The FastDay Forum

I saw this article earlier in the week:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... scientists

I wanted to post it here just in case those of you with access to the actual study (and interest in the subject) would want to comment on the results of the study and/or how the conclusions of the study line up with the Guardian's reporting of those same conclusions.

I'm running at the moment, but considering a change to go to a combination of weightlifting and high-intensity-interval-training (HIIT) at the gym plus long walks at/near my home.

I'm going to say this because I'm a convert but give Crossfit a go if you have a chance, very high intensity. Currently learning Olympic weightlifting and it is good fun.

Dr Briffa wasn't impressed

http://www.drbriffa.com/2013/04/05/is-w ... as-running

But this study did not test the effects of these different forms of exercise at all. What it did is assess the relationship between running and walking habits and health-related outcomes. From studies of this nature (epidemiological studies) we can only glean associations between things, and not the impact one thing (e.g. exercise) might be actually having on another (e.g. health). For this reason, I think the title of the study, the way the conclusion is phrased and the way that the study has been reported are potentially misleading.

Thanks PhilT: "It might be that walking for a mile is indeed as beneficial to health as running a mile. However, the study that purports to show this shows nothing of the sort (even if I would like it to be true)." That's disappointing, since the study's scope was, at least on its face, pretty impressive with 33,000 runners and 16,000 walkers over a period of 6 years.

BBT053, I searched Crossfit and see a few affiliates in the area. I used to be a powerlifter so the Olympic style weightlifting does look like fun. I may check it out, but I do have a good deal (cheap and wicked convenient location) where I work.

I like the intensity as I'm a lazy bleep left to my own devices. I used to do British Military Fitness and CF is a nice balance of competing to your own limits, whilst in a supportive & structured group.

Always good if you have a work gym though.

But he says....

"...I felt forced to retire from running after suffering from a long-running (no-pun intended) sequence of injuries which affected a variety of joints and muscles...."

Walking is 'healthier'.

But I get the feeling reading between the lines, that folks are assuming that "walking" is an easier option? I don't think it is. Particularly if walking anywhere other than a flat terrain. In the gym, on a treadmill at a modest incline, I can get my pulse up to 140+ and at steeper inclines to 150-160+ quite easily. I also get the highest rate of calorie burn when walking. I don't like it that it's that high ...just saying

If you walk too fast then you'll use more calories than jogging slowly at the same speed, as walking is less efficient. Personally I can't maintain a high heart rate by walking but I can take it to 175 by running fairly slowly.

So I do intervals like 300m running / 100m walking.

Walking is easier on the skeleton, joints and muscles than running but I haven't seen a clinical study comparing walking and running as exercise interventions for a defined period of time to know which is better for the markers of cardiovascular health.

One challenge appears to be what you keep the same - calories, exercise duration or exercise distance.

LastChance, for reference when I think about walking being "easier," I think in terms of a walk where my heart rate may be elevated but where I don't break a sweat and would not need a shower afterward.

In terms of burning calories, I'm assuming walking is going to take at least twice as long to burn the same amount of calories (I think even the equivalent-distance assumption is flawed a bit and you need to walk a little further than you would run in both time and distance to get the same calorie burn) so by long walks I mean very time-consuming walks.

Longer term I may take up golf again, depending on whether my son takes to it.

Just playing with some numbers I get from this tool:

http://thefitgirls.com/calories-burned-calculator.aspx

Based on my current height/weight/age/sex, I get the following for a distance of 5.0 miles:

Run 6.7mph for 45 minutes: 642 cal, 128 cal/mile
Run 6.0mph for 50 minutes: 666 cal, 133 cal/mile
Run 5.0mph for 60 minutes: 676 cal, 135 cal/mile

Walk 4.0mph for 75 minutes: 510 cal, 102 cal/mile
Walk 3.5mph for 86 minutes: 502 cal, 100 cal/mile
Walk 3.0mph for 100 minutes: 475 cal, 95 cal/mile

Not sure how much rhetorical weight to put into this particular calculation, but it seems that in order to get the same calorie burn of running 5 miles at a 5.0 mph pace using a moderate 3.5mph walking pace, you need to walk for 116 minutes (almost double the time) and cover about 6.8 miles (35% more distance).

I guess the extra time spent walking is less time snacking...

Picking up the pace to 4.0 mph makes it a bit better time-wise, but at that pace I'm probably showering afterward.

"In terms of burning calories, I'm assuming walking is going to take at least twice as long to burn the same amount of calories (I think even the equivalent-distance assumption is flawed a bit and you need to walk a little further than you would run in both time and distance to get the same calorie burn) so by long walks I mean very time-consuming walks."

I'm burning 14-18 cals a minute in the gym walking (at an incline), but struggle to do much more than 10 cals a minute on the exercise bike, stepper and cross-training (elliptical trainer) (largely 'cos at the moment my pulse rate maxes out)...

I do tend to glance at the adjacent treadmill runner displays in the gym and usually I'm burning the same or more (but then I probably have a distinct weight advantage as well)

Walking is so 'inefficient' that it's an excellent way to burn calories.

To quote Dr Briffa: "One of the reasons I like walking is to do with sustainability. One of the questions I ask myself when thinking about my lifestyle habits is: “Could I be doing this when I’m 80?” The answer is ‘yes’".

I'm burning 14-18 cals a minute in the gym walking (at an incline)

do you hold on to the treadmill ?

My fitness isn't great at 28 ml O2/kg/min = 11 cals/min at 100% capacity, so I couldn't come anywhere near your 18 cals. My friend use to claim to, but she had the treadmill at a steep angle and was holding on so it was pure fiction really.

Just did a little experiment to get a feel for the difference between running and walking. I have a route that I've measured (with my car's odometer, not exactly sure how accurate it is, but I'll assume it's good to +/- 0.1 miles or so) that is 3.1 miles (5km) total, and a couple weeks ago I ran it in 27:29 (6.8 mph).

I just got done walking that same route in 53 minutes (3.5 mph). I probably could have walked a little faster, but I took the dog with me and she likes to sniff and pee and poo and stuff like that, which slows you down. That said, I think if I had gone much faster, I would have needed a shower afterwards (I'm right on the border between needing one and not needing one at the moment).

According to the website calcs I burned 392 calories on the run and 310 calories on the walk, or 26% more calories on the run when you hold the distance constant. This doesn't seem to match your inefficiency claim with regards to walking as compared to running.

Of course the numbers from that website, I should note, are substantially below the kcal/minute numbers that pop out of a treadmill, especially for walking. I'm sure they don't use the same equations...

I'm sure I read somewhere that as an estimate, every mile is equivalent to 100 calories. So, it's really up to you how quickly you burn those 100 calories. Shelley

A few links to articles that show calories/mile go up with pace:

http://walking.about.com/od/calorie1/a/ ... alkrun.htm
http://www.runningplanet.com/training/r ... lking.html
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/expert.q ... index.html

From the first link:

Calories per Mile for 160 Pound Person
Walking
2.0 mph - 91
2.5 mph - 87
3.0 mph - 85
3.5 mph - 83
4.0 mph - 91
4.5 mph - 102
5.0 mph - 116
Running
5.0 mph - 116
6.0 mph - 121
7.0 mph - 119
8.0 mph - 123
9.0 mph - 121
10.0 mph - 131

I'm not really favoring running over walking, just seeing how much more time I need to dedicate to my workouts should I switch from running to walking for the bulk of my calorie burn.

From the second link: "To get the true number of calories burned from exercise, you must subtract the calories you would have consumed at rest." That's an interesting thing to think about... but you could also say all that extra time you spend walking is time spent not eating!

And this: "This study concluded that walking burns more calories than running at speeds greater than 8 kilometers per hour (5 miles per hour)." But I don't really consider >5 mph "walking" at all... In any case, if walking causes me to need to shower, at this point I might as well run.

I've been a running addict most of my life (though what I do now is more like jogging). I like walking, too, and I try to work as much as possible into my day (I really should walk to work, so I'm not trying hard enough), but it doesn't give me the same satisfaction as running. Someone has already mentioned that running is better cardio training.

It's easy to overdue it with running (or other exercise). There was a study recently showing that if you run too hard, too often, you tend to make up for it by lazing around. Here's the link to the NYTimes article: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/1 ... -than-six/
and to the original study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23377831