Who Says You Can't Get A Cardio Just From Walking?
Options
OldAssDude
Posts: 1,436 Member
I hear a lot of people say that you can't get a cardio from just walking.
Here is a power walk i did today...
Not a great cardio, but still a fair cardio. I also do a 7.3 mile course that is very hilly and get my HR up to zone 4 and 5 in some spots.
Here is a power walk i did today...
Not a great cardio, but still a fair cardio. I also do a 7.3 mile course that is very hilly and get my HR up to zone 4 and 5 in some spots.
8
Replies
-
Walking has a huge impact on my fitness. I am also really enjoying my Fitbit. I find the Fitbit app encourages me to go a little farther and work a little harder each day.1
-
What does 'can't get a cardio' mean?13
-
Age dependent I suppose, but a lot of people would be mainly in the fat burning zone when walking rather than cardio.0
-
Trying to work out how walking can not be considered cardio exercise, unless you are walking at snails pace.0
-
Never actually met anyone who said "You Can't Get A Cardio Just From Walking?"
But also never met anyone who said they could get "a cardio" from walking either though.
Is there a missing word or two somewhere?
Not sure what you think is wrong with being in Zone 3 for the majority of your walk either.4 -
Walking is pretty much my cardio too, and that's my first morning brisk walking pace.
I personally don't monitor my heart rate, it's just not something that's ever interested me. I do enjoy listening to podcasts or audiobooks while I'm walking, though.1 -
What i mean by "a cardio" is keeping your heart rate in the cardio zone for a minimum of 20 minutes non stop. Doing that at least 3 times per week will yield a minimum training effect.
Cardio zone starts at zone 3 (if using a 5 zone system).3 -
I can walk at a faster pace than some people run so I know you can get a cardio from walking. I'd rather run to get it over with faster though0
-
OldAssDude wrote: »What i mean by "a cardio" is keeping your heart rate in the cardio zone for a minimum of 20 minutes non stop. Doing that at least 3 times per week will yield a minimum training effect.
Cardio zone starts at zone 3 (if using a 5 zone system).
Wow. Means I've never had a cardio.1 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »Trying to work out how walking can not be considered cardio exercise, unless you are walking at snails pace.
Hey, I've seen a couple fast snails during a hard rain. Guess they don't like getting wet either.1 -
OldAssDude wrote: »What i mean by "a cardio" is keeping your heart rate in the cardio zone for a minimum of 20 minutes non stop. Doing that at least 3 times per week will yield a minimum training effect.
Cardio zone starts at zone 3 (if using a 5 zone system).
I'm a runner and I don't look at zones, certainly doing do it when walking!2 -
TavistockToad wrote: »OldAssDude wrote: »What i mean by "a cardio" is keeping your heart rate in the cardio zone for a minimum of 20 minutes non stop. Doing that at least 3 times per week will yield a minimum training effect.
Cardio zone starts at zone 3 (if using a 5 zone system).
I'm a runner and I don't look at zones, certainly doing do it when walking!
I get that the zone training thing is something that interests the OP and all, it's just not a data point geekery I'm interested in.
I peek at mine afterwards, but I've never paid much attention to them. I'm more interested in pace. I know if I'm walking a certain pace and working towards a faster one, I get a decent workout. I'm a recreational exerciser and not interested in training for something. It never occurred to me to be interested in my HR.
The only thing that really interested me about it was how my resting HR dropped a good 20 or so points over the time I lost weight and started exercising. I knew about that just from doctor visits.2 -
OldAssDude wrote: »What i mean by "a cardio" is keeping your heart rate in the cardio zone for a minimum of 20 minutes non stop. Doing that at least 3 times per week will yield a minimum training effect.
Cardio zone starts at zone 3 (if using a 5 zone system).
I’m still not sure “a cardio” is a thing, but by this definition, I didn’t get “a cardio” during 6 months of marathon training - which was almost entirely in zone 2 with the exception of inevitable drift at the end of multi-hour runs.
I’m fairly certain I still yielded a significant training effect.
5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »OldAssDude wrote: »What i mean by "a cardio" is keeping your heart rate in the cardio zone for a minimum of 20 minutes non stop. Doing that at least 3 times per week will yield a minimum training effect.
Cardio zone starts at zone 3 (if using a 5 zone system).
I'm a runner and I don't look at zones, certainly doing do it when walking!
I get that the zone training thing is something that interests the OP and all, it's just not a data point geekery I'm interested in.
I peek at mine afterwards, but I've never paid much attention to them. I'm more interested in pace. I know if I'm walking a certain pace and working towards a faster one, I get a decent workout. I'm a recreational exerciser and not interested in training for something. It never occurred to me to be interested in my HR.
The only thing that really interested me about it was how my resting HR dropped a good 20 or so points over the time I lost weight and started exercising. I knew about that just from doctor visits.
And that's a great sign that you had a training effect.7 -
It’s not the activity, it’s the intensity. I don’t get a training effect from walking because a brisk pace is still just about 4-4.5 METs, which is not high enough for me.
Any activity that works you at at least 50% of VO2 max is “cardio training”, no matter what the activity is.
And the usual disclaimers:
1. A “zone x” heart rate doesn’t necessarily mean anything if your HR max is higher or lower than avg.
2. One does not have to work at a “training” threshold to get health and weight loss benefits from activity.
Even by the standards of the OP, a “zone 2” effort would likely be in the lower part of the training continuum.
5 -
Maybe this needs its own thread, but you have to keep in mind that zones are an approximation.
Zone 2 is "the fat burning zone" and it's useful for pacing and training. They idea is you're mostly burning fat and not carbs, so you can go longer at this intensity, and you're training your body to burn fat, giving you metabolic flexibility. In reality, that doesn't only happen between 60 and 70 % of what you think your MHR is. The boundaries are different from person to person, and day to day depending how much sleep and caffeine and stress you've had.
I'm not saying this is a worthless tool, just that you have to understand what it's telling you, and realized it's not absolute.5 -
It’s not the activity, it’s the intensity. I don’t get a training effect from walking because a brisk pace is still just about 4-4.5 METs, which is not high enough for me.
Any activity that works you at at least 50% of VO2 max is “cardio training”, no matter what the activity is.
And the usual disclaimers:
1. A “zone x” heart rate doesn’t necessarily mean anything if your HR max is higher or lower than avg.
2. One does not have to work at a “training” threshold to get health and weight loss benefits from activity.
Even by the standards of the OP, a “zone 2” effort would likely be in the lower part of the training continuum.
Bolded for emphasis. Most, not all of us, are not training for anything other than health and weight loss. What "zone" we are in is largely irrelevant.
If you are training for something endurance sport specific, you probably want to get more specific about your HR max and train based on something more that generic "zones". And count me as one of those who never heard the expression "getting a cardio" before.
7 -
It’s not the activity, it’s the intensity. I don’t get a training effect from walking because a brisk pace is still just about 4-4.5 METs, which is not high enough for me.
Any activity that works you at at least 50% of VO2 max is “cardio training”, no matter what the activity is.
And the usual disclaimers:
1. A “zone x” heart rate doesn’t necessarily mean anything if your HR max is higher or lower than avg.
2. One does not have to work at a “training” threshold to get health and weight loss benefits from activity.
Even by the standards of the OP, a “zone 2” effort would likely be in the lower part of the training continuum.
This is really all I need to know. I'm interested in these aspects as well as the mental health benefits of exercise more than anything else. I do a lot of stress walking. It's replaced stress eating as a way of dealing with a teenager
7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »It’s not the activity, it’s the intensity. I don’t get a training effect from walking because a brisk pace is still just about 4-4.5 METs, which is not high enough for me.
Any activity that works you at at least 50% of VO2 max is “cardio training”, no matter what the activity is.
And the usual disclaimers:
1. A “zone x” heart rate doesn’t necessarily mean anything if your HR max is higher or lower than avg.
2. One does not have to work at a “training” threshold to get health and weight loss benefits from activity.
Even by the standards of the OP, a “zone 2” effort would likely be in the lower part of the training continuum.
This is really all I need to know. I'm interested in these aspects as well as the mental health benefits of exercise more than anything else. I do a lot of stress walking. It's replaced stress eating as a way of dealing with a teenager
So it has health benefits for 2 people. You and the teenager that stays healthy as long as you do.
4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »It’s not the activity, it’s the intensity. I don’t get a training effect from walking because a brisk pace is still just about 4-4.5 METs, which is not high enough for me.
Any activity that works you at at least 50% of VO2 max is “cardio training”, no matter what the activity is.
And the usual disclaimers:
1. A “zone x” heart rate doesn’t necessarily mean anything if your HR max is higher or lower than avg.
2. One does not have to work at a “training” threshold to get health and weight loss benefits from activity.
Even by the standards of the OP, a “zone 2” effort would likely be in the lower part of the training continuum.
This is really all I need to know. I'm interested in these aspects as well as the mental health benefits of exercise more than anything else. I do a lot of stress walking. It's replaced stress eating as a way of dealing with a teenager
I heard a story on the radio about a guy who walked across America, not on a trail, just following roads from Georgia to California. He described a lot of it the way you just did, there was stress walking, joy walking, hungry walking, and fear walking in the desert.
https://transom.org/2013/walking-across-america-advice-for-young-man/0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions