Should I do all my walking at once or spread it throughout the day?

I think whatever works better for your schedule. I do little to no walking during the day (I work in an office and some days I have to work through lunch) When I get home my husband and I take our dog hiking or on a long walk, and im losing exactly what I expected too. I wouldnt think it matters

What he or she said ^

seaglassmermaid wrote: »

I'm wanting to walk 5 miles per day in addition to any walking I do at home/work/etc. Should I take one long walk at the beginning or end of the day or should I take several shorter .5-1 mile walks throughout the day to equal the 5 miles? Is one way more beneficial than the other in any way?

Swings and roundabouts

If you're only interested in burning calories then it doesn't matter. If you can walk at pace then a series of 20-30 minute walls will give you some improvements in stamina and aerobic capacity.

On the other hand there is some evidence that it helps your musculoskeletal system to break up periods of sitting/ standing with some activity.

As ever it's really about what you can sustain. For most people walking at 3-4 mph you're talking about a fair commitment of time to do a continuous 5 mile walk. If that's something you can fit in then that's good, but is it sustainable?

stanmann571 wrote: »

No more than doing it any other time of day.

I also see your point about keeping up your metabolic rate by spreading the exercise out. No question that you burn the same amount during the exercise no matter when you do it.

To be a bit more precise about my point: there is some evidence that fasting exercise promotes fat burn and weight loss. One way to do it is in the morning:

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/phys-ed-the-benefits-of-exercising-before-breakfast/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/well/move/the-best-thing-to-eat-before-a-workout-maybe-nothing-at-all.html?_r=0

stanmann571 wrote: »

OTOH, doing 3x 1.75 mile walks spread throughout the day will maximize your EPOC or afterburn.

I'm not sure that the extra 4-5 calories will make a huge difference

Personally, i don't think it makes a lick of difference. Do what you'll stick with. I spread out my 16k steps over 3 walks and bring the dog on one. For me, that's almost 9 miles.

seaglassmermaid wrote: »

Chieflrg wrote: »

What is your goal with walking?

Increase my calorie deficit (it's the only exercise I'm allowed to do right now because I recently had surgery). As I recover and build up to more intense exercises I'll probably still walk the same amount though because my job is sedentary. I know walking isn't a strong enough exercise to really burn fat (at least not at the pace my doctor told me not to exceed), but I also need steps since I sit all day at my job. Once I'm healed i plan on working up to running so there will be more calories burned but that will be several weeks away.

Since you're limited by pace, The only other limit is your schedule. If you have the ability to get up and walk 8-15 minutes every hour or 2, that's probably going to get you the best bang throughout the day as far as building those active habits.

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

No more than doing it any other time of day.

I also see your point about keeping up your metabolic rate by spreading the exercise out. No question that you burn the same amount during the exercise no matter when you do it.

To be a bit more precise about my point: there is some evidence that fasting exercise promotes fat burn and weight loss. One way to do it is in the morning:

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/phys-ed-the-benefits-of-exercising-before-breakfast/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/well/move/the-best-thing-to-eat-before-a-workout-maybe-nothing-at-all.html?_r=0

Fasted exercise promotes fat loss because, when fasted, you will often/usually need to metabolize fat to fuel the exercise. But, the total energy expend during that exercise will be the same regardless of fuel type and the loss/maintain/gain in body mass will be dependent upon net energy (CICO) for the day, week, month etc.

There may be some very, very small energy differences relating to fasted/fed states for exercise but I would be highly skeptical of any claims that these were significant in real world application (rather than as an academic point of interest).

Note: I've not read the linked NYT blogs in detail but did notice that they are from 2010 and that the study linked in on was an n=18 study from that year.

for a more extensive and recent paper (2016) see http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/8/6/354/htm (which is a meta study of studies >6 months using just under 1000 subjects, with some but not all of the studies containing exercise protocols).

Their findings (edited to summarize by me)

"with results indicating neither intermittent or continuous energy restriction being superior with respect to weight loss... The effects of intermittent energy restriction in the long term remain unclear.... Blood lipid concentrations, glucose, and insulin were not altered by intermittent energy expenditure in values greater than those seen with continuous energy restriction."