Walking considered strength training?
Options
Replies
-
I noticed some people saying that walking didn't help them at all, which I find strange. I am a pretty athletic person already but when I started walking regularly, my legs and butt were very noticeably more toned after just the first couple of weeks and the cellulite was gone too. And I already have a lot of muscle too.
And to answer your question, anything that is specifically working your muscles but not raising your heart rate particularly high is strength training. Cardio (even though it will work your muscles and tone you), is more for just raising your heart rate to burn more kcals but does not work any specific muscles.
Strength training is working the muscles against an external resistance. Increased strength means the muscle can generate more force. Heart rate has nothing to do with it--whether high or low.
That's pretty much what I meant, but thank you for using fancier words than me. I guess I didn't think to put the keywords "external resistance" in there *rolls eyes*. And actually heart rate does matter. Although you can train lower-intensity cardio as well, generally speaking, while doing cardio your heart rate is going to be much more elevated than during strength training. That's why cardio burns a lot more kcals than strength training, and thus, burns a lot more fat in a shorter amount of time.
Nope--that's not it at all. That's why I tried to explain.
What isn't it at all? That's kind of vague, I don't think you're explaining well.
0 -
It all depends
If you are walking ...away from a cheesecake it is "strength"
When you walk away from your mother in law it is "endurance"
For me, shutting my mouth and walking away takes serious strength.
Continuously walking away from food takes endurance.
Maybe I'm that special snowflake!0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »
How fat do you think most serious runners are? Like overweight or obese?
In your experience.
The argument here was that poster said "all walkers and endurance runners are lean."
I'd agree that MANY are. But not all. Walking and running don't make you lean and there are plenty of people who are overweight and achieve great runs while still overeating and carrying extra weight.
No, I said that serious runners are usually very lean. That poster has disagreed because in his experience, serious runners are usually not very lean.
I have no intention of arguing with either answer. I'm just interested about his experience with these non-lean, but serious runners.
We all have different experiences.
Like you, my experience has been that when a person is a serious runner, they'll almost always have a very lean body.
Um....I'm a she.
No, I disgreed because serious runners are not always lean, they can be of normal weight and overweight, and I've seen some I would consider obese. I don't think weight has anything to do with seriousness/committment to running. I'd say when you're committed to running you are serious about it.
You are projecting your own stuff and making a sweepoing generalization obout certain runners.
Now, let me ask you- why do you believe that only serious runner are lean (or only lean runners are serious)?
If a person is over weight or obese, they sure ain't no serious runner, unless your perception of a serious runner is someone who runs occasionally and eats too much.
Righhttttttt.....
Sillustrated thing said yet.
Ya know, I see a lot of your posts telling people their wrong about this and their wrong about that. Its like the starting line in many of your posts.
Well guess what?
You're the one who is wrong.
So, you really believe overweight or obese runners are not serious runners? Seriously? You really know overweight and obese runners' level of committment to running? From your statement, I take this to mean you are referring to ALL overweight or obese runners?
Now you are just reversing it so you can again appear to be right.
You said serious runners can be overweight and/or obese. Now you are trying to make it look like you said overweight or obese people who run are not serious about running to lose weight.
What I am saying is it would be very highly unlikely for a serious runner (someone who runs pretty much for a living) to be overweight, let alone obese.
I would consider a serious runner to be someone who runs for hours every single day and has been doing it for years. In running you have to be very careful about impact injuries even being at a healthy weight. I could not imagine an overweight person NOT having some degree of impact injuries from running, and in an obese person the potential for serious impact injuries is extremely likely.
I would highly recommend overweight and obese people to walk until they get to a healthy weight before they start running.
But hey... from the vibes I get from some of the people in this forum, I guess I'm probably wrong about that too.0 -
A serious runner is someone who runs for a living?
Yeah. No. That's a professional runner. An elite runner.
That's not even the definition the poster used who started this whole judgmental mess. I believe she said someone who runs regularly, signs up and runs races is a serious runner. People who do that are serious runners. They are committed to the act of running. Those people come in all shapes, sizes and abilities.
I started running when I was technically obese. I am now what people would probably consider lean. Is that because of running. Not really. It's because I consistently ate at a deficit. Am I a better, more efficient runner now? Yes, but that isn't the topic at hand. I was a serious, committed runner in both cases.
I said "pretty much for a living" meaning every day for hours, 100% dedicated to running. Not "runs for a living' as in professional.
Don't know why you took it the wrong way. Maybe I just suck at wording things.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »
How fat do you think most serious runners are? Like overweight or obese?
In your experience.
The argument here was that poster said "all walkers and endurance runners are lean."
I'd agree that MANY are. But not all. Walking and running don't make you lean and there are plenty of people who are overweight and achieve great runs while still overeating and carrying extra weight.
No, I said that serious runners are usually very lean. That poster has disagreed because in his experience, serious runners are usually not very lean.
I have no intention of arguing with either answer. I'm just interested about his experience with these non-lean, but serious runners.
We all have different experiences.
Like you, my experience has been that when a person is a serious runner, they'll almost always have a very lean body.
Um....I'm a she.
No, I disgreed because serious runners are not always lean, they can be of normal weight and overweight, and I've seen some I would consider obese. I don't think weight has anything to do with seriousness/committment to running. I'd say when you're committed to running you are serious about it.
You are projecting your own stuff and making a sweepoing generalization obout certain runners.
Now, let me ask you- why do you believe that only serious runner are lean (or only lean runners are serious)?
If a person is over weight or obese, they sure ain't no serious runner, unless your perception of a serious runner is someone who runs occasionally and eats too much.
I think this, very specifically, was where things degenerated into a seriously judgmental, horrific mess. I'm now running away from this horrible thread.0 -
UltimateRBF wrote: »Blueseraphchaos wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »
How fat do you think most serious runners are? Like overweight or obese?
In your experience.
The argument here was that poster said "all walkers and endurance runners are lean."
I'd agree that MANY are. But not all. Walking and running don't make you lean and there are plenty of people who are overweight and achieve great runs while still overeating and carrying extra weight.
No, I said that serious runners are usually very lean. That poster has disagreed because in his experience, serious runners are usually not very lean.
I have no intention of arguing with either answer. I'm just interested about his experience with these non-lean, but serious runners.
We all have different experiences.
Like you, my experience has been that when a person is a serious runner, they'll almost always have a very lean body.
Um....I'm a she.
No, I disgreed because serious runners are not always lean, they can be of normal weight and overweight, and I've seen some I would consider obese. I don't think weight has anything to do with seriousness/committment to running. I'd say when you're committed to running you are serious about it.
You are projecting your own stuff and making a sweepoing generalization obout certain runners.
Now, let me ask you- why do you believe that only serious runner are lean (or only lean runners are serious)?
If a person is over weight or obese, they sure ain't no serious runner, unless your perception of a serious runner is someone who runs occasionally and eats too much.
I think this, very specifically, was where things degenerated into a seriously judgmental, horrific mess. I'm now running away from this horrible thread.
But are you seriously running?
Well, my knee was injured by a u-haul earlier this week, and i have been unable to seriously run since last October when my acl and lcl got torn...(same knee just keeps getting reinjured) so i guess I'm not seriously running.
I'm just serious WHILE i run.
Who am i kidding, i haven't done anything more than run around my block since last October, and i probably shouldn't have even done that
WHY SO SERIOUS0 -
0 -
-
I addressed this before when writing about adaptation. Your body will adapt to the specific demands placed on it. There is a modest resistive component to activities such as hill walking. Someone who has low levels of muscle strength will likely experience a measurable increase in leg muscle "strength" if they start regularly walking up hills. However, that "strength" will only increase to the extent necessary to perform the activity. And just walking more hills will not result in further increases in strength.
And this modest strength adaptation is only a fraction of what one can achieve following a progressive resistance program.
Cardio and strength conditioning do not occur in isolation, and I think this is where some of the confusion arises. The average beginner starts doing cardio, esp something like incline walking or stair climbing and feels the leg muscles becoming stronger (which they are). It's easy to draw the conclusion that these must be strength exercises as well. (Same thing happens in reverse with a beginner starting to do squats).
So while walking up a hill may make your legs feel "stronger", it is not equivalent to resistance training. If one is unsure of the difference, compare the movements: strength training causes momentary muscle fatigue/failure in 1-15 reps; when doing cardio, one performs thousands of repetitions without reaching failure. How would it possible to achieve the same results?
0 -
Thank you, ( I must have missed your previous post)
So a beginner walking up hill till they cant take it any more is working towards leg strength but will come to a point when it will no longer work when you don't get to that "cant take it any more" point.
I walk a lot of pastures with huge gullies (wash outs), I guess I should call it hiking.
The point of exhaustion I assume is the difference.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »
I would highly recommend overweight and obese people to walk until they get to a healthy weight before they start running.
wow
well thank you for your professional opinion
i think me and my fat *kitten* will go with the opinions of my medical team, my physio and the trainers at the gym on my running
0 -
How fat do you think most serious runners are? Like overweight or obese?
In your experience.
The argument here was that poster said "all walkers and endurance runners are lean."
I'd agree that MANY are. But not all. Walking and running don't make you lean and there are plenty of people who are overweight and achieve great runs while still overeating and carrying extra weight.
No, I said that serious runners are usually very lean. That poster has disagreed because in his experience, serious runners are usually not very lean.
I have no intention of arguing with either answer. I'm just interested about his experience with these non-lean, but serious runners.
We all have different experiences.
Like you, my experience has been that when a person is a serious runner, they'll almost always have a very lean body.
Um....I'm a she.
No, I disgreed because serious runners are not always lean, they can be of normal weight and overweight, and I've seen some I would consider obese. I don't think weight has anything to do with seriousness/committment to running. I'd say when you're committed to running you are serious about it.
You are projecting your own stuff and making a sweepoing generalization obout certain runners.
Now, let me ask you- why do you believe that only serious runner are lean (or only lean runners are serious)?
I'm sorry about thinking you were a guy. It was an honest mistake and not in any way intended as an insult.
No, I didn't say "always." I said "usually." That is what you disagreed with. You disagreed with the idea that serious runners are usually very lean, which means that they must be usually be something other than very lean. That's what I was wondering about. In your experience, did you find that people who were seriously into running were usually overweight or obese?
If you misread what I what I said and were arguing that some people who run are overweight, we are in agreement.
Also, you've made an illogical jump in your thought process. When I say that serious runners are usually very lean individuals, it does not logically follow that I think they are the only lean individuals around or that only lean runners are serious.
Also...I'm not projecting anything. There's nothing to project. I'm not even sure how you came up with that, but am interested in what you thought I was projecting when I said that serious runners are usually very lean.0 -
Thank you, ( I must have missed your previous post)
So a beginner walking up hill till they cant take it any more is working towards leg strength but will come to a point when it will no longer work when you don't get to that "cant take it any more" point.
I walk a lot of pastures with huge gullies (wash outs), I guess I should call it hiking.
The point of exhaustion I assume is the difference.
Sorry--I wasn't criticizing when I referred to the earlier post- the way this thread has spun out of control, I would have been shocked had you seen it ;-)
But, yes, heavier weights that result in muscle ”failure" with minimal reps is a key factor.
0 -
I addressed this before when writing about adaptation. Your body will adapt to the specific demands placed on it. There is a modest resistive component to activities such as hill walking. Someone who has low levels of muscle strength will likely experience a measurable increase in leg muscle "strength" if they start regularly walking up hills. However, that "strength" will only increase to the extent necessary to perform the activity. And just walking more hills will not result in further increases in strength.
And this modest strength adaptation is only a fraction of what one can achieve following a progressive resistance program.
Cardio and strength conditioning do not occur in isolation, and I think this is where some of the confusion arises. The average beginner starts doing cardio, esp something like incline walking or stair climbing and feels the leg muscles becoming stronger (which they are). It's easy to draw the conclusion that these must be strength exercises as well. (Same thing happens in reverse with a beginner starting to do squats).
So while walking up a hill may make your legs feel "stronger", it is not equivalent to resistance training. If one is unsure of the difference, compare the movements: strength training causes momentary muscle fatigue/failure in 1-15 reps; when doing cardio, one performs thousands of repetitions without reaching failure. How would it possible to achieve the same results?
Interesting - thankyou0 -
Thank you, ( I must have missed your previous post)
So a beginner walking up hill till they cant take it any more is working towards leg strength but will come to a point when it will no longer work when you don't get to that "cant take it any more" point.
I walk a lot of pastures with huge gullies (wash outs), I guess I should call it hiking.
The point of exhaustion I assume is the difference.
Sorry--I wasn't criticizing when I referred to the earlier post- the way this thread has spun out of control, I would have been shocked had you seen it ;-)
But, yes, heavier weights that result in muscle ”failure" with minimal reps is a key factor.
Your fine, none taken.
I was hoping to get back on track to the walking and strength, instead of the "definition serious runner".
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions