Is walking every day enough?

stanmann571

stanmann571 wrote: »

spartan_d wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

spartan_d wrote: »

paperpudding wrote: »

spartan_d wrote: »

estherdragonbat wrote: »

What the heck is wrong with slow weight loss? Losing too rapidly isn't good for your body or your hunger levels.

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.

"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 ??

Why would doing it more inefficiently 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.

HDBKLM

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.

CarvedTones

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.

mortikarobinette

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.

rainbow198

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?