Level 6 Valued Member
Yes, but did it help you aerobically?No one is suggesting that you should try to "duplicate" here. What @wespom9 is saying that at least some people in the scientific/medical/expert community are OK with my assessment, namely that the stimulus is less but doing it for longer might yield benefit worth taking note of. I think this is one of those "your feelings don't matter" kind of things - it certainly doesn't feel the same to walk as to run.
If we'll all forgive yet another personal observation, allow me to put kettlebell swings into the mix and tell you what's happened with my own walking over a period of years. I began by walking very little, and gradually over time got up to the point where I was comfortable walking a mile or mile-and-a-half most days, and my heart rate was, on average, at or near the top of Zone 1. And I wasn't swinging a kettlebell regularly, but once I put a few months of kettlebell swings in there, it turbo-charged my walking somehow - don't ask me how - and I noticed my walking pace and distance moved for the first time in a long time. My walking is still relaxed, but my heart rate is higher by about 10-15 bpm, now into Zone 2 rather than at or near the top of Zone 1, and I am able to walk further without feeling overly tired by the experience. Swings are again not in my program now, but they were a great change of pace and plateau-buster for me.
I think we are comparing apples to oranges.
I do not argue that high volume walking, like more then most people have the time to do, or walking in mountains, or rucking, can absolutely help people aerobically.
I only argue that most people are better served to go for a trot or something, from an efficiency stand point. It's gotta raise your heartrate, and most reasonably healthy folks can walk quite a bit without raising their heartrate. It doesn't mean that walking is not a good activity, it is an excellent activity. I just do not consider it an aerobic exercise, or "cardio".