Is walking a legitimate exercise?

What? For real they said walking isn't exercise? Idiots!!!!! Sorry but that made mad. I've seen lots of people lose weight with walking and eating a proper nutrition. Grrrrr....What do they say to the disabled? Grrrrr

Any activity that burns more calories than sitting on the couch does counts as exercise.

Walking is good. Not everyone can jog or do other types of excercise. I have a bad back and cannot jog or run like I use to anymore. My Dr. told me walk at least 20 to 30 minutes a day. If walking is not an exercise then why would this site and other sites even have it listed as an exercise? Why would a doctor tell someone to walk a few minutes a day if there were no benefits to it? It is most definitely a form of excercise. :flowerforyou:

my 2 cents... IF you weigh 300 lbs... there's a reason why THAT is hard to do... YOU are carrying a lot of extra weight Captain obvious right? BUT if you are a marathon runner and have like 10% BF... chances are a walk is NOT much of a challenge...

SO visit your definition of "exercise" BY MY definition... exercise is any physical activity that challenges you to exceed your body's capacity to DO that activity...

SO a 300 lb person can be challenged to walk a flight of stairs... and that's exercise... where a marathon runner might load up a weight vest with an extra 60 lbs and "do" 10 flights of stairs to be challenged...

in the same breath I would dare anyone "in shape" and at a healthy BMI .. to pack on enough weight to weigh 300 lbs.. then go for a walk and say that it wasn't exercise.

Exactly this.

In addition, it can obviously start out as a good exercise, but it will become not an exercise, and if you lose and weight and don't increase the pace or the weight carried (not the duration), then it is actually LESS of a workout for you.

Not only are you burning less calories moving less weight, it is no longer an effort for your heart or your muscles.

It would no longer be an exercise for you.

Oh sure, it'll still burn calories, but it's no longer putting a load on your system that even requires the body to maintain it's fitness level even.

If - IF - IF - you lose weight and don't increase the pace or intensity somehow.

Alright, so here's one with walking included. It still shows a pretty linear correlation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4005766/

The big article in your first linked post also mentions a linear correlation in moderately intense exercise - I agree that it only works for steady-state cardio and not day to day living. The debate is whether walking can count as steady-state cardio for some of us (me). From what my HRM tells me, it absolutely is just as much as hopping on an exercise bike. I breathe hard, I sweat, and my pulse sits in the 150s at 4.0mph rate. To be fair, since this specifically came up with regards to an at-home video, it's light aerobics thrown in with a brisk walking pace. I have to read that whole thing before I respond to it in detail, along with the other ones (if they include additional research) and I'll ask/debate points about them when I do that. Thanks for passing them along.

My original post way back when also stated that I think the benefits will diminish without increasing the effort in some way over time, so we agree there too.

It can indeed if you've gotten over the initial starting exercise hump, where anyone's HR is going to be very elevated for the level of effort, and in 4 weeks could do the exact same workout same weight and HR would be a lot lower.

For me, walking level or slight incline 4 mph is barely touching what is considered the HR-Flex point of change from below exercise to exercise - which studies have found to be about 90 bpm.
That's the point below which HR supplying enough oxygen is way off what is needed. So the formula for say a HRM is invalid for correlating HR with calorie burn below that point. Above that point to your anaerobic line is about a straight line function for calorie burn and HR.

If you have HRM and treadmill access - you can actually come up with your best personal calorie burn formula based on current fitness level.
And then see how it changes. Based on those studies that showed the walking calc is within 4% of lab tested.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/getting-your-personalized-calorie-burn-formula-663625

Alright, so here's one with walking included. It still shows a pretty linear correlation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4005766/

The big article in your first linked post also mentions a linear correlation in moderately intense exercise - I agree that it only works for steady-state cardio and not day to day living. The debate is whether walking can count as steady-state cardio for some of us (me). From what my HRM tells me, it absolutely is just as much as hopping on an exercise bike. I breathe hard, I sweat, and my pulse sits in the 150s at 4.0mph rate. To be fair, since this specifically came up with regards to an at-home video, it's light aerobics thrown in with a brisk walking pace. I have to read that whole thing before I respond to it in detail, along with the other ones (if they include additional research) and I'll ask/debate points about them when I do that. Thanks for passing them along.

My original post way back when also stated that I think the benefits will diminish without increasing the effort in some way over time, so we agree there too.

It can indeed if you've gotten over the initial starting exercise hump, where anyone's HR is going to be very elevated for the level of effort, and in 4 weeks could do the exact same workout same weight and HR would be a lot lower.

For me, walking level or slight incline 4 mph is barely touching what is considered the HR-Flex point of change from below exercise to exercise - which studies have found to be about 90 bpm.
That's the point below which HR supplying enough oxygen is way off what is needed. So the formula for say a HRM is invalid for correlating HR with calorie burn below that point. Above that point to your anaerobic line is about a straight line function for calorie burn and HR.

If you have HRM and treadmill access - you can actually come up with your best personal calorie burn formula based on current fitness level.
And then see how it changes. Based on those studies that showed the walking calc is within 4% of lab tested.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/getting-your-personalized-calorie-burn-formula-663625

So the ACSM calculator actually gives me the same number that my HRM did. 30 minutes, 4.0 mph, flat grade, 170 lbs = 190 calories. Do you think that's just a fluke of numbers....? I haven't tried the other methods yet.... I just thought it was interesting that it gave the exact same number there. Wonder if we're quibbling about six of one / half a dozen of another.

I'll have to test the HRM again in six weeks or so and see if there's suddenly a discrepancy. For (personal) science.

ETA: Also, for what it's worth, I don't use a Polar app/watch. I have a Polar HRM, but I use it with Digifit on my phone because it has greater customization/calibration potential and more data. I like data. I don't actually know how they calculate calories from the HR data, specifically. They might do something completely different than what Polar does, and they might very well just use a formula like the ACSM one for slower speeds anyway. I should look into that.

So the ACSM calculator actually gives me the same number that my HRM did. 30 minutes, 4.0 mph, flat grade, 170 lbs = 190 calories. Do you think that's just a fluke of numbers....? I haven't tried the other methods yet.... I just thought it was interesting that it gave the exact same number there. Wonder if we're quibbling about six of one / half a dozen of another.

I'll have to test the HRM again in six weeks or so and see if there's suddenly a discrepancy. For (personal) science.

ETA: Also, for what it's worth, I don't use a Polar app/watch. I have a Polar HRM, but I use it with Digifit on my phone because it has greater customization/calibration potential and more data. I like data. I don't actually know how they calculate calories from the HR data, specifically. They might do something completely different than what Polar does, and they might very well just use a formula like the ACSM one for slower speeds anyway. I should look into that.

Digifit is like the expensive Polar, so not surprised. Well, perhaps that it's so exact, that's pretty good. I recently looked at a hilly run for an hour, and using correct grade, it was within 15 cal between the two.

But like Garmin, they may indeed take the actual walk/run speed as part of the factor to make it more accurate.

If smart, they work backwards a known walk stats and come up with a VO2max, much like that personal calorie burn formula does. I just didn't get in to attempting to figure VO2 from the data - but you can, pretty well too.

But I know they have VO2max, and I believe self-test for it too.

Also, you indicate you've been doing this for awhile, not like the posting above that I think started this side topic - someone started walking and was up around 170 for a not fast speed.

Excellent point the walking haters miss

The hate seems to be for the "Walking has little exercise benefit to me" group.

And that is because many in that group (not you in particular, you see the difference) have denigrated walking as exercise. Just because it is not an efficient form of exercise for you (the generic "you") doesn't mean that it is not good exercise and walkers get a bit testy when they are told by people with a superior attitude that they are not doing enough or a "legitimate" exercise.

http://gubernatrix.co.uk/2010/09/benefits-of-walking/

http://longevity.about.com/od/lifelongfitness/a/walking-aging.htm

http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/fitness/weight-loss/understanding-weight-loss-how-to-lose-20-pounds-by-walking.html#b


http://www.fitnessmagazine.com/workout/cardio/walking/lose-weight-walking/

I would say walking has numerous benefits. It's easy on your joints, it's aerobic, it helps with the anti aging process and its free. I have lost (and sadly, regained and lost again) lots of weight through walking...the key is to progress your pace (you want to progress to a 14 minute mile...I'm at between 18-20 minutes because I get shin splints easily) as you continue to walk. However, walking burns the same calories as jogging...it just takes longer. You can burn the same amount of calories for an hour walk at a brisk pace as you can at a half hour jog, and it's easier on your knees. ANY activity is preferable to none, and exercise, technically, is any extra activity that requires physical effort carried out to sustain or improve health and fitness.

Don't let anyone put you down for your efforts. Every little bit adds up, whether its calories in or calories out. For those who tell you that it isn't exercise, assume that means it isn't exercise for THEM. You do what works for YOU and let the naysayers do their own thing. When you hit goal and people ask you how, you can tell them that you ate well and walked...the proof is in the non fat skim milk no sugar pudding!

If it burns calories I count it as exercise....just like yard work, sex, water gun fights....granted it doesn't burn as many calories as jogging/running, or doing cardio, but people gotta do what they can do...gotta start somewhere!