Walking. How beneficial is it?

Archeron

Hi all,
Just a quick question if I may. I hear a lot about the benefits of taking a nice stroll, and I'm wondering exactly how beneficial this can be? Someone I know has been inactive for quite a while, and if beginning the battle back to non-bulginess, and has decided to take some walks every day as a start back into getting a bit healthier. They walk at average pace for, at the moment, between 2-3 miles each evening. Combined with a healthy low fat diet, do you think this exercise will begin to show some benefits, or would it really just be a stepping stone to more intensive work out? Person is question is app 18 stone, needs to lose about 4 stone. The walk itself is none too intensive with no hills or inclines, just a pleasant regular pathway around a town.
Cheers.

seamus

Exercise does more for your health and appearance than just burn calories. It gives improved metabolism, increases muscle tone, stimulates hormone production, and a whole pile of other things. Believe it or not, exercising actually gives you more energy and motivation. In terms of pure fat-burning, a 2-3 mile walk will contribute slightly, but not significantly to a low fat diet. However, any exercise is a pretty essential component of a weight loss regime because of what I mention above.

Boru.

Walking is awesome - but it does have to be done with the right intenstiy. I've written a few articles on it on my site. This one Walking for Weight Loss, probably explains it best. Hope that helps.

yomchi

Have to agree with Boru! Walking is the king for weight loss, as he said at the right intensity and percentage of your maximum heart rate and best on an empty stomach!

Enjoy!

BTW Boru there's a PM on the way!

Dragan

Actually, just to play devils advocate here......

Part 1
Part 2

Boru.

Ah, but I covered my bases. At the end of the walking article I link to my next article, more advanced interval training and running for wieght loss. That said in my expereince as a trainer people who are overweight can't maintain a high intensity workout for long enough or hard enough to get the necessary result. Low intensity exercise can be performed without any risk to joints etc and perhaps most importantly without any discomfort that would discourage continued training.

My ideal is to encourage daily fasted morning walks, three weekly heavy lifting session and then after a few weeks introduce high intensity training.

Why quibble over which method produces the best results when you can enjoy both?

Oh and Jon Pm replied to, thanks!

quozl

Or fat burning myths about low intensity exercise.

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-1827.html

Basically, while you may source a larger percentage of your calorie usage from
metabolising fat you will source a lower total of calories from fat due to the fact that your per minute calorie usage is so low.

This seems pretty sensible to me, work done is equivalent to calories burned.

Distance covered is pretty much the key metric to me. If you walk 5 miles you'll use much the same calories as running 5 miles. However if in the time it takes you to walk 5 you can instead run 8 then I don't believe you're not way better off with the run 8.

Whatever your friend decides to do, he should know that he'll quickly adapt to that daily 2-3 mile stroll and if he doesn't increase the work-load somehow, by walking faster, further or a combination, then his fitness will not improve.

He'll continue to lose the 200-300 calories per walk, but he could get that and improving fitness by slowly increasing his work-load. That doesn't mean things have to feel harder and harder. The same level of effort should take him further, faster as he gets fitter.

yomchi

When Mr Manning was cutting for the Natural World Championships, he walked! Mind you he was too big to run lol

Boru.

quozl wrote:

Or fat burning myths about low intensity exercise.

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-1827.html

Basically, while you may source a larger percentage of your calorie usage from
metabolising fat you will source a lower total of calories from fat due to the fact that your per minute calorie usage is so low.

This seems pretty sensible to me, work done is equivalent to calories burned.

In discuss this point in my article on Walking, 5th paragraph I think. You see the same argument can be made about high intensity training. High intensity training while burning more calories, burns less fat and far more glycogen or sugar. This can impact your progress negatively, particularly if you are performing weight training as you can no longer use your muscles to their fullest extent.

Also high intensity training cannot be maintained by an untrained, over weight individual for a long enough period and without an increased risk of injury.

As regards the imporving fitness from the walks you are correct but we have already pointed out that it is imporvment and in this case weight loss is dependant on training at the right intensity again outlined in my article. As you progress to reach the same level of 60-70% of your max HR you need to increase several factors such as speed, pace distance etc.

Everybody if different. I have trained over weight people who are hitting 70% at a light brisk walk. I no others, athletes who hit 70 % during a five mile run. I myslef will easily run at 70 % for over an hour. Ask someone who is untrained and overweight to do that and you will have them in a 90-100% anaerobic zone in just a few minutes.

Concentrate on HR and you can't go wrong.

Walking for wight Loss works. Thousand can testify to that. Running for weight loss works too...so does sprint interval training. A healhty negative calorie balance and exercsie nearly always produces positive results.

The important thing to focus on here isn't which method is better, its that someone who is overweight and unfit is taking positive steps to correct that. Rather than say now hold on, according to the journal of x this study showed...I'd prefer to nurture and support that inital commitment to gettign in shape and having a good time doing it.

No one ever got fit posting and arguing about gettign fit on the internet. Rather than confuse and issue, let's support the goal. In the time taken to write these responses how many of us could have knocked out 100 squats, run a mile, or started a long walk and enjoyed fresh air and a beautiful day?

quozl

Ahh now Boru, that's a totally different argument. Nobody here is in anyway suggesting that the posters friend should not keep walking.

I just believe it's important to make it clear that strolling 2-3 miles is very much the first step and emphasise that as they get fitter they need to up the training load.

I did see your article's 5th paragraph and I didn't find it clear enough personally. This line "The problem is that high intensity training cannot be maintained for a long enough period for your body to begin utilising its fat stores." is a bit misleading, unintentionally I'm sure. I think it might be better qualified with saying for a total beginner and explaining that it can be a goal for a few months down the road.

I can run at > 80% for 4 hours. I couldn't run a mile a year ago. That paragraph makes it sound to me like training at >70%mhr isn't something to try for.

I'm not trying to find flaw with your advice, I think it's good, but I was trying to answer the OP's question of "or would it really just be a stepping stone to more intensive work out?". It doesn't have to be, but if the individual wants to get fitter than just walking will get them, then there's no reason to stick with just walking once they're a bit fitter.

justsomebloke

eh I am just going to suggest that your friend start off with walking but as he gets fitter try different things just in case he gets bored of walking.

There are 7 days in the week so plently of time to do both walking and anything else he wants to do to try and stay healthy

Archeron

thanks for all the tips everyone. Good advice here.

rubadub

I saw some sites with all sorts of calulators, one took in weight and height and showed calories burned. The guy is overweight so that is like a slim guy walking with a weighted vest, he will burn more. One mentioned walking very slowly uses more calories per mile since you fight momentum, but you travel less per hour so really use less per hour.

I knew guy a bit overweight he would get light-hearted slags- he would say "we will race up the stairs, I give you a piggyback first, and time it, then you give me a piggyback and time it, we are both shifting the same weight!"

Running or jogging at 18st could be bad on the joints. Cycling is low impact and more interesting since you can go further, like jsb mentioned about getting bored.