate. Walking, however, is a really inefficient way to lose weight in comparison to other forms of exercise.estherdragonbat wrote: »What the heck is wrong with slow weight loss? Losing too rapidly isn't good for your body or your hunger levels.
"But I lost 60 lbs by walking!" some would say. Good for you, but you could have probably done that more quickly with some full body workouts and some more vigorous forms or cardio --- all without losing weight too rapidly.
Why would doing it more quickly be better ??
Time is limited and very few people come anywhere close to losing the maximum amount of fat per week. The more quickly you can lose the fat -- within a safe margin, that is -- the better.
I disagree that doing it slowly is doing it inefficiently.
and I disagree that the more quickly you can lose fat, even within a safe margin, the better.
Losing weight is a marathon not a sprint - and not a competitive race.
That is true insofar as personal preferences and limitations are concerned. Some people might really like Zumba and would stick with it longer, for example. That has more to do with one's mindset than any inherent superiority in going slowly though (again, within the constraint that one shouldn't lose weight at an unhealthy pace).What is better is individual -the way and the pace that suits the individual.
Or some people might have joint issues that prevent them from doing anything more vigorous. In this case though, it's not a question of losing weight more slowly being better. Rather, this is simply a case wherein one's personal limitations might limit one's options (and even then, there are generally more efficient alternatives, such as low-impact interval training, that provide more bang for the buck than walking alone would).
How about we just say you win the thread? Efficient exercise is always better, and that's what we should all be doing, within any unavoidable constraints of whatever our physical limitations or preferences are. We'll even use your definition of "efficient", where even low impact intervals are clearly better than walking.
If OP bailed on the thread, I think I understand why.13 -
Of course, it's a marathon. That's why you shouldn't lose weight at an unrealistic, unhealthy pace. At anything short of that though, faster and more efficient is better than slower and less efficient.paperpudding wrote: »
Why would doing it more inefficiently be better?paperpudding wrote: »
There's a difference between slow and inefficiently slow. One should strive to lose weight at a moderate rate. Walking, however, is a really inefficient way to lose weight in comparison to other forms of exercise.estherdragonbat wrote: »What the heck is wrong with slow weight loss? Losing too rapidly isn't good for your body or your hunger levels.
"But I lost 60 lbs by walking!" some would say. Good for you, but you could have probably done that more quickly with some full body workouts and some more vigorous forms or cardio --- all without losing weight too rapidly.
Why would doing it more quickly be better ??
Time is limited and very few people come anywhere close to losing the maximum amount of fat per week. The more quickly you can lose the fat -- within a safe margin, that is -- the better.
Why would doing it more inefficiently be better?paperpudding wrote: »
There's a difference between slow and inefficiently slow. One should strive to lose weight at a moderate rate. Walking, however, is a really inefficient way to lose weight in comparison to other forms of exercise.estherdragonbat wrote: »What the heck is wrong with slow weight loss? Losing too rapidly isn't good for your body or your hunger levels.
"But I lost 60 lbs by walking!" some would say. Good for you, but you could have probably done that more quickly with some full body workouts and some more vigorous forms or cardio --- all without losing weight too rapidly.
Why would doing it more quickly be better ??
Time is limited and very few people come anywhere close to losing the maximum amount of fat per week. The more quickly you can lose the fat -- within a safe margin, that is -- the better.
I disagree that doing it slowly is doing it inefficiently.
and I disagree that the more quickly you can lose fat, even within a safe margin, the better.
Losing weight is a marathon not a sprint - and not a competitive race.
That is true insofar as personal preferences and limitations are concerned. Some people might really like Zumba and would stick with it longer, for example. That has more to do with one's mindset than any inherent superiority in going slowly though (again, within the constraint that one shouldn't lose weight at an unhealthy pace).What is better is individual -the way and the pace that suits the individual.
Or some people might have joint issues that prevent them from doing anything more vigorous. In this case though, it's not a question of losing weight more slowly being better. Rather, this is simply a case wherein one's personal limitations might limit one's options (and even then, there are generally more efficient alternatives, such as low-impact interval training, that provide more bang for the buck than walking alone would).
How about we just say you win the thread? Efficient exercise is always better, and that's what we should all be doing, within any unavoidable constraints of whatever our physical limitations or preferences are. We'll even use your definition of "efficient", where even low impact intervals are clearly better than walking.
If OP bailed on the thread, I think I understand why.
Sorry, I should have disengaged sooner.4 -
Walking is great for your psyche and can be an easy way to incorporate some exercise. If your goal is weight loss, as long as you are in a deficit, you will lose weight. It may be slow, but you will lose weight whether you exercise or not.
I've done walking, weight lifting, running, and tennis. Some are considered better calorie burners than others, but I don't think that is the only thing to think about. In the past, I have often tried to do as much "working out" as possible and did not put a lot of effort into watching what I ate. This did not work for weight loss. I also tore my calf muscle and couldn't do any exercise for months.
Now that I'm in my 40s, my focus is sustainability. I do not want my life to revolve around the gym like when I was in my 20s. I watch what I eat AND I do exercise I enjoy. I love tennis, so I play tennis year round. I also walk, swim, and sometimes run a little, play with the kids, do squats while making dinner, lift weights while watching my favorite shows.
So to answer your question, "Is walking enough?" It may be. It depends on your goals.4 -
PatriciaJane69 wrote: »Hi everyone, the only exercise i do (apart from housework) is walking everyday between 1 and 2 hours,would this be enough exercise to help get my shape back,i have put weight on in the stomach area after having operation for ovarian cancer, my calories for the day are always low,feeling hopeful
If walking everyday is enough for you to maintain a caloric deficit or stay at maintenance then the only answer is...yes. Of course it is enough if this suits your goals.
Far too many get caught up in absurd ancillary issues such as efficiency in a thinly disguised effort to be superior.
The best method is the method that works for you in both the short and long term to achieve your goals.9 -
it is not more efficient if it is too much and the person gets injured4
-
I've always been unathletic and uncoordinated (gross motor and fine motor issues. Bad enough to be inconvenient, nowhere near bad enough to qualify as any sort of disability).
Growing up in Montreal, I attended junior college (CEGEP) where taking four phys ed classes over two years was a graduation requirement and my primary goals in choosing the classes were "Avoid team sports so I don't drag anyone down with me" and "avoid water activities, because there is no way I'm letting anyone see me in a bathing suit". I was successful in that much; I took fitness, aerobics, square/novelty dancing, and stress management.
And during the three classes that weren't phys ed "theory", every time I saw myself in the mirror while working out, all I saw was a sweating lumbering bear, always out of step with the rest of the class. And yeah, self esteem was a factor. But so was lack of coordination.
I'm going to admit that if I put in a lot of extra time and effort, I might be able to do higher-impact, more intense exercises properly and without risking serious injury. I might even get good at it. But I'd rather take that extra time and a pair of headphones and put it into two-hour walks. Because when I walk, I don't look like an out-of-step grizzly lurching down the street. And because it gets me tangible results without making me feel like everyone is staring at me.
Now, next month, I do plan to train for a 5K "walk, run or fly" that's being held at the end of August. I downloaded a 7-week training program and I'm going to give running a shot. But if it turns out that after a week I feel like I can't handle it, then fine. I'm a darned efficient walker and I actually registered as a walker before I decided to see if I could train to run instead. I have no clue whether the event organizers will let me switch to running. That's something I'll look into if it turns out to be something I can do.
But if it's not? Well, according to the RHR charts, I somehow have the heart of an athlete anyway...13 -
stanmann571 wrote: »
Of course, it's a marathon. That's why you shouldn't lose weight at an unrealistic, unhealthy pace. At anything short of that though, faster and more efficient is better than slower and less efficient.paperpudding wrote: »
Why would doing it more inefficiently be better?paperpudding wrote: »
There's a difference between slow and inefficiently slow. One should strive to lose weight at a moderate rate. Walking, however, is a really inefficient way to lose weight in comparison to other forms of exercise.estherdragonbat wrote: »What the heck is wrong with slow weight loss? Losing too rapidly isn't good for your body or your hunger levels.
"But I lost 60 lbs by walking!" some would say. Good for you, but you could have probably done that more quickly with some full body workouts and some more vigorous forms or cardio --- all without losing weight too rapidly.
Why would doing it more quickly be better ??
Time is limited and very few people come anywhere close to losing the maximum amount of fat per week. The more quickly you can lose the fat -- within a safe margin, that is -- the better.
Why would doing it more inefficiently be better?paperpudding wrote: »
There's a difference between slow and inefficiently slow. One should strive to lose weight at a moderate rate. Walking, however, is a really inefficient way to lose weight in comparison to other forms of exercise.estherdragonbat wrote: »What the heck is wrong with slow weight loss? Losing too rapidly isn't good for your body or your hunger levels.
"But I lost 60 lbs by walking!" some would say. Good for you, but you could have probably done that more quickly with some full body workouts and some more vigorous forms or cardio --- all without losing weight too rapidly.
Why would doing it more quickly be better ??
Time is limited and very few people come anywhere close to losing the maximum amount of fat per week. The more quickly you can lose the fat -- within a safe margin, that is -- the better.
I disagree that doing it slowly is doing it inefficiently.
and I disagree that the more quickly you can lose fat, even within a safe margin, the better.
Losing weight is a marathon not a sprint - and not a competitive race.
That is true insofar as personal preferences and limitations are concerned. Some people might really like Zumba and would stick with it longer, for example. That has more to do with one's mindset than any inherent superiority in going slowly though (again, within the constraint that one shouldn't lose weight at an unhealthy pace).What is better is individual -the way and the pace that suits the individual.
Or some people might have joint issues that prevent them from doing anything more vigorous. In this case though, it's not a question of losing weight more slowly being better. Rather, this is simply a case wherein one's personal limitations might limit one's options (and even then, there are generally more efficient alternatives, such as low-impact interval training, that provide more bang for the buck than walking alone would).
How about we just say you win the thread? Efficient exercise is always better, and that's what we should all be doing, within any unavoidable constraints of whatever our physical limitations or preferences are. We'll even use your definition of "efficient", where even low impact intervals are clearly better than walking.
If OP bailed on the thread, I think I understand why.
Sorry, I should have disengaged sooner.
JMO: You're not ignoring context and nuance.5 -
Of course, it's a marathon. That's why you shouldn't lose weight at an unrealistic, unhealthy pace. At anything short of that though, faster and more efficient is better than slower and less efficient
I disagree on your basic premise.
I do not agree that anything faster as long as not unhealthy fast , is inherently better than anything slower.
I think the goal should be to lose weight in a way and at a pace that suits the individual - there is no inherently better.
It is not a competitive race.10 -
If I had said such a thing, then you would have a valid point. However, at no point did I claim that one should ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS do what is most efficient. Quite the contrary, I explicitly acknowledged that there are times when physical limitations do prevent someone from engaging in such, and that considering one's personal preferences is valid -- especially if this will help that person stick things through. Heck, I said exactly that in the snippet that you quoted, for pity's sake. You would have noticed that if you had bothered to read it before responding.
Of course, it's a marathon. That's why you shouldn't lose weight at an unrealistic, unhealthy pace. At anything short of that though, faster and more efficient is better than slower and less efficient.paperpudding wrote: »
Why would doing it more inefficiently be better?paperpudding wrote: »
There's a difference between slow and inefficiently slow. One should strive to lose weight at a moderate rate. Walking, however, is a really inefficient way to lose weight in comparison to other forms of exercise.estherdragonbat wrote: »What the heck is wrong with slow weight loss? Losing too rapidly isn't good for your body or your hunger levels.
"But I lost 60 lbs by walking!" some would say. Good for you, but you could have probably done that more quickly with some full body workouts and some more vigorous forms or cardio --- all without losing weight too rapidly.
Why would doing it more quickly be better ??
Time is limited and very few people come anywhere close to losing the maximum amount of fat per week. The more quickly you can lose the fat -- within a safe margin, that is -- the better.
Why would doing it more inefficiently be better?paperpudding wrote: »
There's a difference between slow and inefficiently slow. One should strive to lose weight at a moderate rate. Walking, however, is a really inefficient way to lose weight in comparison to other forms of exercise.estherdragonbat wrote: »What the heck is wrong with slow weight loss? Losing too rapidly isn't good for your body or your hunger levels.
"But I lost 60 lbs by walking!" some would say. Good for you, but you could have probably done that more quickly with some full body workouts and some more vigorous forms or cardio --- all without losing weight too rapidly.
Why would doing it more quickly be better ??
Time is limited and very few people come anywhere close to losing the maximum amount of fat per week. The more quickly you can lose the fat -- within a safe margin, that is -- the better.
I disagree that doing it slowly is doing it inefficiently.
and I disagree that the more quickly you can lose fat, even within a safe margin, the better.
Losing weight is a marathon not a sprint - and not a competitive race.
That is true insofar as personal preferences and limitations are concerned. Some people might really like Zumba and would stick with it longer, for example. That has more to do with one's mindset than any inherent superiority in going slowly though (again, within the constraint that one shouldn't lose weight at an unhealthy pace).What is better is individual -the way and the pace that suits the individual.
Or some people might have joint issues that prevent them from doing anything more vigorous. In this case though, it's not a question of losing weight more slowly being better. Rather, this is simply a case wherein one's personal limitations might limit one's options (and even then, there are generally more efficient alternatives, such as low-impact interval training, that provide more bang for the buck than walking alone would).
How about we just say you win the thread? Efficient exercise is always better, and that's what we should all be doing, within any unavoidable constraints of whatever our physical limitations or preferences are. We'll even use your definition of "efficient", where even low impact intervals are clearly better than walking.
My point was simply that walking is one of the less efficient ways to become fit. This nonsense about walking burning as many calories as running is positively daft. It defies common sense, and the mathematics that stanmann571 posted earlier are invalid for reasons that I already explained. If people are going to take offense at the simple notion that walking is relatively inefficient, that's their neurosis.
7 -
I don't think anyone took offence.
Disagreeing with you is not taking offence.
I don't think anyone claimed walking for half hour would burn more calories than running for same time, did they?
What they did argue with is the premise that more than walking is required and that losing faster is inherently better.
.6 -
No, which is why I never claimed that anyone said such a thing. Rather, I was disagreeing with stanmann571's claim that the difference is negligible -- "not generally enough to matter," to use his exact words. The difference is substantial, especially when running at higher speeds on a regular basis. Again, the numbers that he cited don't prove his case, for reasons that I already explained.paperpudding wrote: »I don't think anyone took offence.
Disagreeing with you is not taking offence.
I don't think anyone claimed walking for half hour would burn more calories than running for same time, did they?What they did argue with is the premise that more than walking is required and that losing faster is inherently better.
At no point did I claim that "more than walking is required." Rather, I simply said that more vigorous activity is more efficient, since walking is one of the slowest ways to lose weight through exercise.
Nor did I say that "losing faster is inherently better" -- only that it's more efficient, as long as one stays within safe parameters, e.g. not losing at an unhealthy rate. For some bizarre reason, some people here have a difficult time grasping that distinction.
I fully acknowledge that it might be prudent to adopt activities that one enjoys more, if this means sticking it out more consistently. I also acknowledge, as stated in previous postings, that people may have physical limitationts that prevent them from running or doing other intense activities. This does not mean that walking is as efficient as, say, running -- only that there are pragmatic considerations to consider.
Apparently though, merely stating that walking is relatively inefficient is enough to infuriate some people around here -- enough to make them launch into angry rants. That goes beyond mere disagreement, fella. If it's not "taking offense," then I don't know what is.
5 -
Walked about 7 miles in 100 minutes this morning. That's a significant amount of calories burned even if running would have been quicker.5
-
I sincerely hope that this thread does not discourage others from posting and asking questions. It seems that much of the discussion has taken a side turn that might be more appropriate for the debate section of this forum. I'm not saying that any of it is invalid, just misplaced and not as compassionate as I would expect given the OP's opening statement. I would suggest that moving that part of the discussion to the debate boards would be kinder than continuing it here.
I personally feel walking is a great way to exercise and given her situation is appropriate. To the OP, if you are still reading... keep walking. You are doing great. If you haven't already, consider doing some strength training. It doesn't have to be complicated or use lots of weights. I personally use 1 lb. dumbbells and a fitness ball. There are lots of strength training activities you can do without weights at all. It's not just good for making you stronger and adding muscle but it good for bone density as well.
I'll also paste this from the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition website since it seems appropriate (emphasis is mine):
The American College of Sports Medicine and American Cancer Society recommend 150 minutes per week of cardiovascular exercise and 2-3 days of strength training per week. However, it's important to listen to your body and increase your exercise slowly, especially if you are still in treatment.
11 -
This content has been removed.
-
Dismissing the numbers out of hand isn't explaining anything.
No, which is why I never claimed that anyone said such a thing. Rather, I was disagreeing with stanmann571's claim that the difference is negligible -- "not generally enough to matter," to use his exact words. The difference is substantial, especially when running at higher speeds on a regular basis. Again, the numbers that he cited don't prove his case, for reasons that I already explained.paperpudding wrote: »I don't think anyone took offence.
Disagreeing with you is not taking offence.
I don't think anyone claimed walking for half hour would burn more calories than running for same time, did they?
If you want to present a different numerical analysis by all means do so.
But handwaving doesn't help your argument.
1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »
Why would doing it more inefficiently be better?paperpudding wrote: »
There's a difference between slow and inefficiently slow. One should strive to lose weight at a moderate rate. Walking, however, is a really inefficient way to lose weight in comparison to other forms of exercise.estherdragonbat wrote: »What the heck is wrong with slow weight loss? Losing too rapidly isn't good for your body or your hunger levels.
"But I lost 60 lbs by walking!" some would say. Good for you, but you could have probably done that more quickly with some full body workouts and some more vigorous forms or cardio --- all without losing weight too rapidly.
Why would doing it more quickly be better ??
Time is limited and very few people come anywhere close to losing the maximum amount of fat per week. The more quickly you can lose the fat -- within a safe margin, that is -- the better.
Doing it more inefficiently would be better if one enjoys walking more than running (or more vigorous cardio, or full body workouts, or whatever).
If you look closely though, I never said that one HAS to deny themselves activities that they enjoy.
The question asked was "Why would doing it more quickly be better ??" It's because all other things being equal, more efficient IS better. This is so axiomatically true that it scarcely needs defending. Being less efficient isn't as good. Of course, if somebody is more likely to stick with the less efficient activity - for whatever reason -- then that matters as well.
The argument that stanmann571 keeps making is that it doesn't matter how quickly you burn the calories, since there's a maximum rate at which one can safely lose weight. This reasoning is positively daft, since the vast majority of people will not lose weight at anywhere near this maximum rate.
stanmann571 also says that a calorie deficit matters more than exercise. That is true, and dietary changes are indeed more important -- but this does NOT make the exercise aspect insignificant. Not to mention that more vigorous exercise provides a host of other benefits.
The following quote from the WebMD article that I cited earlier sums it up:But a decade after the famous study's release, some researchers argue that we've been sold a bill of goods. "Exercise lite is to exercise what lite beer is to beer. It's pretty bland stuff," says Paul Williams, PhD, an exercise scientist at the Life Sciences Division of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California. "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."
What you're not getting is that the difference in calorie burn while real is insignificant. Especially when taking into account that walking at 3.5 mph can be done in street clothes and may not require showering immediately after whereas running at 5 mph will require changing before and showering after.
https://www.runnersworld.com/nutrition-weight-loss/a20843760/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn/
hypothetical 200 lb person
Walk calories per mile-3 miles nets 342 calories in 51 minutes
.57 x wt in lbs
Run calories per mile-3 miles nets 432 calories in 36 minutes+ 5 minutes to change+ 10 minutes to shower+5 minutes to dress 56 minutes.
.72 x wt in lbs
Here's those numbers again.
5-6 mph is a pretty conservative pace, as most of the runners I saw at the last 5k I ran finished in the 25-40 minute range.
The 8 mph from your friends blog is just silly as most recreational/health focused runners aren't running 7 minute miles. They're running 9-12 minute miles or a 5-6 mph pace as in my example.1 -
Walking is almost the only exercise I did to lose my first 50 pounds (in about 40 weeks, for reference), so it's totally doable as a weight loss tool. I assume that's the intention of your question, to find out how it is for weight loss as opposed to broader fitness-related goals. I will say, though, that at my current weight I'm starting to think that I might no longer be burning enough calories through walking to compensate for my eating effectively, and am contemplating what else I might incorporate as a supplement since I still have 10–20 pounds to go (depends what I see in the mirror after 10). This has something to do with the fact that I'm a short, relatively sedentary woman, so I don't get a lot of calories even at maintenance. YMMV. So I might venture to say that for some walking is 'enough', as you put it, but only up to a point.2
-
My numbers...
I can walk pretty casually - only sweating if it is really hot - at up to 3.5 mph.
I can walk briskly to burn more - and will sweat - at up to 4.5 mph. If it isn't a really long walk and it isn't hot, I might get away with just changing shirts after.
When I used to run (sidelined by knee problems), I ran at 6 mph and always got very sweaty; always required a shower.
If I were younger I might push it and try to get back to running; the orthopedic surgeon that did my knee said it was possible, but I might be back to see him and he couldn't do anything about the arthritis. Anyway, since I decided it isn't worth the trouble, running isn't an option. Walking is working; it helped keep my burn up wile losing and helped me get pretty fit. I also do some dumbbell rows and paddle SUP, which is as good or better than running in calories per hour but takes much more prep time.2 -
So I've only been doing this for a month but I've been happy with my results from just walking. I've lead a very sedentary lifestyle for the past 6 years and walking has been the only thing I could do that I'm not in pain afterwards. So far I've lost 8 pounds.
I do plan to start some strength planning on the near future but walking is all the cardio I plan on due to my knee.4 -
I've walked off over 80 pounds and have kept the weight off for several years. It has been a great form of exercise for me plus it has greatly improved my cardiovascular endurance and stamina.
I walk on tracks and trails, do walk at home videos and I have a very active pup that needs his walks around the neighbourhood.
I'm maintaining now and average around 4 miles everyday (fitness walking miles, not daily steps) and I make sure I go at a good, steady pace so that my heart is pumping. When I was losing weight I walked more.
My resting heart rate was in the mid-90's when I first started walking and now it's in the low 50's/high 40's.
At the beginning it was tough for me to walk 1/4 of a mile and it hurt. Now I go on a 10+ mile hikes without getting sore, tired or winded.
What I really appreciate is that brisk walking does not increase my appetite like other forms of exercise, but it's still very effective.
Eating balanced meals and being aware of my calorie intake was the other component of helping me reach my goal.
However, for me and my goals I need to include regular strength-training as well to be able to maintain that toned and tightness I want in my body.
Plus I strive for functional fitness and I try to keep my exercise routines well-rounded so that it includes flexibility, balance, agility in addition to the strength-training and cardio.
However, various forms of walking (slow on active rest days, moderate, brisk, intervals, hiking) has been my main form of exercise for the past 6 and a half years. I really enjoy my walks and the results so it motivates me to keep going.
Edited to add...I've been walking backwards recently and it's really great for balance, it works the back of the legs and helps to keep the brain sharp. I've been seeing older walkers doing this for years and decided to research it myself. Sure it might look silly, but there's something to it. I don't go for long, maybe 100 steps or so at a time and I make sure I do this when it's quiet. Has anyone tried this before?8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions