Walking is good for health but walking faster is even better, study finds(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Walking is good for health but walking faster is even better, study finds
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/13/step-on-it-walking-is-good-for-health-but-walking-faster-is-even-better-study-finds
151 comments
Don't discount that walk in losing weight. I hear a lot about weight loss being mostly diet, and you can't outrun a cheeseburger, etc. But in reality, if you are around borderline eating 2000 calories per day, and if that walk burns an additional 300 calories, well 12 walks will cause a pound of weight loss. Plus, if you have free time to take a walk, that means you aren't using that time to snack either.
Exercise has two additional weight loss benefits over just burning extra calories. Sustained activity cranks up your metabolism for a period afterwards, and additional muscle mass means you’re less likely to have extra calories go immediately to fat.
I’ve always read this but what is the magnitude of the effect size? Does it have other side effects like making you hungrier?
Yes, but it is tied to the strenuousness of the exertion. HIIT or heavy weightlifting will boost your hunger quite a bit, but an hour long walk should have negligible effect.
But walking is a cardio, it won't increase muscle mass, right?
walking and movement beyond what you’re used to will build muscle throughout your body, mainly lower half, to compensate for the increased activity.
Not if you're already in good shape.
For most people, walking multiple times a week where they weren't absolutely will.
For most people, walking multiple times a week where they weren't absolutely will.
I used to have that rule solidly followed but life got in the way. I still walk but not at the best times (social pressure).
Have you had endorphin kick yet ?
Have you had endorphin kick yet ?
I've not been enjoying the back to the office aspect of things... but it always feels better after a wonderful ride through Midtown rush hour traffic. Just being out there moving the body is always wonderful.
I started walking briskly recently. I just love it. I will find any excuse to get outside and walk. I walk to work, I walk to shop. This way, I am walking between 15-20k steps on any day. It sounds crazy, but it’s actually easily achievable if you start thinking about ways to tie it in your daily activities.
15-20k steps/day sounds a lot if your day job doesn't involve walking around. Before the pandemic, my typical day was 10-15k steps. But now that I'm working from home, it takes some effort to reach 10k, because I have fewer reasons to leave home.
The same with me. I plummeted from 9k a day to 5.5k a day and it has taken a toll on my mood.
“Easily achievable” depends significantly on where you live (and of course your health).
Sidewalks might as well be illegal in most parts of my home city, given how many areas are completely devoid of them.
Sidewalks might as well be illegal in most parts of my home city, given how many areas are completely devoid of them.
As more people start wanting to walk, there will be more sidewalks. Start demanding for it and you will get it.
We didn’t add any street lights in the city for 30 years due to budget constraints. U.S. infrastructure is, in a lot of ways, barely functional.
And I’m disinclined to risk my life to try to prove a futile point. Walking very far here is dangerous due to narrow roads, bridges with no sidewalks, etc.
And I’m disinclined to risk my life to try to prove a futile point. Walking very far here is dangerous due to narrow roads, bridges with no sidewalks, etc.
There was once a time when men risked their lives for what they believed in. At least, that is the mantra I repeat when I feel endangered walking through my city.
We live in a democracy! Hope you understand that if you and enough people around you want changes in your neighborhood/community it is totally possible.
Start making changes and influencing people instead of saying its futile. Change is always possible.
Start making changes and influencing people instead of saying its futile. Change is always possible.
Time to move I guess!
Thank you god I'm not an American.
Walking on grass is better for joint and fine motor control due to the balance adjustments of slightly uneven ground
Fair enough. I guess I should have left “easily” out.
I agree! It sounds crazy but you can build it up slowly. Now in my "low days", when I work too much and finish late, I have just some 12000 steps. In "good days" periods, it has become normal for me to get 20000 steps.
I set just one rule: go for fast pace walk every day no matter the weather and no matter the time of the day.
I set just one rule: go for fast pace walk every day no matter the weather and no matter the time of the day.
For better exercise, speed up or slow down:
https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20866689/why-crawling...
https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20866689/why-crawling...
Some of the hardest additions I've made to my gym workouts include crawling and jumping. Jumping / bounding, especially if you haven't done much of it before, is quite taxing.
I prefer bodybuilding lifts over crossfit style movements, but I realized that dynamic movements would be a worthy addition, at least to my warmups or finishers.
It came to light in a particularly undignified way: I took my kid to a mega-trampoline place and realized: 1) I can't jump for long, 2) jumps down from height are especially unsettling now that I'm no longer in my youth.
I prefer bodybuilding lifts over crossfit style movements, but I realized that dynamic movements would be a worthy addition, at least to my warmups or finishers.
It came to light in a particularly undignified way: I took my kid to a mega-trampoline place and realized: 1) I can't jump for long, 2) jumps down from height are especially unsettling now that I'm no longer in my youth.
Another way to take jumping to the next level of you have barbells is to do power cleans.
Slow movement is strength and flexibility, fast moving is cardio.
Do both and you've covered your bases. Makes sense.
Do both and you've covered your bases. Makes sense.
Due to the way your body extracts energy from fat and glycogen, your brisk walk should (for most people) keep your heart rate around 120bpm for a sustained period of around an hour.
This way you'll condition better mitochondria development, oxidise fat for energy and avoid producing damaging metabolic by-products.
This way you'll condition better mitochondria development, oxidise fat for energy and avoid producing damaging metabolic by-products.
I walk a lot, and I walk briskly, but my diet is ... not great. When they take my bp at the doctors they are always like 'wow your BP is so good'. and I'm like really? are you sure? I guess the walking and doing so briskly helps a lot.
There are genetic factors too.
Some people smoke, drink, eat junk food and never exercise and have excellent blood pressure and never get fat. Others can't keep in shape without tremendous efforts. Equality is for human rights, but nature doesn't care.
Some people smoke, drink, eat junk food and never exercise and have excellent blood pressure and never get fat. Others can't keep in shape without tremendous efforts. Equality is for human rights, but nature doesn't care.
I am very fit, 20k steps/day, lift daily, eat the DASH diet, but have high BP if I eat salt, low if I don’t. My girlfriend isn’t quite as healthy, loves salt ,but has super low BP no matter what she eats.
Genetics are far more powerful than I realized. Sometimes nothing else seems to matter.
Maybe with your genetics a higher BP is fine. Health studies are often/usually wrong and BP has high variance. Not sure how you could know though.
Reminds me of zone 2 training [1]
My target (aka zone 2) is around 140 bpm which I can achieve by walking fairly briskly -- I can still hold a telephone conversation and breath through my nose.
I have tried running in the past but I kept injuring this or the other (not at all athletic). Doing "slow" 10k+ steps per day total did not help with my weight either. But just doing these 1-hr zone-2 sessions (3-4x per week) made all the difference. Ofc ymmv!
[1] https://www.artofmanliness.com/health-fitness/fitness/zone-2...
My target (aka zone 2) is around 140 bpm which I can achieve by walking fairly briskly -- I can still hold a telephone conversation and breath through my nose.
I have tried running in the past but I kept injuring this or the other (not at all athletic). Doing "slow" 10k+ steps per day total did not help with my weight either. But just doing these 1-hr zone-2 sessions (3-4x per week) made all the difference. Ofc ymmv!
[1] https://www.artofmanliness.com/health-fitness/fitness/zone-2...
I used to go for fast walks as a way to decompress / deal with anxiety & depression. It worked well. I need to restart the habit.
Things I learned on my walks:
* Railroad tracks are policed by railroad cops, some equipped with large revolvers. That Colt is cemented in my mind...
* Railroad tracks are frequented by migrant workers and those who might prey upon them. Some of those people are dangerous.
* Ben's has great Chinese food. (near Jack London Square)
Things I learned on my walks:
* Railroad tracks are policed by railroad cops, some equipped with large revolvers. That Colt is cemented in my mind...
* Railroad tracks are frequented by migrant workers and those who might prey upon them. Some of those people are dangerous.
* Ben's has great Chinese food. (near Jack London Square)
> Some of those people are dangerous.
Mind sharing? Curiosity burns!
Mind sharing? Curiosity burns!
So running is better than walking?
Walking is good. Walking faster is better. Walking even slightly faster? Slightly better. Running? Running is right out. However, walking EVEN faster than slightly faster? Guess what: even better.
Only if you can keep on doing it until you are old. A lot of people wear out their hips and knees before they can reap the benefits. Light exercise in the form of walking rather than running is a bit more sustainable and something you can keep on doing as long as you stay healthy. Cycling is similarly beneficial.
This is wrong. Running actually builds up the knees. Only walking is a good way to break down your knees as you get older. My father was trained from a young age to fear running. He had shot knees by his mid forties. I've been running since I was a teenager. No issues (I'm in my 40s).
https://www.oxfordortho.sg/articles/why-running-is-actually-...
https://www.oxfordortho.sg/articles/why-running-is-actually-...
Running with proper form might help your knees (and it provably doesn't hurt them). The actual science your source is drawing from will tell you that it's not conclusive that running improves knee health [1]. Running with poor form will definitely damage them. Walking (2.5mph, briskly) will not hurt your knees and is considered overall one of the best exercises you can do [2]. Walking and running (with proper form) both will improve knee pain.
1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18550323/ 2. https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Acti...
1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18550323/ 2. https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Acti...
Thank you for this. Running competitively definitely beats up your tendons and what not but after 30 years of running 70 (then) to 20 (now) up have had like 5 days my knees were achey. I will say not everyone has ideal biomechanics and our sedentary lifestyles also impact injuries while running.
Brisk walking is it. I can see how that works out the body and could be put into practice in the day to day life. Running is great if you can do it correctly and have the time to put into it. The way I see walking is the minimum needed for us to function and can be applied daily even for the busy. I guess this is saying that brisk walking may be even more favorable for the body...
No, walking faster is better than walking.
Yes but it's a balance because running is high impact so if you overdo it you risk injury. Ideally you should be getting some exercise every day but you can't run every day without injuring yourself, it just doesn't work. The recovery days aren't optional if you want to not permanently damage your knees.
Not for me, since I cannot decouple my breathing from my running.
I always fall into a two-steps–breathe-in/two-steps-breathe-out rhythm. It comes out to be a very unnatural and uncomfortable breathing sequence.
(Also I cannot decouple music beats from my steps, so listening to music is out, as well)
I always fall into a two-steps–breathe-in/two-steps-breathe-out rhythm. It comes out to be a very unnatural and uncomfortable breathing sequence.
(Also I cannot decouple music beats from my steps, so listening to music is out, as well)
That's interesting. I've read that one of the reasons that bipeds are more efficient runners than quadrupeds is because our breathing is decoupled from our stride. Quadrupeds' lungs are anchored within their chest cavity at the top and bottom, so as they stretch and contract their bodies, they are forced to inhale and exhale correspondingly with each stride. It sounds like you don't enjoy the same benefit as the rest of us bipeds.
That being said, when I do try to maintain a regular breathing pattern when running, I usually also do two-in, two-out. Feels pretty good to me.
That being said, when I do try to maintain a regular breathing pattern when running, I usually also do two-in, two-out. Feels pretty good to me.
Haha, I had no problem breathing out of sync with my stride but God did I sync my steps with pavement patterns :D.
Hm, I wonder if there is a term for this. I too like to try and keep in a pattern, and it never works out and often feels very unnatural when speeding up or slowing down a run.
Not so fast there, pal.
That depends of your weight and testosteron level because the body fights the inflammation by producing cortisol.
I run but luckily for me my running is probably on pace with a lot of people's fast walking.
What shoes do people here like for walking a lot?
Whatever you have that doesn't hurt simply from putting them on.
If you're walking recreationally (maybe less than 10km in one go) shoes are mostly irrelevant. No, you shouldn't use Wellington boots, I guess.
If you're walking recreationally (maybe less than 10km in one go) shoes are mostly irrelevant. No, you shouldn't use Wellington boots, I guess.
It really depends on your weight. If you are overweight and not used to walking, comfortable shoes and socks make a big difference.
Nike makes some good walking shoes that skew wider, but definitely read the reviews first to confirm, since they change between model years/revisions. For a while Downshifter was my go to, recently the Revolution 6 has been a good replacement.
Nike makes some good walking shoes that skew wider, but definitely read the reviews first to confirm, since they change between model years/revisions. For a while Downshifter was my go to, recently the Revolution 6 has been a good replacement.
I've been travelling recently which pushed my daily step count up from ~5k to ~20k for two weeks. I packed 3 pairs of shoes but pretty quickly decided to stick with the Revolution 6.
Also: soles wear out! If you walk/run more, you need to replace your shoes more often.
Also: soles wear out! If you walk/run more, you need to replace your shoes more often.
It also depends on your feet. My case: I am a (heavy) supinator. If I had to buy a pair of shoes for walking/jogging a long distance I would look for supinator shoes. These tend to have more support on the internal arc of the feet.
However I got pediatric inserts designed by a foot doctor. What he didn't tell me was that for those kinds of inserts it is better to wear a wide shoe which accommodates the inserts, but "neutral". I still was wearing my supinator shoes. So it will not "overcompensate". This advice was from a specialist running shoe shop. When I tried the neutral one he offered me on one feet, and the old "overcompensating" shoe I had, I noticed the lack of stability immediately.
I have a friend whose problem is that their feet sweat more than usual. In their case the solution was shoes with extra ventilation around the soles.
However I got pediatric inserts designed by a foot doctor. What he didn't tell me was that for those kinds of inserts it is better to wear a wide shoe which accommodates the inserts, but "neutral". I still was wearing my supinator shoes. So it will not "overcompensate". This advice was from a specialist running shoe shop. When I tried the neutral one he offered me on one feet, and the old "overcompensating" shoe I had, I noticed the lack of stability immediately.
I have a friend whose problem is that their feet sweat more than usual. In their case the solution was shoes with extra ventilation around the soles.
/pediatric/orthopedic/
Broken in combat boots are some of the most comfortable things I've ever worn, and great for walking.
But before they’re broken in, they can cause serious issues on longer walks. Metatarsal fractures are no joke.
It's important to get new shoes regularly. I found out the hard way that both my knees and back are affected by the shoes I use. As shoes age they lose their cushioning which means more vibrations are absorbed by your skeleton leading to pain or uncomfortable feeling in the joints.
Walking on pavement is particularly hard on joints, as every footfall places exactly the same stresses on your legs. It's better to walk on broken ground, which distributes the stress and helps to develop stability through a broader range of motion.
Everyone is recommending different brands but it really depends on your feet, posture and gait - there is no one brand or model that fits everyone. And of course walking surface and climate will impact as well. Dont buy online, go to a good store, ask for advice and try a bunch on.
The same shoes I use for almost everything: flip flops. I do 5+ miles a day in them and have for years.
Nothing fancy, just whatever is cheap and catches my eye - I usually go through 2 pairs a year.
Nothing fancy, just whatever is cheap and catches my eye - I usually go through 2 pairs a year.
Yup, I hiked to Everest Base Camp in flip flops. Every part of my body ached except my feet.
My "almost everything" includes a rule of "no risking frostbite" - I was under the impression that the basecamp was above the snow line - am I wrong about that or was it one of those "enough exertion to not worry about it" situations?
I also walk in flip flops. I’d go barefoot if I could.
A vote here for "On" running shoes, they also do hiking and walking shoes[1]
[1] https://on-running.com/
[1] https://on-running.com/
I have a pair of Hoka shoes for walking and a pair of Salomon shoes for hiking. Both are great.
Brooks, they don't have excessive cushioning (which is bad) like my indoor Nike shoes.
Any athletic shoes that fit properly. Nike, New Balance, Adidas, Puma all have options.
Mephisto. A pair I bought in 1983 (factory rebuilt c. 2005) are my favorites.
Take the litest ones, but not take running shoes if you are not going to run.
Thrift store tennis shoes.
New Balance 880, on my 4th pair in 5-6 years and they are the best
Is 1.5 years of life considered durable for how you use them? That seems kind of short to me, but I don't really know.
As a lifelong runner it's best to do it by mileage not age. Replace them somewhere between 300 and 600 miles (your weight, leg length, form, surface, etc. all influence this). I will add that over time historically the midsole foam usually degrades so age is a factor too. I'd probably suggest tossing them after 1.5 years or so or at least having a fairly fresh pair to compare them to. The above mostly applies to running but should be relevant for walking too.
Yes exactly, I sometimes push them a bit longer then your upper bound as well to save money but you can really tell the difference once you get a new pair.
My current pair is far overdue! Anyone here have experience with the Gore-Tex 880's, are they good?
My current pair is far overdue! Anyone here have experience with the Gore-Tex 880's, are they good?
Most athletic shoes have a short life like that. The trend tends to wear off. Even if it doesn't, you generally loose grip as the compound ages. Also, the insole and other cushioning stuff tends to break down and loose it's ability to absorb shock, which can lead to joint and back pain.
I run a lot and keep three generations of shoes:
* Used for running when new, usually for a year.
* In their 2nd year, for walking, gym and casual use.
* In their 3rd year, for gardening, house maintenance and stuff like walks in muddy places.
* Used for running when new, usually for a year.
* In their 2nd year, for walking, gym and casual use.
* In their 3rd year, for gardening, house maintenance and stuff like walks in muddy places.
Love this idea! As long as they last though. For me, by the second year - they are unusable.
It heavily depends on usage and weight. 10K steps is 1.5 to 2 hours of walking.
I'm quite overweight, and my tennis shoes last me ~6 months in good shape.
I'm quite overweight, and my tennis shoes last me ~6 months in good shape.
If you walk 10km+ per day I'd say 1.5 year is too long to keep them. It also depends on the kind of surfaces you walk on.
Salomon rugged running shoes (trail run/triathlon type)
flip flops (not cheap styrofoam ones with hard plastic loops, but a decent 20$ pair with cloth loops)
Barefoot sock-shoes are my favorite
Vans Old Skool.
Dr Martens.
To me this is a bit sad, as walking fast is for me associated with being stressed and in a rush. Walking slowly allows me to be fully mindful, to feel my body, and to experience the world around me without being lost in thought. It took a bit training but can be very pleasant. I haven’t managed to achieve these things when walking fast.
They aren't mutually exclusive in your life! I walk fast on the treadmill in the morning and take my time strolling through the public garden next door. This is valuable insight for people trying to use walking as a golden ticket to good cardiovascular health.
I generally feel the same. (I usually ride my bike at the higher end of my comfortable speed range, though, and do other moderate-intensity exercise.)
It's worth remembering that whatever physical activity you feel best doing might be the best for you. We aren't just physical robots. Mental well-being is also part of health, and it affects your physical health to some degree as well. Not to mention that we're a lot likely to do things we find pleasurable, and physical activity that you do is healthier than activity you don't do.
It's best to bear in mind that quantitative research doesn't take into account those subjective differences. It's probably not a good idea to singularly optimize for what's statistically shown by evidence. It's not like we're all data points on a neatly fitting curve.
It's worth remembering that whatever physical activity you feel best doing might be the best for you. We aren't just physical robots. Mental well-being is also part of health, and it affects your physical health to some degree as well. Not to mention that we're a lot likely to do things we find pleasurable, and physical activity that you do is healthier than activity you don't do.
It's best to bear in mind that quantitative research doesn't take into account those subjective differences. It's probably not a good idea to singularly optimize for what's statistically shown by evidence. It's not like we're all data points on a neatly fitting curve.
This is like being sad to hear that lentils are healthy but broccoli is even healthier, but you only like lentils.
Just do healthy stuff that works for you and don’t worry about something you don’t want to do being slightly healthier.
Just do healthy stuff that works for you and don’t worry about something you don’t want to do being slightly healthier.
Walking is going to be less stressful on the mind, but anything higher paced is going to be more stressful on the body and that's the point.
Being able to walk fast is a sign of good health. Did the study control for that? Do a study where you tell half the people to walk and half the people to walk fast and see if the differing advice made a difference. I bet the effect will be zero or small.
Are there any apps that give me badges to motivate me to reach 10k steps a day? I have an apple watch, but it doesn't give me any badges for steps.
Fitbit gives you a nice animation when you hit your goal and a star for that day in the history overview.
Additionally, it’s great if you add a friend in the app to compete for the max steps in the last 7 days.
Additionally, it’s great if you add a friend in the app to compete for the max steps in the last 7 days.
They say the effects are due to increased heart rate and blood flow. Perhaps a sedentary lifestyle can be offset by popping a Viagra every day.
Is their an equivalent benefit from cycling? Anybody knows?
Most assuredly - the article is only comparing "walking" to "no walking", not any other activity. Any exercise is better than no exercise, and harder forms of exercise are better (up to a point which casual people won't reach). These results shouldn't be surprising.
Given that cycling usually involves higher heart rates, a larger range of resistance, a larger range of joint movement, more balancing skills, and increased attention requirements, for the same period of time I would expect cycling to be better. And in most American cities, you can actually cycle from your home to another destination, whereas walking will not. Of course, cycling involves greater costs and danger.
Given that cycling usually involves higher heart rates, a larger range of resistance, a larger range of joint movement, more balancing skills, and increased attention requirements, for the same period of time I would expect cycling to be better. And in most American cities, you can actually cycle from your home to another destination, whereas walking will not. Of course, cycling involves greater costs and danger.
> Of course, cycling involves greater costs and danger.
Very true. I considered that too. My solution:
- bought a secondhand citybike iso race bike - always helmet & reflective vest - longer but safer route alternative
Very true. I considered that too. My solution:
- bought a secondhand citybike iso race bike - always helmet & reflective vest - longer but safer route alternative
On average, yes, substantially, even _when_ you account for possible risks from accidents and potential pollution exposure:
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.0901747
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.0901747
Very interesting link. Thanks!
Totally unscientific experiment, but for me, walking or cycling I barely break a sweat for short to moderate distances/times.
Only if we're talking about longer distances/times do I start to feel even a small amount of exertion.
In contrast, even a short run (say, 2 miles, or 20 minutes) I am out of breath, sweating like crazy, and totally exhausted.
In other words, unless I am spending a lot of time walking or cycling, I don't feel like I've exercised at all. Whereas even a short run is hard. So if I have a limited time window to exercise, I feel running is a more efficient use of that time?
Only if we're talking about longer distances/times do I start to feel even a small amount of exertion.
In contrast, even a short run (say, 2 miles, or 20 minutes) I am out of breath, sweating like crazy, and totally exhausted.
In other words, unless I am spending a lot of time walking or cycling, I don't feel like I've exercised at all. Whereas even a short run is hard. So if I have a limited time window to exercise, I feel running is a more efficient use of that time?
Cycling certainly has health benefits, but the general recommendation is to combine it with other forms of aerobic and resistance training rather than making it your sole form of exercise. Cycling only works a limited set of muscles, and doesn't generate the impacts or strains necessary to maintain high bone mineral density.
I read somewhere that you gotta bike twice as long as jogging to get the same benefit.
Also, stationary bikes are about half as effective as road biking. It seems that the necessity to maintain balance improves the results.
The same with weight machines. Lifting with barbells is more effective, and dumbbells even more so. This is because these require your muscle stabilizers to be engaged, while the machine stabilizes the weight for you.
Weight machines are an expensive waste of time.
Also, stationary bikes are about half as effective as road biking. It seems that the necessity to maintain balance improves the results.
The same with weight machines. Lifting with barbells is more effective, and dumbbells even more so. This is because these require your muscle stabilizers to be engaged, while the machine stabilizes the weight for you.
Weight machines are an expensive waste of time.
That really depends on what type of benefits you're targeting. Do you want to get stronger? Increase aerobic fitness? Lose weight? Win a race?
Running and cycling (or most any other endurance sport) produce similar benefits for your energy systems as long as you hit the same heart rate zones. Most casual athletes find that for a given level of perceived exertion, running causes a slightly higher heart rate due to engaging more different muscles. But cycling is lower impact, so it's easier to sustain a target level for longer training sessions. Thus for general long-term health and fitness purposes it's better to cross train a mix of different sports.
Stationary bikes are as effective as road bikes for pure exercise purposes. It's just a matter of hitting the right power output and heart rate. Some pro triathletes now do the majority of their bike training indoors for safety and convenience. It's difficult to follow a structured workout on a road bike while navigating, dodging cars, and stopping at intersections. But with modern smart bike trainers it's easy to hit the exact target at each step and optimize physiological benefits. Some Zwift Academy participants have even scored pro cycling team contacts based on stationary bike workouts.
https://www.velonews.com/news/riders-get-pro-contracts-with-...
You can buy roller trainers or rocker plates if you want to work on balance but it makes little difference in the training benefits.
Running and cycling (or most any other endurance sport) produce similar benefits for your energy systems as long as you hit the same heart rate zones. Most casual athletes find that for a given level of perceived exertion, running causes a slightly higher heart rate due to engaging more different muscles. But cycling is lower impact, so it's easier to sustain a target level for longer training sessions. Thus for general long-term health and fitness purposes it's better to cross train a mix of different sports.
Stationary bikes are as effective as road bikes for pure exercise purposes. It's just a matter of hitting the right power output and heart rate. Some pro triathletes now do the majority of their bike training indoors for safety and convenience. It's difficult to follow a structured workout on a road bike while navigating, dodging cars, and stopping at intersections. But with modern smart bike trainers it's easy to hit the exact target at each step and optimize physiological benefits. Some Zwift Academy participants have even scored pro cycling team contacts based on stationary bike workouts.
https://www.velonews.com/news/riders-get-pro-contracts-with-...
You can buy roller trainers or rocker plates if you want to work on balance but it makes little difference in the training benefits.
Because I commute by bicycle it's a non-expendable part of my day, that's the main benefit. There's no slacking off; rain or shine I bike.
And even a very slow jogging is better than a fast walk.
And swimmers have lower mortality rates than walkers and runners.
"After adjustment for age, body-mass index, smoking status, alcohol intake, and family history of cardiovascular disease, swimmers had 53%, 50%, and 49% lower all-cause mortality risks than did men who were sedentary, walkers, or runners, respectively (p < 0.05 for each)."
https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ijare/vol2/iss3/3/
"After adjustment for age, body-mass index, smoking status, alcohol intake, and family history of cardiovascular disease, swimmers had 53%, 50%, and 49% lower all-cause mortality risks than did men who were sedentary, walkers, or runners, respectively (p < 0.05 for each)."
https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ijare/vol2/iss3/3/
As a runner and cyclist, in terms of difficulty swimming is in another dimension. It requires all four limbs to act in coordination with breathing, it has higher temperature stresses, and if you get tired you drown. The average swimming duration of a triathlon is less than a fourth of the others.
has this been reproduced? This one echoes the same but also mentions racquet sports and aerobics - https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/10/812.short
edit: more, this one favors volleyball and stretching - https://globalsportmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/sh...
edit: more, this one favors volleyball and stretching - https://globalsportmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/sh...
I'm surprised there's such a small difference between sedentary and walkers/runners.
That depends of your weight and testosteron level because the body fights the inflammation by producing cortisol.
It will screw up your knees
This is very false. The truth is quite the opposite. Walking is associated with reduced knee pain. Walking (2.5mph, briskly) and Yoga are considered golden exercises. https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Acti...
also sky is blue, study finds..
Wait until these scientist find out about running.
I guess you could run your errands running but I guess brisk walking could be easier to incorporate for most in their routine, especially for non runners. Besides, running with the wrong form could do more damage than walking.
Walking quickly (at a speed that you want to start jogging, but you don't) is less efficient for same distance than actually running..which is better for your health.
To get the same benefits from running, you need to run faster/farther than walking. Just like when you switch biking, the same 3mi loop doesn't do any good and you need to start doing 10-15mi loops instead.
To get the same benefits from running, you need to run faster/farther than walking. Just like when you switch biking, the same 3mi loop doesn't do any good and you need to start doing 10-15mi loops instead.
Another nice thing about walking is that you can multitask to make it more stimulating, for longer. Imagine if you only went on HN and social media and Youtube while you were walking the local park.
running is hard on joints, esp for heavier folks.
Running is actually good for your joints. You'll have a hard time finding studies saying otherwise.
Running is certainly usually harder for heavier folks, but being bad for your joints is not the reason.
Running is certainly usually harder for heavier folks, but being bad for your joints is not the reason.
>Running is actually good for your joints.
Running a reasonable amount (contextually defined), with good form, in appropriate footwear, ideally not on hard surfaces (i.e. concrete) can be good for your joints.
Running a reasonable amount (contextually defined), with good form, in appropriate footwear, ideally not on hard surfaces (i.e. concrete) can be good for your joints.
Just about anything done with poor form or in excess is going to cause issues. Not sure it's a useful point.
Depends on age. If you are under 40 running can be beneficial for joints. Especially if you start running at later age then it could cause problems.
If you very gradually ease into it. Add mileage slowly, it will not be. That is why you see plenty of larger heavier folks running marathons.
That depends of your weight and testosteron level because the body fights the inflammation by producing cortisol.
You keep copying and pasting the same thing on comment after comment (down to the typos) and never back it up with a source.
Source: my doctor
Since I've been working from home I've made it a point to head out mid-workday and go for a walk. One hour. Surrounded by trees. It's fantastic.
Whenever I'm getting annoyed or cranky, it's time to go. Most of our development tools are shit. I get lots of opportunities…
When I started doing that I could reliably measure my blood pressure going down by 10 to 15 mmHg. Lasting the rest of the day.
Now I've lost quite a bit of weight (mostly by eating less, not much by walking, I think), and I cannot see such a reliable drop in blood pressure anymore (it's now regularly lower). I still feel better whenever I've been out.