Walking

needlework
needlework Posts: 141 Member
edited October 4 in Fitness and Exercise
Which is better as far as burning more calories...walking a slower steady pace for 45 minutes or a faster pace for 30 minutes. Right now I am walking for 30 minutes in the morning at a pace of 2.4-2.6 mph. I am trying to increase the speed of my walk, but I just read that walking only 30 minutes maintains your weight and doesn't help you lose which explains why I don't see any difference in figure...so to speak. I get up at 4:45 am as it is to walk, and I really don't want to get up any earlier than that to walk for a longer period of time. My evenings are usually packed which is why I get up so early. Just trying to find a way to get a workout that is going to make a difference. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Have a great day everyone.

Replies

  • ianh5979
    ianh5979 Posts: 13 Member
    I am doing a 5K walk daily at about 5mph(really quick walk) which lasts 36-38 minutes and burns 500 cal
  • richx83
    richx83 Posts: 334 Member
    I would be interested to see what people say to this too

    I currently mix it up and have one day for long distance, a medium distance, a hill walk and a speed day and rest walk day.
  • sjtreely
    sjtreely Posts: 1,014 Member
    It all depends on what your goals are. If you're aiming for a 5K or 10K or something like that, then you need to build up endurance. If you're strictly wanting the biggest bang for your buck on burning calories, then you need to see what your HRM/calorie burning calculator reads at the end of each.

    But honestly, I'd go with longer walks some days and shorter walks at a faster clip on other days. Life usually dictates that anyway as some days you'll be pressed for time and others you won't.
  • mpetrovic
    mpetrovic Posts: 14 Member
    It is better to walk for 45 minutes because it takes your body about 30 minutes to start breaking down blood sugar. Basically, if you move for a longer time, it is better for your heart.

    To burn calories, though, 30 minutes at a quicker pace is good! Sometimes it is about the quality than the quantity!
  • engineman312
    engineman312 Posts: 3,450 Member
    they both have their benefits and should be done together. one builds speed, one builds endurance. i run, but the same thing applies. my short 2 mile runs i do as quickly as possible, and my longer 5-6 mile runs i try and keep at a nice steady pace.
  • CashierCantin
    CashierCantin Posts: 206 Member
    When I always asked which was better....running for 2 miles in 20 minutes or walking 2 miles in 40 minutes-the answer I always got was...depends on how much time I had. Both were great for exercise, but was told if I had the time...walking longer was just AS beneficial as running and it was lower impact.

    What I had done in the past is do intervals of slow/fast/slow/fast/incline/more incline/less incline on the treadmill to change things up.

    I admire you for getting up so early. I tried doing that and all it resulted was me falling asleep 2 hours after getting home from work.
  • rosebarnalice
    rosebarnalice Posts: 3,488 Member
    try putting the calories in your exercise both ways, and see which works!
  • needlework
    needlework Posts: 141 Member
    Thanks to the people who replied. Since I really don't want to get up earlier than 4:45 I guess I'll pick up the pace and still do 30 minutes, but faster. Where I work is a perfect place to walk at lunch. I think I'll start walking at lunch about 2 to 3 times a week too. The more the better. With the weather getting cooler, I wouldn't go back to my desk and stink up the place. Thanks again everyone. Have a great Friday and a better weekend.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Calories are calories. Walking doesn't burn a lot of them, even at faster speeds. People who use outdoor walking as their main form of exercise have to do a higher volume of work. That's just the way it is.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories