I agree. I’m probably the only one. But hey, I’m an endurance athlete. The endurance demands put a cap on that strength pretty quickly. But it has always been me experience that running is total body exercise that demands and builds overall strength.
I do not recommend walking for exercise. I recommend walking as a normal and natural activity. If you lift heavy, don't walk for exercise. Just walk.
@jef , my walk with the intention of being as relaxed as possible, nothing fast and not even what I'd call moderate. I do it as a restorative activity that also seems to check the cardio box according to some people, so I'm happy with both aspects of it. And I weigh 66-68 kg so it's not like I'm hauling around a lot of mass.
Thank you, @jef . My personal inclinations are to walk as relaxedly as possible, slowly, and to run as quickly as possible. I run easily sometimes but running easily has never come easily to me.
In an earlier life, whenever I would return to running after a layoff, I would always start by running 1/2 mile at a time, briskly. As I built up volume doing that, usually twice a day, I'd gradually transition to once a day and longer distances.
Would that what I think you're calling "the most extreme cases" were actually uncommon! I walk a mile each way, most days, to buy whatever groceries we need, go to the bank and the dry cleaner's along the way, etc. I don't think many of my neighbors have the strength to do that. Granted we're talking about a low level of strength, but still ...
I think of judo and weights as normal activities too. I think we're talking semantics here. In any case, walking as a normal activity would mean not programming in long walks. I program in long walks where I feel the effects both on cardio and on my musculature. If I were already walking around for an hour or so a day then I wouldn't need to program walking into my exercise schedule, but since I don't get a lot of walking as a normal daily activity, I need to program walking into my schedule.
Also, I think it depends on how much running we're doing. If we're only running for a half hour or so at a time, I can't see how this would atrophy anything at all - it's just explosiveness and endurance training for the entire body. People who run long distances, I can see how thin they get, so the atrophy is obvious.
I agree. We are 1/2 legs and 1/3 arms. We need to grasp, push and lift heavy things with our arms just as we need to push off the ground with our legs to maintain our strength. I just think that for North Americans who don't do the most natural of movements, walking, for more than 5 minutes straight a day in many cases as they sit sit and sit everywhere at all times, we need to program in walking somehow or other, whether it's as Steve does as part of his shopping, or as I do as a scheduled exercise that gets my heart rate up and my muscles tingling by the end of it. But I totally agree that it can only take you so far.
Walking fits this definition - it is the maximal force exerted vis a vis my bodyweight in the walking movement. Yes, this force is limited by the movement itself and by my bodyweight, but it is indeed the maximal amount called for in the action.
But how many lunges is anyone doing at a time? What is better - 20 lunges or 75 minutes of half-lunges (walking)? Also, who is really stronger, practically speaking? You might be able to do 20 consecutive lunges, but can you walk uphill for an hour without having to take a rest?
I would think that 20 lunges will better build strength while walking for 75 minutes will better build endurance. As to what's more practical, it depends on the task.
