Is walking a legitimate exercise?

Aaron_K123 · May 2014

I recently walked a 2 mile trail with 40 pounds on my back and a total gain of 2200' over snow.

Normally I call that "hiking". I do suspect that was very good exercise. If only I had a 2200' mountain in my backyard, I wouldn't need to find a better tool than walking, to build a strong aerobic base.

Hiking just implies fancy shoes. Look at your fancy shoes ooooooo!

^^^ yeah, this.... hiking = walking through countryside. you don't even need fancy shoes. I've done loads of hiking in trainers (aka sneakers) or doc martens (I don't know if you even have them in the USA)

We do.

It's simply accountrements for light hobbit play.

Yeah last time I did a 14 day pack over 180 miles I did it in basically sneakers. Screw boots, just makes things harder than it needs to be.

SunofaBeach14 · May 2014

I recently walked a 2 mile trail with 40 pounds on my back and a total gain of 2200' over snow.

Normally I call that "hiking". I do suspect that was very good exercise. If only I had a 2200' mountain in my backyard, I wouldn't need to find a better tool than walking, to build a strong aerobic base.

Hiking just implies fancy shoes. Look at your fancy shoes ooooooo!

^^^ yeah, this.... hiking = walking through countryside. you don't even need fancy shoes. I've done loads of hiking in trainers (aka sneakers) or doc martens (I don't know if you even have them in the USA)

We do.

It's simply accountrements for light hobbit play.

Yeah last time I did a 14 day pack over 180 miles I did it in basically sneakers. Screw boots, just makes things harder than it needs to be.

Hiking boots suck

neandermagnon · May 2014

I recently walked a 2 mile trail with 40 pounds on my back and a total gain of 2200' over snow.

Normally I call that "hiking". I do suspect that was very good exercise. If only I had a 2200' mountain in my backyard, I wouldn't need to find a better tool than walking, to build a strong aerobic base.

Hiking just implies fancy shoes. Look at your fancy shoes ooooooo!

^^^ yeah, this.... hiking = walking through countryside. you don't even need fancy shoes. I've done loads of hiking in trainers (aka sneakers) or doc martens (I don't know if you even have them in the USA)

We do.

It's simply accountrements for light hobbit play.

Yeah last time I did a 14 day pack over 180 miles I did it in basically sneakers. Screw boots, just makes things harder than it needs to be.

Hiking boots suck

I've no idea if they suck or not. I climbed up mountains in docs and walked long distances on the road and through countryside in trainers or docs. I could never afford hiking boots so never owned any.

earlnabby · May 2014

I've no idea if they suck or not. I climbed up mountains in docs and walked long distances on the road and through countryside in trainers or docs. I could never afford hiking boots so never owned any.

I bought my only pair of hiking boots when I took a trip which included a week of hiking in the Scottish Highlands. They were required by the guide because of the deeper treads and additional ankle support and I did appreciate having them. I paid about $75 USD for them and also wore them the next year when I went hiking in Nepal. Otherwise, I prefer walking shoes or my Birkenstocks.

dbmata · May 2014

Wanna talk boots? Check out mountaineering boots, just got a pair of those.

You thought Docs had a stiff toe? These things have as much flex as a inch thick piece of steel, and are as comfortable. I couldn't imagine walking in crampons without though.

Sometimes hiking boots are the bees knees, like on slick granite faces and you need the enhanced friction. Or when you've got a heavy ruck on, the rest of the time they just look high speed, but offer little.

sheltrk · May 2014

Walking is a legitimate exercise! When the weather's nice, my wife and I like to take an hour-long walk every evening. On average, I burn ~200 calories on one of these walks. I like to think of it as "paying for my beer"!

dbmata · May 2014

half a beer, of course.

jmkaye321 · May 2014

I think that anything that you do to be active is good; doesn't always have to be intense. Something is always better than nothing. Right now I am hampered by arthritis and would be thrilled to be able to do any kind of walking - I am used to walking about 2 miles a few times a week and Spinning once a week; now doing almost none. I'd take slow walking; fast walking; anything. You can always start out slow and work up to a speedier walk.

Beckilovespizza · May 2014

I broke my hand in March and had to walk everywhere instead of drive. I was freaking out that the lack of gym attendance would hinder my weight loss. Due to the amount of walking I did (4.5 mph for approx 65 mins per day) I actually lost more weight than I was by attending the gym 4-5 times a week. I would say it is definitely a legit exercise.

geebusuk · May 2014

As I may have already posted in this thread - I pretty much live in my UK Army goretex boots ('pro boots').
The goretex version are a bit softer than the standard, but either way you get used to them.
Only time I don't wear them is.... exercise?
:P
Was wearing them the other weekend for mountain biking and also certainly would for any 'walking' - they're waterproof enough to stand in streams providing the water doesn't go over the top, of course and have decent grip. Offer plenty of support too.

Also, I was not the person that said you said something.

This is a very pointless discussion.

All I said was that you weren't clear. You are the one making up what I said and blowing this way out of proportion.

Yep, telling me something I haven't claimed other wise and was the subject you were perusing might be considered 'pointless'.

Just to be clear that I'm not "making up', here's a direct quote:

Everything you say is a fact? If we don't find you interesting, we don't think? Strong logic.

Aaron_K123 · May 2014

As I may have already posted in this thread - I pretty much live in my UK Army goretex boots ('pro boots').
The goretex version are a bit softer than the standard, but either way you get used to them.
Only time I don't wear them is.... exercise?
:P
Was wearing them the other weekend for mountain biking and also certainly would for any 'walking' - they're waterproof enough to stand in streams providing the water doesn't go over the top, of course and have decent grip. Offer plenty of support too.

Also, I was not the person that said you said something.

This is a very pointless discussion.

All I said was that you weren't clear. You are the one making up what I said and blowing this way out of proportion.

Yep, telling me something I haven't claimed other wise and was the subject you were perusing might be considered 'pointless'.

Just to be clear that I'm not "making up', here's a direct quote:

Everything you say is a fact? If we don't find you interesting, we don't think? Strong logic.

Yeah I used to swear by Goretex boots until I was in a 40 hour deluge in the backcountry and absolutely everything got soaked through. Everything eventually dried, except those damn boots. Feet were made soft by the dampness and got chewed to hell. Got some nice pictures of the little mini-self surgery I had to do as a result.

WIth that experience plus the fact that boots are frankly just heavy and 1 pound on your feet is equivalent to 5 pounds on your back while packing (due to how much distance your feet move relative to your body) I switched to low-cut mesh trail runners and never looked back.

If you wade through a river in those of course they get soaked, but they are dry again 20 min later.

BinaryPulsar · May 2014

As I may have already posted in this thread - I pretty much live in my UK Army goretex boots ('pro boots').
The goretex version are a bit softer than the standard, but either way you get used to them.
Only time I don't wear them is.... exercise?
:P
Was wearing them the other weekend for mountain biking and also certainly would for any 'walking' - they're waterproof enough to stand in streams providing the water doesn't go over the top, of course and have decent grip. Offer plenty of support too.

Also, I was not the person that said you said something.

This is a very pointless discussion.

All I said was that you weren't clear. You are the one making up what I said and blowing this way out of proportion.

Yep, telling me something I haven't claimed other wise and was the subject you were perusing might be considered 'pointless'.

Just to be clear that I'm not "making up', here's a direct quote:

Everything you say is a fact? If we don't find you interesting, we don't think? Strong logic.

Oh my.

Look, we must be caught up in some kind of repeated misunderstandings of each other. It's not a big deal. We don't even know each other. It's not that serious. It's just a long thread about walking. It's time to move on and let it go. No one else cares about our conversation. It's just a disruption to the point of the thread. I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. I'm sorry for anything else. I never intended to harm you. Time to call a truce. Time to let it go. Time to move on. Have a great weekend!

bethcox16 · May 2014

i haven't read all the comments on here so i don't know if this has been mentioned, but walking at a brisk pace actually burns more fat that running, as you burn the most fat when your heart rate is under 65% its maximum rate (you find your maximum heart rate by taking your age from 220) i walk around 3 hours a day at least 3 days a week and honestly i feel great! I've lost loads of weight as well as inches actually!!

Beckilovespizza · May 2014

i haven't read all the comments on here so i don't know if this has been mentioned, but walking at a brisk pace actually burns more fat that running, as you burn the most fat when your heart rate is under 65% its maximum rate (you find your maximum heart rate by taking your age from 220) i walk around 3 hours a day at least 3 days a week and honestly i feel great! I've lost loads of weight as well as inches actually!!

I read that somewhere too and as I mentioned in my post I lost more weight walking at a brisk pace than I did working out at the gym, this usually includes running on the treadmill. According to MFP/the machines I burn more cals at the gym but in reality lost more weight walking.

glenelliott5872 · May 2014

Walking is superb exercise. You don't here of many life threatening injuries from walking compared to cycling, football, rugby, skiing,............

weight loss / gain = Energy in - Energy out

Got to love thermodynamics. It just doesn't let you down!

heybales · May 2014

i haven't read all the comments on here so i don't know if this has been mentioned, but walking at a brisk pace actually burns more fat that running, as you burn the most fat when your heart rate is under 65% its maximum rate (you find your maximum heart rate by taking your age from 220) i walk around 3 hours a day at least 3 days a week and honestly i feel great! I've lost loads of weight as well as inches actually!!

That's the fat burning HR zone myth.

You burn a bigger % of total calories as fat in that HR zone - because you are burning so few calories.

If you want to go for that theory though, sit down and rest, because then you burn around 90% fat as your energy source.
But your total energy burn is very low.

But heh - great % of fat burned!

But when you increase exercise intensity, you increase total calories burned, and more fat grams burned, but as a % of total calories burned, less % of fat.

And guess what happens with all those extra carbs burned during that workout at higher intensity?
After your next meal carbs are sent to refill those stores, and in a diet rarely to the top, so that means to maintain blood sugar levels, insulin drops sooner than otherwise, meaning you go back into normal fat burning mode sooner than if you did your walking.

The difference with running for people taking it up - it's asking the body to make improvements, which is usually water weight gain for many different reasons.
But walking doesn't, or very minor improvements.

While the fat-burning HR zone, better and longer called the Active Recovery HR zone, is a valid zone to have workouts in for specific reasons - if you are limited on time and can do more, more will burn more calories overall, and more fat grams. Even if the % of fat burned is less during just the workout.
Include the whole day though, and it's not anymore.

snowflake954 · May 2014

i haven't read all the comments on here so i don't know if this has been mentioned, but walking at a brisk pace actually burns more fat that running, as you burn the most fat when your heart rate is under 65% its maximum rate (you find your maximum heart rate by taking your age from 220) i walk around 3 hours a day at least 3 days a week and honestly i feel great! I've lost loads of weight as well as inches actually!!

I read that somewhere too and as I mentioned in my post I lost more weight walking at a brisk pace than I did working out at the gym, this usually includes running on the treadmill. According to MFP/the machines I burn more cals at the gym but in reality lost more weight walking.

I'm with you both! Also read an article here in Italy that brisk walking, and swimming are the best ways to tone up celulite. It's worked for me.

mummma · May 2014

ive been walking on the treadmill with 1 minute jogs every 10 minutes. an hour a day. lost 5lb this week. so it does something huh!

MeanderingMammal · May 2014

As I may have already posted in this thread - I pretty much live in my UK Army goretex boots ('pro boots').
The goretex version are a bit softer than the standard, but either way you get used to them.
Only time I don't wear them is.... exercise?
:P
Was wearing them the other weekend for mountain biking and also certainly would for any 'walking' - they're waterproof enough to stand in streams providing the water doesn't go over the top, of course and have decent grip. Offer plenty of support too.

A lot of the guys wear goretex boots for in barracks and light training use and then non goretex boots for field use. The lighter ones are more comfortable for day to day use but don't provide the required support when wearing body armour and carrying a bergen and weapon system.

I guess it depends on the load one is carrying, for Combat Fitness Tests, the lighter weight boots are fine because it's not a huge load, and as a timed test it makes sense to have something that's going to be a bit fleeter of foot.

@s

Eleana14 · May 2014

Yes, walking is a legitimate exercise.

Prancercise on the other hand I would say is an illegitimate exercise. http://youtu.be/o-50GjySwew

Lol. Agree

PurpleCupcakes01 · May 2014

ive been walking on the treadmill with 1 minute jogs every 10 minutes. an hour a day. lost 5lb this week. so it does something huh!

Great job!

geebusuk · May 2014

Time to call a truce. Time to let it go. Time to move on. Have a great weekend!

From what I can tell from the 'rules' in this little discussion, I should now post again to get the last word in, as you've tired ; customarily people seem to like to 'agree to disagree', but my dislike of that concept, I will suggest, is perhaps better discussed another time

bethcox16:
Cituation please.
Everything I've seen suggests you burn a bigger PROPORTION of calories from fat at a lower heart rate.
(Edit, as much better explained above... I started writing this last night, so won't continue

).

mummma · May 2014

ive been walking on the treadmill with 1 minute jogs every 10 minutes. an hour a day. lost 5lb this week. so it does something huh!

Great job!

thanks :flowerforyou:

RHachicho · May 2014

Walking burns almost as much calories as running per distance, But not per time. Walking is great exercise and can burn a lot of calories but it IS time consuming. When we consider running vs Walking

Calorie Burn per Distance - Running slightly higher
Calorie Burn per Time - Running Way Higher
Time Required - Walking Requires a lot more
Fitness requirement - Running way higher
Fitness benefits - Running way higher

There are many advantages to running. But walking is entirely legitimate.

heybales · May 2014

Walking burns almost as much calories as running per distance, But not per time. Walking is great exercise and can burn a lot of calories but it IS time consuming. When we consider running vs Walking

Calorie Burn per Distance - Running slightly higher
Calorie Burn per Time - Running Way Higher
Time Required - Walking Requires a lot more
Fitness requirement - Running way higher
Fitness benefits - Running way higher

There are many advantages to running. But walking is entirely legitimate.

For visual on those comments and what speed will get you closer.

If chart preferred, here.

http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html

edit - Strange, their gif isn't coming across, perhaps they don't like and allow that. I'll leave correct URL above in case it does. Until it does, just go to linked page.

dbmata · May 2014

i haven't read all the comments on here so i don't know if this has been mentioned, but walking at a brisk pace actually burns more fat that running, as you burn the most fat when your heart rate is under 65% its maximum rate (you find your maximum heart rate by taking your age from 220) i walk around 3 hours a day at least 3 days a week and honestly i feel great! I've lost loads of weight as well as inches actually!!

I read that somewhere too and as I mentioned in my post I lost more weight walking at a brisk pace than I did working out at the gym, this usually includes running on the treadmill. According to MFP/the machines I burn more cals at the gym but in reality lost more weight walking.

I'm with you both! Also read an article here in Italy that brisk walking, and swimming are the best ways to tone up celulite. It's worked for me.

er, wot?

Tone up cellulite?

Cellulite is a type of fat deposit and can't be "toned". Eye don unnastahnd ewe!