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 prefer walking as well. Not because I can't run; I just choose not to.
It's served me well. I lost 140 pounds with walking as my primary cardio, and have maintained that loss (for the most part; there have been rare lapses) for nine years now.
You lost more than my body weight
At the gym, I run on the treadmill for 30-45' and incline up to 15 with speed about 4-5 mph, then I go swimming for 15'.
At home, in the early morning, I jog with my dogs around the school yard, then play with them for 30-45'. In the evening, I just walk them.
I'm almost 76 y.o. and I'm not in a hurry to get anywhere. I walk as fast as I can but since I'm short, my stride is not very long so "as fast as I can" isn't really very fast. As long as I manage to make it back to my house, I consider it a good day.
Actually, this is a bit inaccurate.
There's a valid and popular running method called "The Galloway School" which is named after marathoner and Runner's World magazine contirbuting writer Jeff Galloway, which posits that it is perfectly OK--and oft-times even beneficial--to intersperse some brief walking periods during your run. The reasoning here goes that, if you break from your run and slow to a brisk walk, say, maybe for 2-3 minutes for every 10 minutes of running, you will actually be able to stay out there and run/walk for a longer period of time than if you just ran.
Thus: If someone is able to do the Galloway run/walk for an hour as opposed to being able to just run wihtout a break for 30 minutes, he/she will keep their heartrate elevated for a longer period of time and thus burn more calories. Note that your heartrate really won't slow down that much during these walks. For example, mine slows down from maybe around 130 or so to 110 during a 2-minute Galloway break. And at 110, I'm still burning those kcals.
This method has helped countless runners stay with their running program, and helps to avoid the dreaded "burnout" that many beginning runners experience when they start. It has also been shown to help prevent running-related injuries.
The "technique" you are speaking of is for those who are physically unable to run long distances. This supports what Lao was saying perfectly.
Either way you look at it, simply having an elevated heart rate doesn't necessarily burn the most calories. The process of fueling muscles during work is the best calorie-burner. To more accurately assess the effectiveness of your workout, calculate the total amount of work performed, instead of only the duration you spend doing the exercise or the distance of the journey. In other words, if you propel your body four miles in a half hour, you burn more calories than if you ran/walked four miles in 45 minutes. You are having to work harder to complete the same task (travel four miles), which requires more fuel to perform (body weight, times distance, divided by time). You can vary the speed, distance, or time of the workout to alter the results; but running will always be more effective at burning calories than walking - even if you mix it up.
The "technique" you are speaking of is for those who are physically unable to run long distances. This supports what Lao was saying perfectly.
Either way you look at it, simply having an elevated heart rate doesn't necessarily burn the most calories. The process of fueling muscles during work is the best calorie-burner. To more accurately assess the effectiveness of your workout, calculate the total amount of work performed, instead of only the duration you spend doing the exercise or the distance of the journey. In other words, if you propel your body four miles in a half hour, you burn more calories than if you ran/walked four miles in 45 minutes. You are having to work harder to complete the same task (travel four miles), which requires more fuel to perform (body weight, times distance, divided by time). You can vary the speed, distance, or time of the workout to alter the results; but running will always be more effective at burning calories than walking - even if you mix it up.
That is not true...it is for people who want to go incredible distances without using up all their reserves and risking injury. In fact, the goal of Galloway was really to limit the odds that a runner would get injured. It is a more efficient and more low impact version especially when you are running a difficult race - like a Marathon. It is much nicer to think that you have a couple minutes until you have a 30 second break than trying to push through the wall. My last Ironman two years ago was so much better following his interval program. I didn't feel dead tired at the end. Many who use this method are just as if not faster than a lot of runners. I thought it was weird during my first race with so many people with the timers, but I would pass some and then they would pass me.
The elevated heart rate thing is spot on though...and frankly those that focus on burning a certain number of calories are misguided anyhow. We all burn calories differently and they are hardly an indicator when it comes to how much weight you will lose, etc. If things were that easy, more people would be skinny.
At what point does jogging become running? That's a bit subjective isn't it? What I might consider running, someone else might consider jogging. I like to go as fast as I can in order to complete the distance I'm planning on going without having to go super slow because I'm dying at the end. Learning how to pace myself to not have to walk during a run is always my goal. If I ever have to walk when out for a run, it feels like failure to me. But that's just me, it's a personal thing.
That is not true...it is for people who want to go incredible distances without using up all their reserves and risking injury. In fact, the goal of Galloway was really to limit the odds that a runner would get injured. It is a more efficient and more low impact version especially when you are running a difficult race - like a Marathon. It is much nicer to think that you have a couple minutes until you have a 30 second break than trying to push through the wall. My last Ironman two years ago was so much better following his interval program. I didn't feel dead tired at the end. Many who use this method are just as if not faster than a lot of runners. I thought it was weird during my first race with so many people with the timers, but I would pass some and then they would pass me.
Does this mean I am argumentative?
I am not sure what you are saying isn't true. Your example of an Ironman is exactly what I was talking about - a distance that is too far to run for many people. You (and all those people you were passing in the Ironman) would need walking breaks in a 26.2 mile run, because you are not conditioned to run that far. How many walking breaks does Haile Gerbselaisse take during his marathon runs? Could he finish faster if he were to take walking breaks?
Galloway came up with his brainstorm because (due to the commercial success of marathon running these days) there are so many soccer moms and dads out there who think that they are ultra-fit athletes because they can walk/jog a marathon. You see it on this board so many times - the person who just started running two weeks ago, yet wants advice on how to get faster for the upcoming half-marathon in a few days. Those are the people Jeff writes for, and those are the people who are getting injured the most.
Go out and run four miles; and then tell me if you could've finished faster if you mixed walking with running. I just ran six miles today - which is at the far limit of my running endurance. There is no way I could have mixed walking in to finish it faster. No possible way at all.
At what point does jogging become running? That's a bit subjective isn't it? What I might consider running, someone else might consider jogging. I like to go as fast as I can in order to complete the distance I'm planning on going without having to go super slow because I'm dying at the end. Learning how to pace myself to not have to walk during a run is always my goal. If I ever have to walk when out for a run, it feels like failure to me. But that's just me, it's a personal thing.
At what point does jogging become running? That's a bit subjective isn't it? What I might consider running, someone else might consider jogging. I like to go as fast as I can in order to complete the distance I'm planning on going without having to go super slow because I'm dying at the end. Learning how to pace myself to not have to walk during a run is always my goal. If I ever have to walk when out for a run, it feels like failure to me. But that's just me, it's a personal thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetdreamerx0
Same here!
Jogging versus running is definitely subjective; but the general rule is that jogging is done at a pace where you could hold a conversation. Just like you, I prefer to hit the road with a purpose. The point of running for me is to improve my running ability; which is impossible if I am only putting forth half the effort.
On the same note, I would never enter a marathon until I felt sure that I could actually RUN the whole thing. It IS a race...
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.
, but it kills my knees and shins.
