The FastDay Forum

vebnorahs wrote: I like to run for the challenge and competitiveness it brings. I like to walk for my leisure and enjoyment. I think both activities have their own merits, but they are different activities that have their own place and time in my day to day life. Any movement is better than none...do whichever you like, and have fun :0)

LOL you're 100% right vebnorahs, but this is the "Nerdy Stuff" forum where we do extensive calculations and review the scientific literature to have fun.

Ran on the treadmill today, ~48 minutes total, first 35 minutes I ran ~3.6 miles so a little faster than 6mph, last 13 minutes walking and cooling down. Watch shows 155 bpm average and 180 bpm peak (ended run on a sprint with high incline, then started walking), but the last ~10 minutes I averaged around 135-140 bpm, so first ~38 minutes was probably around 159-161 bpm on average.

So I'm looking at 2 hours, 12 miles, average 160 bpm (90% max) versus 5-6 hours, 18-20 miles, average 90-100 bpm (50-55% max).

To the walking I would add a few HIIT workouts, if I wind up transitioning that way, to get the VO2 benefits I'd be losing by not pushing my HR above 125 otherwise.

In any case, the tradeoff looks about right. I'm just wondering how to compare the ~35 miles of walking implied by the 10k/day guidelines to the 12-run/19-walk comparisons.

BruceE wrote: In any case, the tradeoff looks about right. I'm just wondering how to compare the ~35 miles of walking implied by the 10k/day guidelines to the 12-run/19-walk comparisons.

35 miles * 1760 yards / 10k steps = 6.2 yard steps ?

Try 5 - 6 miles for 10,000 steps a day.

If the reason to move away from running is about joints and the like I would be tempted to switch to cycling instead, where you can maintain practically any heart rate if you have enough gears.

While you can get an equivalent calorie burn from a long walk vs a shorter run the use of fat vs carbs will be different and perhaps other variables too, so I don't know how "equivalent" it really is.

35 miles was a weekly number, not daily.

Yeah, "equivalence" was my main question on this post.

And biking is okay but I'm also looking for something to do with the wife and I'd probably go overboard and buy expensive equipment and all that rot...

get a tandem ?

From today's NY Times: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/2 ... lk-or-run/

Reall interesting artical Mary Ann, thanks for posting.
Conclusion - running is better than walking for controlling weight.

Seconded!

“It bears repeating that either walking or running is healthier than not doing either,” Dr. Williams said, whatever your health goals.

I can't run (dodgy knee and dodgy pelvic floor- oops TMI!) so am particularly interested in this. My problem is not actually getting round to doing serious walking frequently enough. I should make myself a tick-chart!