Is walking great exercise or just okay?

I've often seen people here say that walking is wonderful exercise. Words such as "great" or "excellent" are often bandied about. I've tended to differ. I've pointed out that walking is good exercise -- totally worth doing -- but that its benefits are comparatively low. That is, I would strongly encourage people to walk more, but to call it "excellent exercise" is an overstatement.

I know that this has offended some people. They think I'm saying that walking is useless or that it doesn't really count. That's not it at all, of course, but that's how some people react.

This WebMD article shows what I mean. Walking is good, but it's not as effective as many think. When health professionals recommend it, it's often because they know it's the most that then can get many people to do.

http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/is-walking-enough?page=1
«13

Replies

  • pondee629
    pondee629 Posts: 2,469 Member
    edited July 2016
    "I've pointed out that walking is good exercise -- totally worth doing -- but that its benefits are comparatively low."

    Aren't you contradicting yourself here, or, at least, answering your own question? If, as you point out, "walking is good exercise -- totally worth doing..." why/how do you contend that " its benefits are comparatively low."?

    If " its benefits are comparatively low" is it really a "good exercise -- totally worth doing"?

    My answer to your question: Walking is as good an exercise as any other. You get out of it what you have put into it, both time and effort.

    It works great for me. Of course, I also lift, run, and sprint. It's another tool in the toolbox (one that I find excellent to loosen my back out after heavy legs days), and for those who are currently sedentary, it's a hell of lot better than 16 ounce curls.

    I've always enjoyed a few 16 ounce curl reps. ;-)
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    I agree with the OP. I enjoy a nice walk, but it's as much for the "me time" and change of scenery (and just being outdoors!) as anything else. The moderate calorie burn is a bonus. But a lot of people say "exercise is for fitness" and walking isn't taxing enough to contribute to my fitness. (Exercise is for a lot of things beyond fitness, though, like enjoyment.)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited July 2016
    Depends on what you are seeking, like others said. I have goals that require other sorts of exercise, but I consider walking as much as possible (vs. sitting around or driving) to be important, and an easy way to boost the overall non exercise calories of a day without either increasing hunger or wear and tear on the body. I also am happier when I walk more and drive less, and it can be pleasant to get off a stop or two early when commuting and walk some.
  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    pondee629 wrote: »
    "I've pointed out that walking is good exercise -- totally worth doing -- but that its benefits are comparatively low."

    Aren't you contradicting yourself here, or, at least, answering your own question? If, as you point out, "walking is good exercise -- totally worth doing..." why/how do you contend that " its benefits are comparatively low."?

    If " its benefits are comparatively low" is it really a "good exercise -- totally worth doing"?

    My answer to your question: Walking is as good an exercise as any other. You get out of it what you have put into it, both time and effort.

    It works great for me. Of course, I also lift, run, and sprint. It's another tool in the toolbox (one that I find excellent to loosen my back out after heavy legs days), and for those who are currently sedentary, it's a hell of lot better than 16 ounce curls.

    I've always enjoyed a few 16 ounce curl reps. ;-)

    I run and walk because I do 16 ounce curls. I'm not knock'n 'em.
  • spartan_d
    spartan_d Posts: 727 Member
    pondee629 wrote: »
    "I've pointed out that walking is good exercise -- totally worth doing -- but that its benefits are comparatively low."

    Aren't you contradicting yourself here, or, at least, answering your own question? If, as you point out, "walking is good exercise -- totally worth doing..." why/how do you contend that " its benefits are comparatively low."?

    If " its benefits are comparatively low" is it really a "good exercise -- totally worth doing"?
    There is no contradiction. There are substantial benefits, which makes it worth doing. Compared to other forms of exercise though, it's relatively inefficient. It's the difference between "good" and "great."

    Now, others have said that walking is good for people who are morbidly obese, etc, etc. I won't deny that. Those people may indeed be unable to do anything more. For most people though, it's okay, but as the article says, it's ultimately "exercise lite."

    I'm not going to deny that it's a good way to get started. I completely agree. As I said though -- and this it the point that people keep missing -- heaping on superlatives such as "great," "excellent," and "wonderful" is a bit of an overstatement. Worthwhile? Yes -- but not superlatively so.
  • BarbellzNBrotein
    BarbellzNBrotein Posts: 306 Member
    It's a very useful tool. Not only for fat loss but for muscle retention. As it's been pointed out earlier it depends where you are on your fitness journey. Starting from the absolute beginning walking is great, as you stack up the weeks you want to incorporate more tax exercises into your regime. I've been lifting for a ridiculous amount of years noe but I still make it a point to clock up a decent amount of miles from walking per week. Keeps me cut too.
  • socalrunner59
    socalrunner59 Posts: 149 Member
    Really it depends on where and how you walk. I regularly hike (and hiking is walking) over rugged terrain. My "home" trail has an elevation gain of 1200 feet. At a minimum my hikes are 5 miles. I carry a backpack with food, water, and emergency supplies that averages 10-15 lbs.

    Several times a year I'll hike 10-15 miles over terrain with elevation gains of 2500 + feet.

    In April when I walked the Grand Canyon's Bright Angel Trail to Plateau Point and back (12 miles) with 20 lbs of supplies in a backpack, I felt certain that was good exercise.
  • Wophie
    Wophie Posts: 126 Member
    I started off at 11 stone (5'1" female) with 3-4 30 minute workouts a week, plus a hour minimum of walking a day. For me, the weight has fallen off pretty quickly (I'm roughly 11 weeks in with a 1250 daily calorie goal - and I eat most of my exercise calories burnt). I would say walking is great for ensuring you get your daily activity in, however you may need to add more exercises in to see results. Everyone is different though! :)
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Depends on where you're coming from and what benefits you're looking for. From a fitness standpoint and improving upon your fitness, it has a pretty low ceiling...for general health it has been demonstrated to be a great activity.
  • SonyaCele
    SonyaCele Posts: 2,841 Member
    i love walking, i think its great exercise
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,488 Member
    edited July 2016
    Well its better than doing nothing at all. And if you are elderly, or have health related issues or aliments that prevent you from doing full force running, bilking, hiking, ellipticals, treadmills, swimming, etc.. this is certainly good exercise. This would be excellent for those that fall in this category.

    If you are sedentary person that does nothing but sit on the couch and start walking, this is excellent exercise.

    So it is perspective based and does a person need to increase heart rate to reap 100% full benefits from cardio exercise?, yes, can you still reap benefits from half that heart rate from steady state hard cardio,? yes.

    So you can loiter walk, brisk walk, fast walk, speed walk, etc.. depends on what effort, how long and what not. I still believe that walking is excellent exercise. And I run 4 days and walk 2 days a week. It kills me to have to walk 2 days to not run everyday and what I call give my legs a rest, I still burn calories, I am still active that day, and it all counts!

    When I see people walking down the street while I am running, I smile and say good for them! Because it is clear that they are walking because they can;t do much more. I like see people get out and try even if it is a morning walk or evening walk.
  • spartan_d
    spartan_d Posts: 727 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Depends on where you're coming from and what benefits you're looking for. From a fitness standpoint and improving upon your fitness, it has a pretty low ceiling...for general health it has been demonstrated to be a great activity.
    I'll mostly agree with that, except that I'd call it a "pretty good activity" rather than "great" -- again, precisely because of the low ceiling that you mentioned. (Also, it depends on what one means by "general health." Walking doesn't do much for strength, for example, and it only helps with endurance if one is sedentary or if done over very long periods and/or harsh terrain. It still has substantial benefits, though.)
  • spartan_d
    spartan_d Posts: 727 Member
    Really it depends on where and how you walk. I regularly hike (and hiking is walking) over rugged terrain. My "home" trail has an elevation gain of 1200 feet. At a minimum my hikes are 5 miles. I carry a backpack with food, water, and emergency supplies that averages 10-15 lbs.

    Several times a year I'll hike 10-15 miles over terrain with elevation gains of 2500 + feet.

    In April when I walked the Grand Canyon's Bright Angel Trail to Plateau Point and back (12 miles) with 20 lbs of supplies in a backpack, I felt certain that was good exercise.

    And that, I would agree with as well. It's not what one typically means by walking, though. Certainly not the kind that most people would be willing to do.
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,149 Member
    OP, what exercise do you feel is "great" and "excellent"? Why is walking not worthwhile?
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    spartan_d wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Depends on where you're coming from and what benefits you're looking for. From a fitness standpoint and improving upon your fitness, it has a pretty low ceiling...for general health it has been demonstrated to be a great activity.
    I'll mostly agree with that, except that I'd call it a "pretty good activity" rather than "great" -- again, precisely because of the low ceiling that you mentioned. (Also, it depends on what one means by "general health." Walking doesn't do much for strength, for example, and it only helps with endurance if one is sedentary or if done over very long periods and/or harsh terrain. It still has substantial benefits, though.)

    Just general health...heart health, etc...not necessarily fitness...150 minutes per week of light activity is great for your general health...I would think walking fits that bill.

    Yes, if you want to actually make substantial fitness improvements you are going to have to do more...but if you're just talking about general health and well being, walking is pretty great...my dad never did anything but walk a lot and that helped keep his blood pressure in check and blood glucose in check...that's what I mean by general health.
  • 5512bf
    5512bf Posts: 389 Member
    I'll agree with the OP. As a distance runner who runs 60+ miles a week, walking doesn't do a lot for me as far as exercise because it cannot elevate my HR to a point of any consequence. It does however, as someone else stated, help to get me loosened up. After a long morning session pushing 2-3 hours of running, I'll ALWAYS shoot to get a 45 minute to hour walk after dinner to get some blood flowing to the legs before doing some stretching before bed. It serves a lot more purpose than exercise since it's something I can do with my wife and kids as well. I think at best my garmin gives my 50-60 calorie adjustment after a walk.
  • tech_kitten
    tech_kitten Posts: 221 Member
    katkins3 wrote: »
    It depends on what you expect out of walking; what your goals are. It's a good place to begin and no equipment or membership needed. It's also a good cool down. I use walking as my "think time". The terms excellent and great may be over used, but I agree walking can have a place in an exercise plan.

    I find walking calming and meditative. I don't like running, but some people say they get the same feeling from running, using their run times to think and focus on breathing.
  • StealthHealth
    StealthHealth Posts: 2,417 Member
    SonyaCele wrote: »
    i love walking, i think its great exercise

    Me too and I think that to confine it to the obese, elderly, frail, and beginners is to miss out on some of the benefits and advantages.
    • It's a great way of recovering from a hard work out
    • The cals/hour is nothing to write home about but it's easy and per mile not much less than running
    • It's hard to over-do it
    • When your other training is taxing I find I come out of a 5 mile walk feeling better but a 5 mile run feeling worse (for what? a 25% uplift in cals burnt?)

    Don;t get me wrong, I enjoy running and I participate frequently but I'm more careful with it (not because of loss of "de gainz" but because it's bloody tiring). I don;t have to apply that caution with walking.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    5512bf wrote: »
    I'll agree with the OP. As a distance runner who runs 60+ miles a week, walking doesn't do a lot for me as far as exercise because it cannot elevate my HR to a point of any consequence. It does however, as someone else stated, help to get me loosened up. After a long morning session pushing 2-3 hours of running, I'll ALWAYS shoot to get a 45 minute to hour walk after dinner to get some blood flowing to the legs before doing some stretching before bed. It serves a lot more purpose than exercise since it's something I can do with my wife and kids as well. I think at best my garmin gives my 50-60 calorie adjustment after a walk.

    Again, I think you have to look at it from different perspectives...from a fitness perspective it isn't going to do much, particularly for someone who is already well trained. From a general health perspective (controlling blood pressure, blood glucose, etc)...it's pretty dang good.

    I am a cyclist so yeah...from a fitness standpoint it's not going to do a whole lot for me or help me up my game but moving in general is great for your overall health.
  • 5512bf
    5512bf Posts: 389 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    5512bf wrote: »
    I'll agree with the OP. As a distance runner who runs 60+ miles a week, walking doesn't do a lot for me as far as exercise because it cannot elevate my HR to a point of any consequence. It does however, as someone else stated, help to get me loosened up. After a long morning session pushing 2-3 hours of running, I'll ALWAYS shoot to get a 45 minute to hour walk after dinner to get some blood flowing to the legs before doing some stretching before bed. It serves a lot more purpose than exercise since it's something I can do with my wife and kids as well. I think at best my garmin gives my 50-60 calorie adjustment after a walk.

    Again, I think you have to look at it from different perspectives...from a fitness perspective it isn't going to do much, particularly for someone who is already well trained. From a general health perspective (controlling blood pressure, blood glucose, etc)...it's pretty dang good.

    I am a cyclist so yeah...from a fitness standpoint it's not going to do a whole lot for me or help me up my game but moving in general is great for your overall health.

    My point was that yes it's beneficial, but even for someone seriously overweight it's not going to give enough calorie burn to be super beneficial. Even if in an hour walk you burn 200 calories over your BMR, that takes 18 days to lose 1 pound.
  • HardyGirl4Ever
    HardyGirl4Ever Posts: 1,017 Member
    I think it's excellent exercise for your heart and your mind.
  • BillMcKay1
    BillMcKay1 Posts: 315 Member
    It's all relative and I guess it all depends on what you are looking to get out of it. If a person is very obese and hasn't moved beyond the couch to fridge to car for some numbers of years, a 30min walk is huge and probably pretty great exercise for them.

    I'm Currently doing SL 5x5 and squatting heavy 3x a week. If I want my legs to recover I can't incorporate HIIT or distance running on off days. I've done it in the past and it hampered my lifting progress. So, I get in a 30min walk every day with a pretty good 10-12min hill climb. Try and maintain a 3.5-4mph pace. Gives me some extra calories to eat and stretches out my legs without over taxing them and hampering recovery. For that I think it's beneficial for sure.
  • spartan_d
    spartan_d Posts: 727 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    So really, the only issue you have is with the choice of adjectives used to describe walking? And you seem to acknowledge that for some people it is "excellent" or "great" but for others you feel it is just "pretty good".

    I wasn't aware that we all had to have the same descriptor for every single possible form of exercise? I would assume that the appropriateness of an exercise is specific to the individual... their current level of physical fitness, their goals, their interests... If a person can't swim, they would probably say swimming is a terrible form of activity. Does that mean that swimming is not good for anyone? No, of course not.

    I really am perplexed lately at this attempt to put every single person, every single food, every single exercise in the same category and the inability to consider situational variables, context and dosage...

    Do you realize that if anything, your objection would apply just as well to all those posters and articles which declare that walking is "great," "wonderful," "excellent," "fantastic," or whatever superlative they choose to come up with? Why is it that when using such superlatives, speaking in generalities is okay, whereas it's not acceptable when opining that such high-faluting praise is over-the-top?

    I think it's perfectly reasonable to state that walking is good, but as a rule, not absolutely excellent or <insert superlative here>. Most people understand generalities, after all. This doesn't preclude exceptional circumstances under which walking may indeed be the best option for someone, or perhaps even the only option.

    This makes me wonder how many people actually read the article in the OP. The research cited in that article emphasizes that walking is good, but that its benefits aren't as high as people tend to expect. As one of the researchers cited said,

    "Exercise lite has given many Americans a false sense that a stroll through the neighborhood is all you need to stay healthy. Instead of pushing people to be more active, it's given them an excuse to do as little as possible."