Running, jogging or walking.

All of it if you are up for it. And if you like it. There are benefits to all if them.

I used to love running and jogging. Loved it. I have even got the giggles whiles doing it. I have arthritis now that prevents me from running of jogging much, so I walk. Not nearly as much fun to me but it still has health benefits. Just no giggles.

I prefer walking. Running and jogging is hard on the joints and every regular runner/jogger I know (may just be coincidence) has had numerous injuries and issues by the age of 35 because of the running. But if you enjoy running, do it. Whatever works for you!

I walk two or three miles on the days I don't jog/walk the same distance. I go for distance rather than speed work because I'm 57 and decided I just don't want to. I've only been running for six months but I've done a (slow) 5K race. On weekends I get together with a friend and hike for two to three hours.

If you're thinking of running, look at the Couch to 5K program. There's an app for your phone, it helped me slowly ease into it.

leah96murray wrote: »

I used to be really underweight and have finally put on some tub. Maybe more than id like.....
I live in a gorgeous area to exersize but i want to know what you guys think is best. Fast paced walking. A gentle jog or racing to the beat in bursts.

It's not a question of better or worse. Running and walking have different benefits and disbenefits. I'd note that jogging in this context is meaningless as one will walk or run.

Walking is lower impact, and less fatiguing, so can be sustained for longer. It has a significantly lower calorie expenditure so for the same burn one has to walk twice as far. The aerobic improvements are much lower than with running and anaerobic improvement isn't an option. The weight bearing attribute has some contribution to bone density, which can help osteopetrosis risk for women.

Running generates much greater improvements in aerobic capacity, and for an experienced runner significant gains in anaerobic performance can be achieved. Calorie expenditure is much higher. The higher impact nature has potential to significantly improve bone density, joint and connective tissue condition and posture. On the other hand running is quite dependant on good technique, and many new runners end up with injuries as a result of not learning to run properly.

Personally I'm a runner, and would generally advise that as the quickest way to develop improved aerobic fitness and stamina. I would, however, advise learning to run properly to minimise injury risk. As with so many other things, it's easy to get it wrong. The snag is most people think they know how to run. It really is just putting one foot in front of the other, but the trick is knowing how.

I have enjoyed running and yesterday did my 2nd half marathon and most likely my last. I may still do some 5k fun runs but tomorrow I'm switching to a walking program. More specifically, Rucking. I've been using a weighted vest in some of my training when walking on my treadmill but I really like to be outside and rucking seems like a good option for me. Rucking is basically walking with a weighted backpack. Not a stroll but a fast walk. I do at least 3.5mph on my treadmill and at least a 1% incline. To increase intensity, I up the incline from time to time.

I did some testing on my treadmill and I do burn more calories when walking with weight. Not as much as when I run but it is a lot easier on my knees.

If it's just burning calories? Then I recommend walking. There really isn't much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.

If you're trying to complete a race, then obviously walking/running at your pace until you build up the strength, endurance, and mindset needed to get to that finish line in the desired time.

DX2JX2 wrote: »

CSARdiver wrote: »

If it's just burning calories? Then I recommend walking. There really isn't much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.

If you're trying to complete a race, then obviously walking/running at your pace until you build up the strength, endurance, and mindset needed to get to that finish line in the desired time.

I would probably take a different angle. If the exercise is just for burning calories, then I wouldn't waste the time walking. Assuming a 150 pound person can cover 3 miles in an hour, they'll only burn something on order of 200 calories by walking for an hour. Unless you were going to be walking anyway, the payoff is hardly worth the time to me.

Running, on the other hand, burns more than double the calories of walking for any given distance and you can cover more distance for any given time. Assuming that a person can physically handle the act of running, that same 150 pound could likely cover 5 miles or so in an hour, for a burn of close to 500 calories.

I'm balancing the risk/reward of caloric burn vs. potential damage to joints. This puts jogging at the lowest point of risk/reward. Walking holds limited reward, but no/low risk. Running holds highest reward and equal risk to jogging.

However this is in reference to someone lacking the physical conditioning to run at a consistent rate for 1 hour.

Just start out walking and walk with a purpose. See how you like it. Add in fast walks and throw in some light run intervals. You may or may not want to progress to running.

Anything you do is beneficial and the more you do it the better you become. Increase volume/intensity when needed or best, create you some fitness goals.

If you really want to start running properly, try C25K and invest in a good pair of running shoes.

I prefer jogging but haven't done it much recently so just getting back to C25k. With that said, I am an all or nothing personality type so sometimes if I only can walk I will decide to do nothing at all. Im trying to change this mindset. I read an article recently that motivated me and changed my perspective a little. It stated that you can burn more calories walking the same distance as you do running. It states that 4 miles running burns about half of the amount of a 4 mile walk because of the time spent. I don't know how true it is but it was food for thought.

NorthCascades wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

leah96murray wrote: »

I used to be really underweight and have finally put on some tub. Maybe more than id like.....
I live in a gorgeous area to exersize but i want to know what you guys think is best. Fast paced walking. A gentle jog or racing to the beat in bursts.

It's not a question of better or worse. Running and walking have different benefits and disbenefits. I'd note that jogging in this context is meaningless as one will walk or run.

I think jogging is a specific type of running where you find dead bodies and report them to the police.

I read something recently related to use of language in the media related to gender and risk. What it highlighted was that in media reporting female runners are almost exclusively referred to as joggers, whereas male runners are described as runners. It played into several themes, largely around perceived risk and victim blaming.

There was a specific example of a woman jogging a 50 miler...

But yes, jogging seems to have a much higher incidence of finding dead bodies in the woods

I like both and try to mix it up. I feel they each stress different joints. Fast walking, I feel more pressure in my hips and balls of my feet where running I feel more in my knees. By mixing it up I feel like nothing gets too overused.