Why walking is the most underrated form of exercise (2017)(nbcnews.com)
nbcnews.com
Why walking is the most underrated form of exercise (2017)
https://www.nbcnews.com/better/health/why-walking-most-underrated-form-exercise-ncna797271
109 comments
> I once tried to burn 3,000+ calories per day using just walking.
You'll generally burn about ~2k cals per day just being alive. An intense workout for an hour can burn maybe 500 on top of this. I think your math might be off somewhere if you walked a lot and figured that you spent a whole 1k.
You'll generally burn about ~2k cals per day just being alive. An intense workout for an hour can burn maybe 500 on top of this. I think your math might be off somewhere if you walked a lot and figured that you spent a whole 1k.
Fat dudes burn significantly more than ~2k per day just being alive, or at least I did when I was younger. I lost significant weight on a 2300 calorie/day diet. So maybe the OP was 2500 for "being alive" and 500 for the workout?
Possible, and I considered that, which is why I put 500 cals for an intense hour-long workout, to imply that walking for a few hours will not even come close to 500 cals.
> walking for a few hours will not even come close to 500 cals.
No, not even close. I would expect 4-5 hours of walking to burn significantly more than that.
No, not even close. I would expect 4-5 hours of walking to burn significantly more than that.
I could be wrong, but from my research and understanding, walking is one of the easiest things for us to do, only slightly more expensive than sitting up straight or standing.
On top of this, it doesn't "stack" well because of the low heart rate usage, meaning it logarithmically increases calorie costs (our bodies essentially amortize it), whereas lifting and carrying a heavy object for 20 seconds exponentially increases it.
On top of this, it doesn't "stack" well because of the low heart rate usage, meaning it logarithmically increases calorie costs (our bodies essentially amortize it), whereas lifting and carrying a heavy object for 20 seconds exponentially increases it.
In general cardio will always use more energy than lifting because you can simply do much more of it.
Cardio is continuous work while lifting is work done a few seconds at a time.
Walking in particular is still moving your body horizontally through space. That horizontal displacement is the biggest determinant of energy cost for any given body, all things being equal.
Running only burns slightly more per unit distance because there's slightly more vertical displacement as you're literally leaving the ground between steps.
Cardio is continuous work while lifting is work done a few seconds at a time.
Walking in particular is still moving your body horizontally through space. That horizontal displacement is the biggest determinant of energy cost for any given body, all things being equal.
Running only burns slightly more per unit distance because there's slightly more vertical displacement as you're literally leaving the ground between steps.
For a normal person, it's about 100 calories / hr for sitting vs 200 for walking.
For a fat dude, it's about 150 calories / hr for sitting vs 350 for walking.
Source: google. Use appropriate doses of salt.
For a fat dude, it's about 150 calories / hr for sitting vs 350 for walking.
Source: google. Use appropriate doses of salt.
Fat dude doing 5 hours of walking a day would have no more knees within a month. It's good to aim to be less overweight, mostly because of the cancer and CHD risks, but also because it wears the body out faster mechanically and takes more relative effort to do everything.
Yeah, I too thought this number was unrealistic. I run, and I know that it takes about 60 calories per km (I run 10 km usually). To burn 3000 I'd have to... run more than a marathon (50 km, marathon is 42 km). Running marathon every day is... I won't say impossible, but is highly impractical (and actually impossible for most people who can run marathon). For an average runner, it takes 4-5 hours. So, I think that to burn 3k calories by walking one would need to walk way, way longer than 5 hours a day. Not sure even if it's possible to squeeze that much walking in a day.
For interest:
William Goodge smashes record after running across Australia in 35 days
William Goodge smashes record after running across Australia in 35 days
British athlete four days quicker than previous record holder who completed 3,800km feat in 39 days
Spurred on by his mother’s battle with cancer, and with his father by his side, William Goodge crossed the finish line in Sydney just after 4pm on Monday.
It brought an end to 35 days of pounding the pavement, striding the equivalent of two-and-a-half marathons a day.
Or
> Shannon-Leigh Litt has run 500 ultra marathons in 500 Days
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/360690060/northlander-runs-her...
Out of reach for most of us though.
> Shannon-Leigh Litt has run 500 ultra marathons in 500 Days
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/360690060/northlander-runs-her...
Out of reach for most of us though.
The best way to hit 3000 is cycling. A reasonably fit (70kg-100kg) cyclist should burn 600-800 cal/hr riding at a moderate pace, so 3000 is a 4-5hr ride. It wouldn't be unusual for an enthusiastic amateur cyclist to hit that 1-2x/week.
However, if you assume that 2000 calories is pretty much maintenance and you'll burn that anyway, then you only need somewhere around an hour and a half or two hours cycling. Also if you can replace a medium commute with cycling, then it's not that difficult to hit that target just through active travel. (I used to regularly cycle commute approx 37kms each way and I could easily hit 1000 calories on just one of the journeys).
Yeah. It's easy to get over 3000 total daily calories if you have, eg, an hour of cycle commute per day and then add some purposeful gym or running on top.
Could do it far more biomechanically efficient on an elliptical, but overdoing cardio risks less type IIb (wiry appearance) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
Or incorporate more strength training that increases type IIb adaptations and greater BMR.
Or incorporate more strength training that increases type IIb adaptations and greater BMR.
BMR. Cut food by 1000 kcal, that's 1000 kcal that don't need to be metabolized.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This is what is kicking in when you do anaerobic exercises:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_post-exercise_oxygen_co...
> Anaerobic exercise in the form of high-intensity interval training was also found in one study to result in greater loss of subcutaneous fat, even though the subjects expended fewer than half as many calories during exercise.
Walking essentially does nothing to your EPOC levels. A one rep maximum deadlift can elevate it substantially for hours. 10 seconds of suffering can trigger responses that hours of walking cannot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_post-exercise_oxygen_co...
> Anaerobic exercise in the form of high-intensity interval training was also found in one study to result in greater loss of subcutaneous fat, even though the subjects expended fewer than half as many calories during exercise.
Walking essentially does nothing to your EPOC levels. A one rep maximum deadlift can elevate it substantially for hours. 10 seconds of suffering can trigger responses that hours of walking cannot.
My weight loss shows a huge difference in cycling vs. burning the same number of calories walking
> the same number of calories
How do you measure the calories burned ? Get 10 different devices you'll get 10 different measures.
How do you measure the calories burned ? Get 10 different devices you'll get 10 different measures.
Maybe they put their daily food intake and feces both into a bomb calorimeter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorimeter and measure the difference?
> Maybe they put their daily food intake and feces both into a bomb calorimeter
Not at the same time, I would hope
Not at the same time, I would hope
EPOC only accounts for something like 60 additional calories burned in the next 24 hours...unless there is something unexplained going on, it's _greatly_ overblown how significant this actually is
...but it sounds sciencey and sexy so it's often repeated.
...but it sounds sciencey and sexy so it's often repeated.
60 calories is what you burn when running 1 km. It's not insignificant :)
You will not burn 3000 kcal in 40 minutes of gym effort. Even burning 1000kcal in an hour requires serious fitness and burning 1200 is elite athlete level max effort for a full hour.
Calories burnt by walking, assuming flat surface are decently approximated by (distance_in_km x weight) formula so it is possible to burn a lot in 4-5 hours of walking but quite unlikely to hit 3000 unless you're very fit.
Calories burnt by walking, assuming flat surface are decently approximated by (distance_in_km x weight) formula so it is possible to burn a lot in 4-5 hours of walking but quite unlikely to hit 3000 unless you're very fit.
Going by my fitness tracker, a 1-hour 900kcal gym session is absolutely intense. On the few times I've hit that mark, I'm laid out on the ground and probably need to take it easy the next day.
More realistically, I hit 600-700kcal per session.
More realistically, I hit 600-700kcal per session.
I've burnt over 1000kcal in an hour cycling and I'm over 50 and not super-fit. A few hills can make all the difference as it's difficult to be lazy whilst grinding your way up-hill.
1000kcal in an hour is around 277 Watts for an hour. There are very few people who can sustain that without serious dedication and long hours for months/years.
Be aware the caloric estimates on gym equipment are like 20% over estimated.
1000 kcal per hour is 278w FTP if using common convention of 1 cal = 1 j of work (assuming ~20% COP). A lot of people who are very fit dream of such an FTP.
Well, looking at average ranges, 278w FTP would put me in the top 40% or so, which I would consider is reasonably average. Also, I'm reasonably heavy (around 100kg), so that probably makes it easier to put out some power whilst also meaning that I'm slow up the hills.
https://www.cyclinganalytics.com/blog/2018/06/how-does-your-...
https://www.cyclinganalytics.com/blog/2018/06/how-does-your-...
That's a) self-reported and b) among cyclists who track their power i.e. have power-meter equipped bicycle and a head unit to record stats. Self-reporting inflate the numbers by itself but, since most people don't actually have a power meter or/and don't bike, that group is made from quite fit people by selection.
I think they mean all day calorie burn, not active burn.
Yeah but then they will not get close to what they can burn with 4 hours of walking by doing a 40 minutes gym session.
The delta is pretty close. Walking is ~200 calories / hour, but sitting is ~100/hr, so the delta is 100/hr. So 4 hours of walking might be as little as an excess of 400. cf a gym workout of 500/hr is also an excess of 400.
IOW, the total calorie burn in a day that includes 4 hours of walking is likely relatively comparable to the total calorie burn in a day that includes an hour of gym time.
IOW, the total calorie burn in a day that includes 4 hours of walking is likely relatively comparable to the total calorie burn in a day that includes an hour of gym time.
Walking 5km/h at 70kg is 350kcal/hour. If you are heavy and unfit then it will maybe be 3km/h at 90kg 270kcal/hour but then someone that unfit is not going to be able to burn 500kcal in an hour in a gym anyway.
>>IOW, the total calorie burn in a day that includes 4 hours of walking is likely relatively comparable to the total calorie burn in a day that includes an hour of gym time.
It's a good point about the delta (the estimations are for a total burnt during activity not extra) but I don't think you can get the numbers close. People greatly overestimate how much you burn during gym session as well unless they are already very fit and move constantly during that session.
>>IOW, the total calorie burn in a day that includes 4 hours of walking is likely relatively comparable to the total calorie burn in a day that includes an hour of gym time.
It's a good point about the delta (the estimations are for a total burnt during activity not extra) but I don't think you can get the numbers close. People greatly overestimate how much you burn during gym session as well unless they are already very fit and move constantly during that session.
I would think the more fit you are, the less calories you’re going to burn per unit of work. Because your body is more efficient.
As endurance hunters our bodies are tuned for efficient use of energy during low/medium paced exercise. Walking is awesome, and I try to get out there and do an hour a day, but I agree - you get much better results from the gym because our bodies aren’t specifically tuned for those types of workouts. Lifting weights also has a lot of tangible benefits for both men and women in the short and long term.
To get some idea of how efficient we can be look at studies of the Hadza, a tribe of hunter-gatherers in Tanzania, described here [1]. The men spend the day walking around hunting, or if they can't find game climbing trees to get honey, yet burn about the same amount of calories as sedentary men in western industrialized societies. The women spend all day moving around foraging and the results are similar.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_paradox
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_paradox
One of those being not being an otherwise healthy middle aged person constantly complaining about their back, general body pain, etc. I see people in their 70s even at the gym who look and seemingly feel great because they’ve been doing some resistance training their whole adult lives. Better than some software devs I know who never move and are in their 30s.
> As endurance hunters
There's no evidence for this.
But everyone should walk a little bit if only for the mental health benefits.
There's no evidence for this.
But everyone should walk a little bit if only for the mental health benefits.
There’s actually a good amount of evidence for this. Here’s a basic look but you can dig in to other sources that will expand on how we know this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
Lol yes there is. You can find people alive today who still do it.
We used to do it as children on the ranch. Running down sheep and cows is easy. Deer just take more time.
We used to do it as children on the ranch. Running down sheep and cows is easy. Deer just take more time.
>But in raw efficiency... it’s humbling how long it takes to match even moderate training.
Bipedal walking on mostly flat ground can only be matched by kangaroos' hopping in terms of energy efficiency.
Bipedal walking on mostly flat ground can only be matched by kangaroos' hopping in terms of energy efficiency.
laughs in cycling
Presumably by 3000 you mean 1000 over the ~2000 from your basal rate? 1000kcal per day from walking alone is about 3-4 hours of walking per day depending on weight.
Dangerous, inefficient, and time-consuming compared to moderate exercise and eating less. Caloric restriction is, by far, more effective than exercise for net deficit. Thunderf00t did a video on this. https://youtube.com/watch?v=mTABw0EyIWY
Another thing about walking is - while everyone's different, long walks really increased my appetite. While walking 4 miles daily (with some hills) was great in many ways, I slowly gained 20+ pounds over 2 years. Running didn't have same effect on me.
4-5 hours for 20k steps? Because of your heart issues?
I just checked my current stats. I have 15k steps recently from walking to and from my job. And that’s not counting the steps at the gym. I take off my watch since it’s often a hindrance during work outs.
I just checked my current stats. I have 15k steps recently from walking to and from my job. And that’s not counting the steps at the gym. I take off my watch since it’s often a hindrance during work outs.
I have a recorded 'hike' (on very steep logging roads) of 7 hours with a total expenditure of 1800 cal active/2500 cal total with an elevation gain of 3000' (the decent was way harder).
Are you walking for work?
Are you walking for work?
Tell me how to burn 3000 calories in 40 minutes and I will be in perfect shape. It's a struggle to burn 400 in 30 minutes (hiit training, very challenging)
Depends on incline.
My take is that walking is good for the mind and soul. I don't really think it's a good physical exercise, but it's definitely better than nothing.
> I don't really think it's a good physical exercise
The problem is that most people don't do anything physical at all and walking is one of the easiest way to get started. Any type of activity is beneficial, you need to move for your lymphatic system to work properly and walking is perfect for that, your feet/lower legs basically are lymph pumps: https://www.mdpi.com/2813-3307/2/2/4
The problem is that most people don't do anything physical at all and walking is one of the easiest way to get started. Any type of activity is beneficial, you need to move for your lymphatic system to work properly and walking is perfect for that, your feet/lower legs basically are lymph pumps: https://www.mdpi.com/2813-3307/2/2/4
I wish more folks knew about/would take up rucking. Yes, I look a bit odd as a small woman in my neighborhood wearing a giant weighted backpack, but it's a great workout.
I once trained for a mountain hike by walking up down the stairs in our 14 floor apartment building with 25kg backpack. I had no idea it has a name! I also walked 15km to work a few times, but I admit it affected my productivity...
rucking seems like it would be bad for one's back and knees? How much weight do you use? It seems like one of those things that's military inspired, except I don't have the VA to look after me if I wear out my hard goods.
> be bad for one's back and knees?
"This can't be good for your body" is a bullshit excuse most of the time, I have 1 in a million chance to pulling a muscle while deadlifting, but someone who sits all day and don't exercise has 1 in 1 chance of slowly rotting away day by day, pick your poison. Unless you morbidly obese I don't think a 10kg backpack will be the straw that breaks the camel's back
Most people got it backwards, your knees and back don't hurt because you overused them, they hurt because they're grossly underused.
"This can't be good for your body" is a bullshit excuse most of the time, I have 1 in a million chance to pulling a muscle while deadlifting, but someone who sits all day and don't exercise has 1 in 1 chance of slowly rotting away day by day, pick your poison. Unless you morbidly obese I don't think a 10kg backpack will be the straw that breaks the camel's back
Most people got it backwards, your knees and back don't hurt because you overused them, they hurt because they're grossly underused.
I do 10-15 hours of cardio a week lol. I make an effort to take care of my knees because at those training loads, having bad bike fit or an uncorrected varus knee issue can mean really messing things up for yourself.
My question was how much weight is necessary. Also curious whether that applies on the flat or only on incline, and whether a similar training load could be accomplished with lower joint stress by doing unloaded runs and weight room stuff.
My question was how much weight is necessary. Also curious whether that applies on the flat or only on incline, and whether a similar training load could be accomplished with lower joint stress by doing unloaded runs and weight room stuff.
It's not like "sit still all day" is the only other possible option.
If you have good form (e.g. standing upright, shoulders back) you really shouldn't have issues. it's good for your posture and bone density if you ruck correctly. You really don't want to exceed more than 1/3 of your body weight, but if you are just starting out I recommend starting with a 10 to 20lb pack.
My understanding is that most of the "bad for your knees" is actually when you don't soften the landing by bending your knees or ankle and your legs/knees get a jolt, not just the weight involved.
People always have excuses.
+1 for rucking. It's as easy as walking and you can progressively increase the weights if you want more effort - I need a better backpack for my weights!
I've been considering getting into rucking. Can anyone recommend a weighted vest or a rucksack to purchase?
Honestly i just use a thrifted hiking pack and Yes4All cheapy amazon ruck weights. https://www.amazon.com/Yes4All-Adjustable-Plate-Weight-Strap...
If you want to really invest, there is the GoRuck brand. https://www.goruck.com/
If you want to really invest, there is the GoRuck brand. https://www.goruck.com/
"Walking is the suggested workout over running for... those with knee, ankle and back problems... walking... creates less stress on joints and reduces pain."
I've seen many people around me with knee replacements, and I do not want that for myself.
I walk two miles per day. I would not run for this reason.
I've seen many people around me with knee replacements, and I do not want that for myself.
I walk two miles per day. I would not run for this reason.
> knees /../ I would not run for this reason
Studies increasingly show that running is not bad for your knees and runners in fact have some of the strongest healthiest knees around. User proper form, replace your shoes regularly, don’t train for the olympics, and running will be just fine for your joints.
> Studies have shown that recreational runners have a knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) prevalence that is three times lower than that of sedentary non-runners. Competitive runners showed an even more impressive four-fold reduction in knee and hip OA prevalence. These results are due to the fact that regular running strengthens the muscles around the knee joint and supports overall joint health. Running also plays a vital role in maintaining healthy cartilage and bone density, which are crucial for knee function.
https://longevity.stanford.edu/lifestyle/2023/08/29/is-runni...
Studies increasingly show that running is not bad for your knees and runners in fact have some of the strongest healthiest knees around. User proper form, replace your shoes regularly, don’t train for the olympics, and running will be just fine for your joints.
> Studies have shown that recreational runners have a knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) prevalence that is three times lower than that of sedentary non-runners. Competitive runners showed an even more impressive four-fold reduction in knee and hip OA prevalence. These results are due to the fact that regular running strengthens the muscles around the knee joint and supports overall joint health. Running also plays a vital role in maintaining healthy cartilage and bone density, which are crucial for knee function.
https://longevity.stanford.edu/lifestyle/2023/08/29/is-runni...
Is it your contention that if an obese, not-runner who views walking as a form of exercise were to start running, the immediate effect would not be knee injury, but actually strengthened knees, on the evidence of a study comparing recreational runners to people who are obese and don't move at all?
> Is it your contention that if an obese, not-runner ...
No. Every exercise regime must include a ramp up period. If I started training like an olympian tomorrow I'd be in the hospital by next week. Same thing if a couch potato tried to insta jump into my workout routine.
My contention is with people who don't even try running because they're worried about a hypothetical injury 30 years later.
You can also adjust your training volume if it becomes a problem. For example I got an achilles injury because it turns out 3 marathons in 1 year was too many and I needed to put more focus on recovery.
No. Every exercise regime must include a ramp up period. If I started training like an olympian tomorrow I'd be in the hospital by next week. Same thing if a couch potato tried to insta jump into my workout routine.
My contention is with people who don't even try running because they're worried about a hypothetical injury 30 years later.
You can also adjust your training volume if it becomes a problem. For example I got an achilles injury because it turns out 3 marathons in 1 year was too many and I needed to put more focus on recovery.
Also consider not running on pavement. A track, a trail, or grass will be kinder to your knees.
Trail running has a lot of weird loads associated with it, at least where I am. Roots and rocks galore, never a dull moment.
True. Plus the occasional rattlesnake, or even mountain lion...
I'll never forget this moment when I was up the side of a mountain at night and my headlamp caught the glint of retro reflecting eyes about 25m away. Wait a minute, those eyes are front facing... Predator eyes. The eyes followed a graceful bounding arc and then disappeared from my headlamp beam.
> I've seen many people around me with knee replacements
Caused by running too much ?
Every sport is detrimental at _very high_ level but I think you have a faaaat margin before running becomes an issue, most people are much closer to "undertraining" than "overtraining"
If you learn to run without heel striking (I don't even know how people can run like that but I see it all the time, no wonder it hurts your knees) and don't run on hard surfaces you can run a marathon a week and I doubt you'd ever develop any issues
https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/will-continuing-to...
Caused by running too much ?
Every sport is detrimental at _very high_ level but I think you have a faaaat margin before running becomes an issue, most people are much closer to "undertraining" than "overtraining"
If you learn to run without heel striking (I don't even know how people can run like that but I see it all the time, no wonder it hurts your knees) and don't run on hard surfaces you can run a marathon a week and I doubt you'd ever develop any issues
https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/will-continuing-to...
The article appears to contradict this.
“Adding an incline is a great way to increase the challenge for your cardiovascular system and get the same kind of benefits that you can get from jogging or running without the same amount of wear and tear on your knees,” says Tyler Spraul, a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist and the Head Trainer at Exercise.com.
“Adding an incline is a great way to increase the challenge for your cardiovascular system and get the same kind of benefits that you can get from jogging or running without the same amount of wear and tear on your knees,” says Tyler Spraul, a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist and the Head Trainer at Exercise.com.
Rollerblading, cycling, swimming... there are plenty of lower impact cardio exercises to running. Walking isn't true cardio exercise.
Underrated, but also overrated, as it does not bring the heartrate into the region for cardiofitness (unless you are walking up a steep mountain).
It depends on your weight and current fitness levels, for sedentary and morbidly obese folks walking can be a zone 3-4 workout, as it's more like rucking.
You would be shocked at how easy it is for walking to put you into Zone 1-2, especially if there's any incline. Especially for non-athletes.
There was even a period of history where extreme volumes of walking were used in marathon training.
There was even a period of history where extreme volumes of walking were used in marathon training.
Of course this depends on your current level of fitness. Even modest walking pace on level terrain can bring you up to ~70% of your max HR if you're out of shape.
You just walk faster
I’ve just lost 45 kilos in 10 month with 10 km a day walking and lots of vegetables and fruits.
AMA :D
Fun story, I once walked about 11 hours because of my stupidity, and at the end my heart wouldn't stop racing even after I passed out in a bed. I woke up a few times with my heart still racing, and that whole day and night I wasn't sure I was going to make it. Don't repeat my mistake. Don't walk too much.
I have ridden a bike for 24 hours+ several times and have not experienced anything like that. Mild post exertional resting HR increase is normal (going from 50 to 65, say) but I think you had a different issue.
Definitely, healthy people should be able to hike 8+ hours a day for days in a row with minimal difficulties. Walking shouldn't raise your heart rate that much unless you're walking uphill, a healthy heart should be able to come back under 100bpm fairly quickly too
"healthy" is a very loose term it seems. I know many people who would be called healthy by their doctors simply because they didn't have any concerning medical history or present concerns.
I think I may agree with you that "healthy" should include basic levels of fitness and not simply !(ill)
I think I may agree with you that "healthy" should include basic levels of fitness and not simply !(ill)
That doesn't seem like a normal response to 11 hours of walking? I've done close to that on hikes and was basically fine (tired, but fine). I'm not unfit, but also not especially fit.
You might have just been low on electrolytes
https://www.fotrally.se/
88 hours of walking.
88 hours of walking.
FWIW, walking 30 minutes a day is hugely beneficial. Even when I wasn't eating as healthy, my 30 minute walk would keep me maintained and healthy. I would just walk and BS with a friend for 30 minutes.
Walking is a low calorie burn which is sometimes more beneficial when you're out of shape. One theory is that your body doesn't go into fight-or-flight. Running might be too stressful, which might cause an excess cortisol response, which can increase fat storage (especially belly fat), suppress recovery, cause muscle breakdown, so overdoing running when out of shape can backfire metabolically. Not because it's ineffective, but because the body is overwhelmed by the perceived "emergency."
Anecdata, simply walking more was the magic solution for me.
Walking is a low calorie burn which is sometimes more beneficial when you're out of shape. One theory is that your body doesn't go into fight-or-flight. Running might be too stressful, which might cause an excess cortisol response, which can increase fat storage (especially belly fat), suppress recovery, cause muscle breakdown, so overdoing running when out of shape can backfire metabolically. Not because it's ineffective, but because the body is overwhelmed by the perceived "emergency."
Anecdata, simply walking more was the magic solution for me.
I can't think of a single person that would think of walking as "pointless".
It's a great way to get from point A to point B, it's a great workout if you're "maybe you should have a television show" levels of obese, but if you're reasonably fit and not completely sedentary in your day-to-day life it is pointless as a means of exercise.
Context matters and in terms of good means of exercise it does not take much for walking to fall pretty far down the list.
Context matters and in terms of good means of exercise it does not take much for walking to fall pretty far down the list.
I think "pointless as a means of exercise" perhaps overstates it a bit. I agree you're not going to see much benefits in terms of cardiovascular fitness, but every bit of activity figures into one's energy balance. You often hear that even small little movements throughout the day (non exercise activity thermogenesis) can be the difference between maintaining weight homeostasis or having a few pounds a year creep into your life. Prioritizing walking seems like a good hedge against this if you're not blessed with NEAT.
I know lots of people who are anywhere between bemused and actively hostile to the idea that walking might be a worthwhile activity, either on its own or as a transportation mode (and this in a region with decent pedestrian infrastructure, and temperate weather).
Trying living in Los Angeles.
I train six days a week, but since I work from home, I was actually pretty sedentary outside of my gym time—basically just an hour or so of movement a day. That changed recently when I got a Fitbit. I've gotta say, it's helped a lot. Just having something simple like step tracking and reminders to move makes it way easier to stay aware and hold myself accountable. Now I'm consistently hitting at least 10,000 steps a day. Before I started tracking, I would've assumed 10,000 steps was a lot, but now I realize it's actually pretty easy to hit if you’re just a little intentional about it...tbh 10K feels like a basic minimum.
100% agree got a Fitbit recently my steps have gone through the roof.
The biggest change was when I made it show steps on the main screen.
The biggest change was when I made it show steps on the main screen.
I once asked my doctor what would be the best home exercise equipment to get if I wanted to exercise more and wanted to do it inside. Weight machine? Elliptical trainer? Rowing machine? Stationary bike? Treadmill? Something else?
He said treadmill, because in his experience walking on a treadmill is the only indoor exercise that he's seen a good fraction of people actually stick with long enough to do any good. With all the others people do it for a while and then stop.
He said treadmill, because in his experience walking on a treadmill is the only indoor exercise that he's seen a good fraction of people actually stick with long enough to do any good. With all the others people do it for a while and then stop.
Treadmills are murder on the knees. Ellipticals are much lower impact and safer.
I don't for a minute believe that walking is a better exercise than running, by any reasonable definition of the word "better". This strikes me as a "surprising health benefits of wine" type article. I suppose it makes sense though. If I were a doctor, I'd be desperate for anyone to do even the tiniest bit of exercise, whatever form it takes.
75% of westerners are overweight or obese, most people don't even know how to run without heel striking. Given these facts I wouldn't be surprised if running would actually be detrimental to the average joe.
Walking certainly seems a lot less intimidating than running though. There's a general expectation that running involves particular footwear and clothing, but you can go for a walk wearing whatever you want. It's a lot easier to persuade someone who doesn't exercise to go for a walk.
Personally, I hate running, but love cycling. If I'm in two minds about whether to go for a cycle, I think to myself "I'll just start off and if I don't feel in the mood I can just come back after 5 minutes".
Personally, I hate running, but love cycling. If I'm in two minds about whether to go for a cycle, I think to myself "I'll just start off and if I don't feel in the mood I can just come back after 5 minutes".
Read Obesity stats, eat less junk, go for a walk.
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statisti...
That's why walkable cities are so important for mental health in general
While walking helps the lymphatic and digestive systems, it's so incredibly calorically efficient that eating less probably a much better way to go about weight management.
Sorry but this article doesn't bring anything new, this was discussed also here ad nausea for anybody concerned, under any interesting healthstyle article. Or just learn basics of physical activities and how body works, this is proper 101.
Yes walking is great, it clears your mind and is rather little impacting on joints compared to say running. Is this surprising to anybody understanding basic physiology? No mention of ie swimming which is even much better for such case.
Yes, it will never supplant more intense workouts like running, no need to explain that everybody who ever done both can see and feel it clearly. No mention of hiking which is more intense and weight loaded variant of such, on rougher terrain.
Its not underrated, it sits right where it should, and tons of folks are doing it, also me (as recovery after some nasty paragliding accident last year which included some wheelchair time, plus its a great way to clear my mind after an intense day... but for proper workout I go to gym for free weights or HIIT if goal is cardio, with corresponding results).
Yes walking is great, it clears your mind and is rather little impacting on joints compared to say running. Is this surprising to anybody understanding basic physiology? No mention of ie swimming which is even much better for such case.
Yes, it will never supplant more intense workouts like running, no need to explain that everybody who ever done both can see and feel it clearly. No mention of hiking which is more intense and weight loaded variant of such, on rougher terrain.
Its not underrated, it sits right where it should, and tons of folks are doing it, also me (as recovery after some nasty paragliding accident last year which included some wheelchair time, plus its a great way to clear my mind after an intense day... but for proper workout I go to gym for free weights or HIIT if goal is cardio, with corresponding results).
To hit that consistently, I ended up walking 4–5 hours daily. It worked — I was burning massive energy — but it was hugely time-consuming. When I later recovered, I realized the same burn could be done in 40 minutes of gym effort.
Walking is absolutely underrated, especially for recovery and mental clarity. But in raw efficiency... it’s humbling how long it takes to match even moderate training.