Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll agree that walking isn't even close to the same league as running, mostly because of the low heart rate thing, but it is still Something.. For some, that may be all they can do or it's a starting place and it's a billion times better than sitting on the couch eating Oreos all day. The intensity will obviously need to be increased over time, but it's best to take it slow and steady. No sense in trying to be 15 again and ending up in the hospital... all that movement will also help get the blood moving in overweight people that are suffering from or about to suffer from some of the lovely diseases that are associated with weight gain.
The reason it does matter, is because in order to burn the most (fat)calories, you need to get your heart rate up something like 60-80%
Walking all day long won't matter a bit unless you get that heart rate up!
I think you're confusing time and distance. From what I've read, you'll burn nearly as many calories walking a mile as running one. Granted you'll take fewer steps running. Perhaps I should have said "a mile's a mile".
I think you're confusing time and distance. From what I've read, you'll burn nearly as many calories walking a mile as running one. Granted you'll take fewer steps running. Perhaps I should have said "a mile's a mile".
Research is demonstrating that higher intensity exercise (like interval based training) not only burns more calories while you're doing it, but keeps the metabolism elevated for a longer period of time afterward - i.e. you return to your base metabolism (recover) much sooner after low intensity exercise. Factor in that the overload more likely to be associated with higher intensity levels will build lean body mass and you can (and should) reasonably conclude that a step is not necessarily a step and a mile not a mile in terms of the potential benefits of low vs high intensity exercise.
Research is demonstrating that higher intensity exercise (like interval based training) not only burns more calories while you're doing it, but keeps the metabolism elevated for a longer period of time afterward - i.e. you return to your base metabolism (recover) much sooner after low intensity exercise. Factor in that the overload more likely to be associated with higher intensity levels will build lean body mass and you can (and should) reasonably conclude that a step is not necessarily a step and a mile not a mile in terms of the potential benefits of low vs high intensity exercise.
\
But most people cannot sustain high intensity exercise to get that advantage over a lower intensity regimen. I've also been reading lately that that whole thing about calorie burn occuring over a longer period of time after a workout is a crock. Most people will be able to maintain a good enough calorie deficit with low intensity exercise to lose weight at a safe and effective rate.
In my opinion, the problem isn't with the OP's exercise program so much as his diet. That's where he should be focusing his attention. He's probably burning in the high 2,000s a day so if he keeps his caloric intake to around 1,500-2,000 he should be able to drop a couple pounds a week.
But most people cannot sustain high intensity exercise to get that advantage over a lower intensity regimen.
This is why most high intensity exercise programs are interval based. The work is done in shorter bursts with rest periods. Not that I believe in all that they do (I find some of it down right dangerous), but this is what is done on The Biggest Loser. I'd be willing to bet that most people wouldn't consider those contestants to be capable of high intensity exercise when they started on the show, but they do it.
As far as diet being the key (I still argue type of exercise is): Here's a link to web page on calorie counting that I'd agree with completely. It includes a page citing research comparing four different diets combined with exercise - the average weight loss of all four groups was equal.
I think you're confusing time and distance. From what I've read, you'll burn nearly as many calories walking a mile as running one. Granted you'll take fewer steps running. Perhaps I should have said "a mile's a mile".
I guess what I am trying to say is that since those 8 miles are spread out over 7hr period, this is considered a very slow pace.
Someone walking 1 mile will not see the same results as someone running, (speed walking or even biking) that same mile.
Let's say now the person walking the mile takes 1 hour to do it, while the runner finishes that same mile in under 7 minutes. That's a huge difference. The runner is definitely burning more calories, since they are exerting far more effort and energy into that mile.
While a long leisurely stroll is better than nothing at all, it's just too slow to get your heart rate up enough to burn a significant amount of calories.
The OP has plateaued and needs to increase his intensity if he wants to continue seeing results (from walking). It's all about building endurance.
walking about 8 miles a day...7 hours a day at 3-5mph...
Also, this math is way off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
