The benefit of walking

nklp

I love walking so much! I don't go far enough at the moment - I think because it can be quite time-consuming - but I plan to do lots more! Ditching the bus pass is a massive goal of mine - then it'd be a 3 hour walk to and from Uni over the day! But it means early mornings :noway:

FancyPantsFran

Walking is one of my favorite things to do, especially outside. I'm lucky to live near nice walking and nature trails and lately have gotten into hiking. Walking is one of the best under-rated exercise you can do. I think it does my body as well as my soul good to walk

coccodrillo72

Because if you are speed walking you will be done a lot faster. A longer walk of the same distance, you will be exercising longer. If I run 3 miles I can do it in about 30 min. If I walk, it takes 45-50 min. Both burn similar cals because I'm moving the same distance.

At slower walking speeds there is not much difference in calorie burn per mile (apparently this changes with really fast paces) but you cannot compare walking with running: at "normal" walking paces running burns twice as many net calories per mile as walking.

wilsoje74

Because if you are speed walking you will be done a lot faster. A longer walk of the same distance, you will be exercising longer. If I run 3 miles I can do it in about 30 min. If I walk, it takes 45-50 min. Both burn similar cals because I'm moving the same distance.

At slower walking speeds there is not much difference in calorie burn per mile (apparently this changes with really fast paces) but you cannot compare walking with running: at "normal" walking paces running burns twice as many net calories per mile as walking.

Where do you get this information from?

WalkingAlong

I think the second Runners World article on p. 1 here says some (or all) of that, but I didn't go back and check.

tigersword

Obviously if I pick up speed...

There's nothing "obviously" about it - changing walking speed makes very little difference.
The universe doesn't care how "hard" you work. It only cares how much mass you're moving, how far.

My understanding is that this is true only for slower paces, or am I wrong? In the runner's world articles I read: "Lastly the calculations only apply to walkers doing an 18:36 pace and runners doing a 10:00 pace. Running faster or slower than 10:00 pace doesn’t make much difference in your calorie-burn per mile. (But has a major impact on your burn per minute.)

Walking is a different kind of animal. Increases in walking speed dramatically raise calorie burn per mile as well as per minute. Indeed, at about 12:30 per mile, walking hits a point where it burns about the same calories/mile as running. Walk faster than 12:30 and you will burn more calories/mile than running at 10:00 pace."

And again: "In fact, I had read years ago that fast walking burns more calories than running at the same speed. Now was the time to test this hypothesis. Wearing a heart-rate monitor, I ran on a treadmill for two minutes at 3.0 mph (20 minutes per mile), and at 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, and 5.5 mph (10:55 per mile). After a 10-minute rest to allow my heart rate to return to normal, I repeated the same thing walking. Here's my running vs. walking heart rate at the end of each two-minute stint: 3.0 (99/81), 3.5 (104/85), 4.0 (109/94), 4.5 (114/107), 5.0 (120/126), 5.5 (122/145). My conclusion: Running is harder than walking at paces slower than 12-minutes-per-mile. At faster paces, walking is harder than running." And: "The walking formulas apply to speeds of 3 to 4 mph. At 5 mph and faster, walking burns more calories than running."

I sure can't walk a mile in 12:30, but if I get close won't it affect the .30 x your weight formula?

Without actual science to look at, it's just anecdotal. And that second article quote is useless. n=1 is not valid science, plus the constant changing of speeds turned it into interval training; unless the person stopped for 10 minutes between each speed change (which they didn't) then an HRM will give inaccurate calorie estimates. That means none of the calorie estimates (except for the slowest ones) mean anything.

coccodrillo72

Because if you are speed walking you will be done a lot faster. A longer walk of the same distance, you will be exercising longer. If I run 3 miles I can do it in about 30 min. If I walk, it takes 45-50 min. Both burn similar cals because I'm moving the same distance.

At slower walking speeds there is not much difference in calorie burn per mile (apparently this changes with really fast paces) but you cannot compare walking with running: at "normal" walking paces running burns twice as many net calories per mile as walking.

Where do you get this information from?

The runner's world article cited before, which is in turn based on these papers:

Energy expenditure of walking and running: comparison with prediction equations. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150

Energy expenditure comparison between walking and running in average fitness individuals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446673

This data shows clearly that running requires more energy than walking.

As far as the comment about speed walking though I think is a conclusion drawn by the author and not based on those papers.

coccodrillo72

I sure can't walk a mile in 12:30, but if I get close won't it affect the .30 x your weight formula?

Without actual science to look at, it's just anecdotal. And that second article quote is useless. n=1 is not valid science, plus the constant changing of speeds turned it into interval training; unless the person stopped for 10 minutes between each speed change (which they didn't) then an HRM will give inaccurate calorie estimates. That means none of the calorie estimates (except for the slowest ones) mean anything.

You are right, of course. I think it deserves further study though, so if you know about any research on this matter I would be grateful if you posted it here.

gina_nz_

Walking is great. Do what works for you and ignore all this stuff about running being better. Any movement is better than none a nd we all need to start somewhere :-)

arrseegee

Walking is also quite useful for getting yourself from one place to another, I have found.

ohellotheresa

I love walking because I can do it even if I'm tired and I generally feel good afterwards.
but if I'm reallllly tired I just sleep

DamePiglet

Walking is great. Do what works for you and ignore all this stuff about running being better. Any movement is better than none a nd we all need to start somewhere :-)

Yep. Exactly this.

tigerblue

It's kind of sad if you used to believe the 'roughly 100 calories per mile, regardless of speed' thing. At that Runners World net calories formula I only burn about 48 per mile and if I add my BMR/min. est, it only goes up to 67 or so. But in their estimator for gross calories, it suggests I'd burn like 91 per mile. I guess the estimates were made around a larger BMR assumption.

It doesn't really matter, I burn what I burn. I'm not getting into the "poor little old me who can't eat more" because a deficit is a deficit. I don't need to 'eat more', I need less food overall and that's ok. It's convenient and cheaper, that's for sure.

I need to eat more so ii won't be hungry. This weekend I am travelling and sitting a whole lot and no workout--I barely get enough calories to be almost satisfied. Plus I am stuck eating high cal restaurant food which makes it even harder! So high calorie burn is important to me!

servilia

I love walking.

superdeedooper

Finding it a little difficult to get motivated when it's dark by the time I get home from work. I need my own little sunshine to carry around with me.