Fitness Myths!

mustgetmuscles1

I dont know about the other myths, but I will have to disagree with the one about walking. I have lost almost all of my 100+ pounds with watching my calories and doing a lot of walking

When I started out I was pretty unfit, so walking was a great way to start. If you're very heavy then you're bound to be burning a few calories just moving your body about, even if it's "only" walking.

This

I started out just walking. Now I have a balanced routine that includes both strength and cardio exercises. I understand that diet is the single most important aspect of losing weight. And that you're not going to eat a giant pizza and walk it off that afternoon. But, to say that walking is useless is absurd. Those that have led a sedentery lifestyle need to transition from sitting on the couch to moving on a regular basis. A morbidly obese person isn't going to jump up one day and start pounding it out with heavy weights and miles of running, It's much more likely that they will start slowly with something simple like walking and add to their routine as they adjust to the activity level.

Perhaps the target audience of the Shape article is for people that are already physically fit.

No where in there did it say walking was useless. The point is that walking alone is not enough and that is true. You cant walk off a bad diet. There is no reason to see this as an attack on walking or those that do it.

Not saying it was an attack. But it does say that 'noticeable weight loss' is not normally achieved by just walking...and mine have definitely been noticeable.

You were also watching your calories so what the article talks about does not apply to your situation. Had you not been watching your calories the walking would not have done much for weight loss. Lots of people walk a lot and get fat. Does that mean that walking makes you fat? No it means that walking alone has very little to do with weight loss other than burning a very small amount of calories. Other benefits are great so it is not worthless by any means.

ki4yxo

4. Myth: You can walk off extra pounds.
Reality: Although walking is good exercise and most Americans don’t do enough of it, if you want to lose a noticeable amount of weight, it’s not the best method since it’s low intensity and doesn’t burn a lot of calories during or afterward. To substantially shrink your belly and keep it flat, Greenspan says you want an integrated approach of strength training, cardio (preferably intervals), and a calorie-controlled diet. Adding in a few extra miles on your feet daily as one part of an overall weight-loss plan is good and good for your health, but that alone probably won’t lead to significant results on the scale.

"not the best"... but still perfectly viable, walking, combined with a caloric deficit, can aid perfectly well in weight loss (which they agree with at the end of the myth blurb).

"doesn’t burn a lot of calories during"... it can burn a lot of calories, you just have to devote a lot of time to the walk.

"or afterward"... this is a myth busting article perpetuating a myth (ironic), the "afterburn effect" is a myth. You don't burn more calories once the exercise has ended than if you hadn't exercised at all. If anything, research shows that we burn slightly fewer calories in the 24 hours after exercise (but don't worry, it's negligible).

I lost 35 pounds by walking. last 5k I did, was mostly walking.
I go by my HRM, and keep my beats per minute around 135-140.
(doctor says not to exceed 150) Walks are usually around 4.0 mph.

Worked for me!

1Fizzle

Most sensible thing I have read all day! Thanks for sharing!

mustgetmuscles1

.

sijomial

5. Myth: You’ll burn more fat on an empty stomach.
Reality: The body torches about the same amount of flab whether or not you nosh before a workout, Greenspan says. But your body also needs fuel in order to perform at its best, build muscle, and burn calories, so you should always eat something light about 30 to 45 minutes before exercise such as a protein shake, yogurt, or a piece of whole-wheat bread with peanut butter.

5. This is just replacing one myth with another. You can't digest food that quickly.

wazzanz

QUOTE: I lost 35 pounds by walking. last 5k I did, was mostly walking.
I go by my HRM, and keep my beats per minute around 135-140.
(doctor says not to exceed 150) Walks are usually around 4.0 mph.

Worked for me! END QUOTE
I'd say you lost most of your weight from eating less and the walking helped. Must be pretty intense walking to get your heart rate up to that level.

Good article and as usual the longer the threads go the more people start to misinterpret it and it all gets abusive. Like the old whisper game at school. When did walking become "useless"- Not the article i read.. Has it's place and great for many people that can't do anything more intense.

ndj1979

on point five I do not agree with the "eat 45 minutes before workout" statement. I train fasted ..have about 20% of cals at lunch...and then workout about fiveish...and I always have plenty of energy.have also incresed squat by about 45 pounda and deadlift by about 70 pounds over past three months...just saying...

Intermittent Fasting?

yes, lean gains 18/6

eAddict

QUOTE: I lost 35 pounds by walking. last 5k I did, was mostly walking.
I go by my HRM, and keep my beats per minute around 135-140.
(doctor says not to exceed 150) Walks are usually around 4.0 mph.

Worked for me!

I'd say you lost most of your weight from eating less and the walking helped. Must be pretty intense walking to get your heart rate up to that level.

Not when you start out as a big guy as I did. Just going up 1 or 2 flights of stairs my heart would get going!

ki4yxo

QUOTE: I lost 35 pounds by walking. last 5k I did, was mostly walking.
I go by my HRM, and keep my beats per minute around 135-140.
(doctor says not to exceed 150) Walks are usually around 4.0 mph.

Worked for me!

I'd say you lost most of your weight from eating less and the walking helped. Must be pretty intense walking to get your heart rate up to that level.

I was passing people that were "jogging" in the 5K.
On the treadmill, I control my beats per minute by
speed, and incline.

mustgetmuscles1

QUOTE: I lost 35 pounds by walking. last 5k I did, was mostly walking.
I go by my HRM, and keep my beats per minute around 135-140.
(doctor says not to exceed 150) Walks are usually around 4.0 mph.

Worked for me!

I'd say you lost most of your weight from eating less and the walking helped. Must be pretty intense walking to get your heart rate up to that level.

Not when you start out as a big guy as I did. Just going up 1 or 2 flights of stairs my heart would get going!

You cut off the part where he said "Has it's place and great for many people that can't do anything more intense."

MelodyinGa

Bump

ItsCasey

That whole paragraph about walking was just poorly done and irresponsible. Of course weight-loss happens faster when you combine exercise with diet. They acknowledged that much when they said it's best to combine strength training, cardio, AND diet. So why single out walking, as though people who walk for weight-loss don't also change their diet?

An obese woman reading that, who had been planning to start walking regularly, could very well say to herself "What's the use?" when the truth is that walking can work just as well as running or swimming or biking or weight training. It will take more time, but the ultimate issue at work here is caloric deficit, not which exercise is sexier.

wazzanz

QUOTE: I lost 35 pounds by walking. last 5k I did, was mostly walking.
I go by my HRM, and keep my beats per minute around 135-140.
(doctor says not to exceed 150) Walks are usually around 4.0 mph.

Worked for me!

I'd say you lost most of your weight from eating less and the walking helped. Must be pretty intense walking to get your heart rate up to that level.

Not when you start out as a big guy as I did. Just going up 1 or 2 flights of stairs my heart would get going!

Which would make it "pretty intense" for you....

notthatthis

6. Myth: You should do cardio and strength on separate days.
Reality: According to Greenspan, there is no scientific reason to keep the two isolated, and you up your chances of hitting your goal—whether it’s health, strength, or a pants size—by combining them. And then there’s that whole time-saving perk. Greenspan suggests doing a circuit where you alternate between combo exercises (squat to row or press, for example) and short, high-intensity cardio bursts (such as sprinting on the treadmill). Going back and forth like this with minimal rest builds strength and gets your heart rate up even more than a typical half hour on the elliptical or Stairmaster at moderate pace.

I have some qualms with this one...not necessarily full disagreement...mostly because if I was doing this, I'd definitely not be maximizing my lift session. I do some cardio on lift days, but it's generally low intensity for heart health...a moderate paced walk hours before my lift session or after it. I would never go back and forth between the two as I would simply not be putting my maximum effort into my lift.

You may have qualms but this is exactly what people training for Strong Men competitions do - aerobic, anaerobic and alactic performance training done at the same time - with suitable rest times of course. the only thing that should effect your lifts is available ATP, Glycogen and Lactic Acid build up - certainly not elevated heart rate.

deb3129

That whole paragraph about walking was just poorly done and irresponsible. Of course weight-loss happens faster when you combine exercise with diet. They acknowledged that much when they said it's best to combine strength training, cardio, AND diet. So why single out walking, as though people who walk for weight-loss don't also change their diet?

An obese woman reading that, who had been planning to start walking regularly, could very well say to herself "What's the use?" when the truth is that walking can work just as well as running or swimming or biking or weight training. It will take more time, but the ultimate issue at work here is caloric deficit, not which exercise is sexier.

This is what I am afraid of, exactly. That someone who is overweight and despereate, where I was when I started will read this and think there is no point in trying. Walking is the only thing I could manage at first, and if I had read this, I would have been very discouraged. If you are very overweight and very inactive, and you start walking, you are likely to get good results.

notthatthis

That whole paragraph about walking was just poorly done and irresponsible. Of course weight-loss happens faster when you combine exercise with diet. They acknowledged that much when they said it's best to combine strength training, cardio, AND diet. So why single out walking, as though people who walk for weight-loss don't also change their diet?

An obese woman reading that, who had been planning to start walking regularly, could very well say to herself "What's the use?" when the truth is that walking can work just as well as running or swimming or biking or weight training. It will take more time, but the ultimate issue at work here is caloric deficit, not which exercise is sexier.

the article was about Fitness Myths and not diet. Walking is great to start conditioning for real exercise in people who have not exercised in a long time or have underlying health issues. People are different but time and again I hear that people don't exercise because they do not have the time and walking for weight loss takes time. There are lots of better ways to burn calories and work type II muscle fibers in 40 minutes than 2 to 3 hours of walking.

You will find that people start exercising but not calorie controlling and get fed up with the results. Calorie controlling but feel the weight is not coming off fast enough and again suffer from cognitive dissonance and give up. The truth is move more, move faster, move weight, calorie control and do not spend endless hours getting no where. These are the truths, peoples personal stories are entirely different.

mustgetmuscles1

That whole paragraph about walking was just poorly done and irresponsible. Of course weight-loss happens faster when you combine exercise with diet. They acknowledged that much when they said it's best to combine strength training, cardio, AND diet. So why single out walking, as though people who walk for weight-loss don't also change their diet?

An obese woman reading that, who had been planning to start walking regularly, could very well say to herself "What's the use?" when the truth is that walking can work just as well as running or swimming or biking or weight training. It will take more time, but the ultimate issue at work here is caloric deficit, not which exercise is sexier.

LOTS of people start exercise programs without changing their diets. "I want to get healthy and lose some weight so I am going to start walking everyday." <----Very common to hear. If you know nothing about diet and exercise you are in for disappointment if this is how you go about it. Dont know why everyone sees this as an attack on walking. Must have read a different article than the one I read.

m0ll3pprz

That whole paragraph about walking was just poorly done and irresponsible. Of course weight-loss happens faster when you combine exercise with diet. They acknowledged that much when they said it's best to combine strength training, cardio, AND diet. So why single out walking, as though people who walk for weight-loss don't also change their diet?

An obese woman reading that, who had been planning to start walking regularly, could very well say to herself "What's the use?" when the truth is that walking can work just as well as running or swimming or biking or weight training. It will take more time, but the ultimate issue at work here is caloric deficit, not which exercise is sexier.

This is what I am afraid of, exactly. That someone who is overweight and despereate, where I was when I started will read this and think there is no point in trying. Walking is the only thing I could manage at first, and if I had read this, I would have been very discouraged. If you are very overweight and very inactive, and you start walking, you are likely to get good results.

Nicely said ladies! You have to start somewhere, right?!

notthatthis

7. Myth: Long and slow cardio training burns the most fat.
Reality: While it’s true that lengthy, slow workouts will use up more fat for energy, they’re not the way to go for fat loss; instead focus on the total calories burned during and after your workout. Ditch devoting 75 mind-numbing minutes to a slow trod on the treadmill, and do interval training or higher-intensity exercise for half—or even a quarter—of that time, which kills more calories at a faster rate and keeps your metabolism revved post-gym sesh.

Or even better, actually develop some aerobic fitness so that you don't have to run at a slow trod.

Bottom line is that somebody who takes the time to develop their fitness properly will burn more calories and fat in their fat burning zone than the person doing HIIT who is constantly chasing the latest fat burning fad rather than taking a methodical approach to developing a high degree of fitness.

Bottom line is --- care to show all the most recent studies in sports science and nutrition that back your claim. There are fads and there are evolutions and/or revolutions in how to train, how to train best for fat loss, best for muscle gain, best for power, best for strength. Zumba is a fad - HIIT and then HIIT which targets the alactic and anaerobic systems whilst maintaining a high heart rate is the revolution and the evolution. Major problem with HIIT - it is really hard and the majority of people just cannot hack it.

mjox27

Tone of great info in this topic.

MrsT99

1. Myth: Muscle “weighs” more than fat.
Reality: A pound is a pound is a pound—unless you’re defying the laws of physics. No substance weighs more then another one unless it actually weighs more. Simply put: One pound of fat weighs the same as one pound of muscle. “The difference is that fat is bulkier than muscle tissue and takes up more space under the skin,”

I don't think this is actually something that most people misunderstand -- the everyday person just says it in an ambiguous manner. They don't think in terms of density; they think in terms of what they see on the scale and in the mirror.

Of course a pound is a pound (with the exception of certain precious metals that have independent weight definitions); it would be silly to argue with that. It's similar to saying that 1kg of lead has more mass than 1kg of feathers. It just isn't true. The feathers, under normal circumstances, will obviously be less dense than the lead. In this exaggerated analogy, the feathers are fat and the lead is muscle. They will have the same mass, but have different densities (and thus take up different amounts of space).

I think the author is somewhat underestimating the level of intelligence of his/her audience.

I'm with you on this phrase! No one I've ever come across actually thinks one pound of muscle is heavier than one pound of fat...they clearly mean by volume.

I'm going one further - I don't think many people ACTUALLY think that fat tissue literally turns into muscle tissue. It's just a phrase people use...

2. Myth: Weight training converts fat to muscle.
Reality: This is physically impossible, Greenspan says. “Fat and muscle tissue are two completely different substances. Exercise such as strength training will help to build muscle, which encourages fat loss by increasing your resting metabolism so you can burn more calories throughout the day.” To get a lean look, you need to build muscle through weight training while simultaneously losing fat—but one doesn’t magically become the other.

scottb81

7. Myth: Long and slow cardio training burns the most fat.
Reality: While it’s true that lengthy, slow workouts will use up more fat for energy, they’re not the way to go for fat loss; instead focus on the total calories burned during and after your workout. Ditch devoting 75 mind-numbing minutes to a slow trod on the treadmill, and do interval training or higher-intensity exercise for half—or even a quarter—of that time, which kills more calories at a faster rate and keeps your metabolism revved post-gym sesh.

Or even better, actually develop some aerobic fitness so that you don't have to run at a slow trod.

Bottom line is that somebody who takes the time to develop their fitness properly will burn more calories and fat in their fat burning zone than the person doing HIIT who is constantly chasing the latest fat burning fad rather than taking a methodical approach to developing a high degree of fitness.

Bottom line is --- care to show all the most recent studies in sports science and nutrition that back your claim. There are fads and there are evolutions and/or revolutions in how to train, how to train best for fat loss, best for muscle gain, best for power, best for strength. Zumba is a fad - HIIT and then HIIT which targets the alactic and anaerobic systems whilst maintaining a high heart rate is the revolution and the evolution. Major problem with HIIT - it is really hard and the majority of people just cannot hack it.

Common sense backs it up. An aerobically fit average person might run around 8:30 miles in the fat burning zone (defined as that intensity where more than 50% of the energy is coming from fat). If that person weighs 173 lbs they will burn 270 cal in that time with 135 from fat. Given that HIIT is only actively exercising half that time and recovering the other half the calorie burn may be similar with the fat burn much smaller. The fit person did an extremely easy workout and burned the same number of calories and more fat calories than the other person burned in a maximum intensity session.

Additionally, the aerobically fit person, can keep the same intensity longer, burning much higher calories than the person doing HIIT and they can do it every day without any problems because the intensity is low.

Next, high intensity exercise has its place in developing fitness but it is a fallacy to believe it will develop the aerobic system by itself. I have read the studies and all they measure is development of VO2max, usually over the two or three month period of the experiment. What they always fail to mention in the studies is that (1) VO2max is one, but not the only component of aerobic fitness and (2) Fitness gains with HIIT peak and then plateau after 6 to 10 weeks. Further gains are only possible with additional development of the aerobic system accomplished with steady aerobic exercise. What they also fail to mention is that while the gains from HIIT are maxed in 6 to 10 weeks the gains from steady exercise will continue to build for years.

Finally, if people would develop an attitude of methodically developing their fitness instead of chasing the latest fads they would find that in the long term weight control will no longer be an issue. Form follows Fitness.

ki4yxo

QUOTE: I lost 35 pounds by walking. last 5k I did, was mostly walking.
I go by my HRM, and keep my beats per minute around 135-140.
(doctor says not to exceed 150) Walks are usually around 4.0 mph.

Worked for me!

I'd say you lost most of your weight from eating less and the walking helped. Must be pretty intense walking to get your heart rate up to that level.

Not when you start out as a big guy as I did. Just going up 1 or 2 flights of stairs my heart would get going!

You cut off the part where he said "Has it's place and great for many people that can't do anything more intense."

I just go by what my HRM says. 135'sh burns calories.
I ran the last part of the 5k and my heart rate reached
close to 180 BPM. I make walking more intense by using
the incline feature on the treadmill.

If I'm sweating I must be doing something right. :laugh:

notthatthis

7. Myth: Long and slow cardio training burns the most fat.
Reality: While it’s true that lengthy, slow workouts will use up more fat for energy, they’re not the way to go for fat loss; instead focus on the total calories burned during and after your workout. Ditch devoting 75 mind-numbing minutes to a slow trod on the treadmill, and do interval training or higher-intensity exercise for half—or even a quarter—of that time, which kills more calories at a faster rate and keeps your metabolism revved post-gym sesh.

Or even better, actually develop some aerobic fitness so that you don't have to run at a slow trod.

Bottom line is that somebody who takes the time to develop their fitness properly will burn more calories and fat in their fat burning zone than the person doing HIIT who is constantly chasing the latest fat burning fad rather than taking a methodical approach to developing a high degree of fitness.

Bottom line is --- care to show all the most recent studies in sports science and nutrition that back your claim. There are fads and there are evolutions and/or revolutions in how to train, how to train best for fat loss, best for muscle gain, best for power, best for strength. Zumba is a fad - HIIT and then HIIT which targets the alactic and anaerobic systems whilst maintaining a high heart rate is the revolution and the evolution. Major problem with HIIT - it is really hard and the majority of people just cannot hack it.

Common sense backs it up. An aerobically fit average person might run around 8:30 miles in the fat burning zone (defined as that intensity where more than 50% of the energy is coming from fat). If that person weighs 173 lbs they will burn 270 cal in that time with 135 from fat. Given that HIIT is only actively exercising half that time and recovering the other half the calorie burn may be similar with the fat burn much smaller. The fit person did an extremely easy workout and burned the same number of calories and more fat calories than the other person burned in a maximum intensity session.

Additionally, the aerobically fit person, can keep the same intensity longer, burning much higher calories than the person doing HIIT and they can do it every day without any problems because the intensity is low.

Next, high intensity exercise has its place in developing fitness but it is a fallacy to believe it will develop the aerobic system by itself. I have read the studies and all they measure is development of VO2max, usually over the two or three month period of the experiment. What they always fail to mention in the studies is that (1) VO2max is one, but not the only component of aerobic fitness and (2) Fitness gains with HIIT peak and then plateau after 6 to 10 weeks. Further gains are only possible with additional development of the aerobic system accomplished with steady aerobic exercise. What they also fail to mention is that while the gains from HIIT are maxed in 6 to 10 weeks the gains from steady exercise will continue to build for years.

Finally, if people would develop an attitude of methodically developing their fitness instead of chasing the latest fads they would find that in the long term weight control will no longer be an issue. Form follows Fitness.

So, these studies then? But I can assure you that most of the statements that you have made are fallacious hyperbole in regard HIIT, especially HIIT with resistance training as opposed to - spicing up my mundane 55-65% of MHR and VO2max whilst performing another 2 hours important calorie burning "aerobic" exercise. What about the alactic and anaerobic systems in relation to burning fat - which of course is what the article was highlighting and NOT THAT TRUE AEROBIC WORKOUTS AT steady state of 75-85% MHR are not beneficial, those workouts still will not burn as many calories as systems that combine aerobic, anaerobic, alactic to achieve 90-100% MHR or VO2 MAX 150-170% nor will aerobic achieve the same EPOC as combining. It seems you would like people to stay in the weight loss past.

scottb81

7. Myth: Long and slow cardio training burns the most fat.
Reality: While it’s true that lengthy, slow workouts will use up more fat for energy, they’re not the way to go for fat loss; instead focus on the total calories burned during and after your workout. Ditch devoting 75 mind-numbing minutes to a slow trod on the treadmill, and do interval training or higher-intensity exercise for half—or even a quarter—of that time, which kills more calories at a faster rate and keeps your metabolism revved post-gym sesh.

Or even better, actually develop some aerobic fitness so that you don't have to run at a slow trod.

Bottom line is that somebody who takes the time to develop their fitness properly will burn more calories and fat in their fat burning zone than the person doing HIIT who is constantly chasing the latest fat burning fad rather than taking a methodical approach to developing a high degree of fitness.

Bottom line is --- care to show all the most recent studies in sports science and nutrition that back your claim. There are fads and there are evolutions and/or revolutions in how to train, how to train best for fat loss, best for muscle gain, best for power, best for strength. Zumba is a fad - HIIT and then HIIT which targets the alactic and anaerobic systems whilst maintaining a high heart rate is the revolution and the evolution. Major problem with HIIT - it is really hard and the majority of people just cannot hack it.

Common sense backs it up. An aerobically fit average person might run around 8:30 miles in the fat burning zone (defined as that intensity where more than 50% of the energy is coming from fat). If that person weighs 173 lbs they will burn 270 cal in that time with 135 from fat. Given that HIIT is only actively exercising half that time and recovering the other half the calorie burn may be similar with the fat burn much smaller. The fit person did an extremely easy workout and burned the same number of calories and more fat calories than the other person burned in a maximum intensity session.

Additionally, the aerobically fit person, can keep the same intensity longer, burning much higher calories than the person doing HIIT and they can do it every day without any problems because the intensity is low.

Next, high intensity exercise has its place in developing fitness but it is a fallacy to believe it will develop the aerobic system by itself. I have read the studies and all they measure is development of VO2max, usually over the two or three month period of the experiment. What they always fail to mention in the studies is that (1) VO2max is one, but not the only component of aerobic fitness and (2) Fitness gains with HIIT peak and then plateau after 6 to 10 weeks. Further gains are only possible with additional development of the aerobic system accomplished with steady aerobic exercise. What they also fail to mention is that while the gains from HIIT are maxed in 6 to 10 weeks the gains from steady exercise will continue to build for years.

Finally, if people would develop an attitude of methodically developing their fitness instead of chasing the latest fads they would find that in the long term weight control will no longer be an issue. Form follows Fitness.

So, these studies then? But I can assure you that most of the statements that you have made are fallacious hyperbole in regard HIIT, especially HIIT with resistance training as opposed to - spicing up my mundane 55-65% of MHR and VO2max whilst performing another 2 hours important calorie burning "aerobic" exercise. What about the alactic and anaerobic systems in relation to burning fat - which of course is what the article was highlighting and NOT THAT TRUE AEROBIC WORKOUTS AT steady state of 75-85% MHR are not beneficial, those workouts still will not burn as many calories as systems that combine aerobic, anaerobic, alactic to achieve 90-100% MHR or VO2 MAX 150-170% nor will aerobic achieve the same EPOC as combining. It seems you would like people to stay in the weight loss past.

Your introduction of resistance training is a Red Herring since not only did I not say anything about it, neither did the paragraph we are talking about. Your 2hr statement is also irrelevant since what I said was that an aerobically fit person can burn as many calories in 20 minutes of easy exercise as the other can burn in 20 min of max effort HIIT. If you want to introduce afterburn then ok. Afterburn for HIIt will give you approximately a 10% afterburn. So, for that 20 min session you will get around 27 more calories burned in the following 24 hours. One person put out max effort for 27 calories that the other person burned in an additional 2 minutes of easy exercise. Not such a big timesaver as the article leads people to believe.

I don't want people to stay in the weight loss past but I do want them to understand that most of what is written about HIIT on the Internet is misleading hype.

Azdak

Compared to the typical Shape magazine article, this is Nobel-prize quality, but it still slavishly parrots the current "everything has to be high-intensity intervals" fad, which is a narrow and misguided approach.

But overall, there's lots worse information out there.

Nataliaho

I think its a reasonable article for Shape magazine. I think alot of people are missing the point. The article is refuting myths, not asserting absolutes. It isn't saying, 'don't walk' its refuting the very prevalent myth that walking is always better than running because of the 'fat burning zone' or whatever. The article is trying to refute the kind of myths that are especially prevalent in non-fitness specific media, like say woman's day or cosmo. I remember back in the days that I went to weight watchers, we were very clearly told that we should walk. not run, to lose weight...

I was abit 'hmmmmmm' about #5 but it isn't too bad, at least it not suggesting "metabolism firing" or "muscle breakdown"...

mynameiscarrie

Lot's of discussion on this! I like it!

I don't think it was saying walking is bad, I think it was saying that if you can run, walking isn't going to be the most beneficial for you if you want to get more fit. I know a lot of people who think they'll lose weight or get fit if they walk their dog once a day, when it really won't do much (in a reasonable time frame) without adding something else to it.

I was shocked that Shape posted this since a lot of the info is good information.

And Myth #1: you'd be surprised at how many people don't really understand it.

monicalosesweight

That whole paragraph about walking was just poorly done and irresponsible. Of course weight-loss happens faster when you combine exercise with diet. They acknowledged that much when they said it's best to combine strength training, cardio, AND diet. So why single out walking, as though people who walk for weight-loss don't also change their diet?

An obese woman reading that, who had been planning to start walking regularly, could very well say to herself "What's the use?" when the truth is that walking can work just as well as running or swimming or biking or weight training. It will take more time, but the ultimate issue at work here is caloric deficit, not which exercise is sexier.

This is what I am afraid of, exactly. That someone who is overweight and despereate, where I was when I started will read this and think there is no point in trying. Walking is the only thing I could manage at first, and if I had read this, I would have been very discouraged. If you are very overweight and very inactive, and you start walking, you are likely to get good results.

I agree with both of you. I've lost my 30 pounds eating right and walking (and some hiking which is a form of walking) within 6 months. I don't think that's a bad or horrid number. The way it's worded is completely wrong. You can walk off extra pounds but like any form of exercise, you have to combine it with good nutrition. To say that walking won't work is baloney. It does - are there faster methods? Yes. But, my weight was causing issues with my joints and I was able to do those sorts of things at first so walking was the way to go for me. Now, I just started strength training with weights and that should help a lot - but that's because I've removed enough weight to stop the pain in my joints. But, I couldn't have done that without first dropping some weight so keep from hurting myself. This particular myth could cause someone to give up! Walking is a great form of exercise - heck - hiking is a form of walking and you can burn tons by going on long hikes.

"4. Myth: You can walk off extra pounds."

Poorly written - It should have read "You can walk off extra pounds slowly if eating right - just don't expect it to fall off super fast."

Oh, it doesn't mention running - just says not to have high expectations from it and that you need diet, interval training and weight lifting but obviously some of us have proved that walking will help you lose weight.

lwagnitz

I used to be one of those cardio queens. 2 hours at the gym just on cardio equipment. Maybe 15 minutes using some of the machines.

Now, I do what I consider "circuit training". And I seriously freaking love it. Not only has it cut my gym time, but it's super fun and makes me compete with myself. I jog 1 minute, sprint 30 second, then do 3 strength training work outs, then repeat, with different work outs between each one, and however many times I want to repeat (I do it AT LEAST 4 times)

I do it 3x a week. It's so fun.