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 walk. Last night on my walk I managed to step in a hole, twist my ankle and faceplant on the asphalt. Doing that at a higher rate of speed sounds dangerous.
On asphalt I prefer to walk...my feet cannot take the pouding on that kind of surface.
But I LOVE to trail run. If I can find a trail (pea gravel or mulch covered) that is my preference and I burn more calories doing this than any other form of cardio.
You really need another option. Run/Walk because intervals are very popular these days, most people do them (including me at this point and I love it) because Jeff Galloway encourages those competing in races to. It helps to avoid that winded feeling like you are going to collapse but doesn't sacrifice speed. You will find that most runners are extremely judgmental of walkers. The best thing I have ever witnessed during a race was when a runner insulted a race walker and I saw the race walker pass that runner and finish before the insult guy. Irony at its best.
Thats stupid. Why only pick one? Everyone in the world knows that running is better than jogging and jogging is better than walking, but there are people out there for whatever reason (age, illness, injury, etc) who are unable to run, so they jog or they walk.
Alley is right in that another option that needs to be here is run/walk or run/jog.
I prefer RUNNING, but if I am going for distance greater than 5k, I'll mix in jogging with my running. If I really want to fat burn, I do HIIT RUNNING. 100 yard full speed sprints. Or, sometimes I mix it up by jogging 20 seconds, the flat out running full speed for 10 seconds then 10 seconds of walking.
To put it another way, anyone concerned with their health/fitness SHOULD be out RUNNING, if they are unable to run, they should JOG, if they are unable to jog, they should WALK.
So, it really depends on your current health/fitness level. People who are just starting out, should JOG, then walk for a while, then JOG again. Walking by itself is NOT really so good. I would always tell people that walking is better than sitting on your butt, but you really should AT A MINIMUM JOG!!! Jog for as long as you can, then walk for a while to catch your breath a bit BUT YOU MUST AGAIN START JOGGING.
Thats stupid. Why only pick one? Everyone in the world knows that running is better than jogging and jogging is better than walking, but there are people out there for whatever reason (age, illness, injury, etc) who are unable to run, so they jog or they walk.
Alley is right in that another option that needs to be here is run/walk or run/jog.
I prefer RUNNING, but if I am going for distance greater than 5k, I'll mix in jogging with my running. If I really want to fat burn, I do HIIT RUNNING. 100 yard full speed sprints. Or, sometimes I mix it up by jogging 20 seconds, the flat out running full speed for 10 seconds then 10 seconds of walking.
To put it another way, anyone concerned with their health/fitness SHOULD be out RUNNING, if they are unable to run, they should JOG, if they are unable to jog, they should WALK.
So, it really depends on your current health/fitness level. People who are just starting out, should JOG, then walk for a while, then JOG again. Walking by itself is NOT really so good. I would always tell people that walking is better than sitting on your butt, but you really should AT A MINIMUM JOG!!! Jog for as long as you can, then walk for a while to catch your breath a bit BUT YOU MUST AGAIN START JOGGING.
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.
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.
I don't RUN at all. I strictly jog and walk, because I can sustain it for longer periods at my current level of fitness.
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.