Lately I have fallen in love with walking. The autumn weather in Scotland is gorgeous right now and I have been going on 2 hour walks pretty much every day! I just go down to the river wrapped up all warm and walk for miles. I'm feeling a bit down about stuff right now and it gives me a chance to think about stuff and clear my head. But I'm just wondering if a 2 hour walk is as beneficial as a 45 min run? Is all this walking aiding my weight loss efforts at all or should I be getting my trainers on and going for a run?!
A 2 hour walk must burn quite a few calories right?
Cat x
I don't have an answer, but I'm also very curious about this. I've been taking longer and longer walks each day, and I enjoy them extremely. I've also wondered if running wouldn't be more beneficial to my weight loss though (not that I could run for very long). Maybe you could do some HIIT? Go on your walks, but run for short bursts in between all the walking. It's something I might try as well.
I think the biggest benefit of running for weight loss is saving time. So if you enjoy long walks, and take a brisk pace, I wouldn't worry about.
It also lends itself more to HIIT if you're interested in that for health. Sure, you can walk some intervals faster, but you can't really go all out like you can running. Some have found that intervals made a big difference when their weight loss got stuck.
This is what I have read but I am not 100% sure of its accuracy!
If you are concerned solely about calorie burning, then the question is distance not time. For example, if you walk 10km, in calorie burning it is just as good for you as running 10 k (though will obviously take longer).
The difference then is in the cardio fitness. If you walk briskly enough to keep your heart rate up (i.e. puffing. struggling to hold a conversation) then it is probably fine!
That's somewhat true - your body burns the same amount of calories per mile, around 100, but that goes up or down depending on how in shape you are - the more out of shape, the more calories.
Cat, if you go by the weight watchers model of activity points - for me, a 45 minute work out of moderate intensity is 3 AP, a 2 hour walk (which is low intensity) is 4 AP, so really, they're about the same.
I'm of the mindset that any activity is good activity. I can be more phsyically tired after a 2 hour walk than a 45 minute run (it's also harder on my knees to walk that long).
However, it's all about keeping your heart rate up, which walking may not always accomplish. So if it's weight loss you're after I would take a look at how hard you're "working". Perhaps incorperate wearing a heartrate monitor to up the ante?
But really, I will take a 2 hour walk through Scotland in Autumn over a run any day
If you like the length of the walk, and can keep it up regularly, then it is extremely beneficial. I don't run, I don't even walk fast, if I'm hoofing it I'm going barely 4mph, probably more like 3.5mph.
This summer I set myself a walking challenge. I wanted to walk an average of 5 miles a day for I think it was 42 days (it was based around a camping trip I couldn't go on this year, thus the weird time scale). I was going out before and after work and ended up getting exhausted and didn't finish the challenge itself, I just needed more rest, but during the ~3 or so weeks I did it all my exercise was walking and I lost weight, and I enjoyed it immensely.
I have heard from trainers that if you keep your heart rate at or below your aerobic threshold, your body prefers fat as fuel and builds fat-burning mitochondria, whereas if you are above that threshold or working anaerobically, your body prefers carbs as fuel. But, the "fat burning zone" is on this site as a myth, I believe. If you believe straight up calories in vs. calories out, then yeah it doesn't matter how you burn the calories; if you walk briskly burning 5 cals/min for an hour versus jogging half an hour at 10 cals/minute, you are getting the same benefit calorie-deficit-wise. But, carbs mean you can be burning muscle as fuel instead of fat. Obviously there are also different implications for your cardio fitness. I think there are conflicting schools of thought here.
I say, mix it up. Some days, go longer and slower, and some go hard and fast. (That's what she said! sorry, sorry, I can't help it)
I'm of the mindset that any activity is good activity. I can be more phsyically tired after a 2 hour walk than a 45 minute run (it's also harder on my knees to walk that long).
However, it's all about keeping your heart rate up, which walking may not always accomplish. So if it's weight loss you're after I would take a look at how hard you're "working". Perhaps incorperate wearing a heartrate monitor to up the ante?
But really, I will take a 2 hour walk through Scotland in Autumn over a run any day
This!
What matters the most in that hour or two is what your heart rate is doing. A lower heart rate means you're going to burn less calories. A higher heart rate? You'll burn more. There is no way I can accomplish the same amount of calories burned in walking for an hour than I would with running for an hour. Running is just harder and gets my heart rate much higher than walking. But if you enjoy it, and you have the time to walk 2 hours, then by all means, do it.
There are times that walking is preferred, but in more cases than not, the impatient side of me would rather run the same distance, burn more calories and finish exercising in less time!
I asked my doctor this question because I'm just physically incapable of running long distances due to a sports injury. She said that walking at a brisk pace, to the point where I can talk but not sing is fine cardio wise. I may not burn as many calories, but for the health benefits, its still a good idea.
Also, because you're trying to work out through stuff, it might be more beneficial to walk for longer because that is healthy for mental health which is good for your overall health
Walking vs. Running?
