all posts post new thread

Bodyweight Walking 6-10 miles daily

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Steve Freides said:
I would like to weigh in on the subject of walking speed. For me, nothing ruins a walk more than trying to make myself walk faster. Long, slow, easy distance can and, IMO, should be restorative. If you're running, you should be able to carry on a conversation. And I don't know about anyone else, but the stronger I get and the more walking miles I have under my belt, the faster I walk - but without trying to walk faster, it just happens. I don't think about RPE, but I do think about relaxing and looking for tension and relaxing what I find, and allowing my mind to wander and/or to enjoy the scenery, and all that. So I would pointedly advise people _not_ to try to walk faster unless and until they can do so relaxedly and without any undue tension.

-S-
Click to expand...
You have a great point in speed. And yes fully agree: should be restorative. My n=1 is this:
I have many “walking” speeds (from 1.5mph to 4mph). I seem to set on a pace by feel, around 2.5mph.
Same thing on LED. From 11min miles up to 7min miles. Most of these by feel and on the slow side of the spectrum.
Bulk of the volume is done at an easy - very easy pace, with around a medium hard short session per week/ two weeks.
 
Francisco said:
You have a great point in speed. And yes fully agree: should be restorative. My n=1 is this:
I have many “walking” speeds (from 1.5mph to 4mph). I seem to set on a pace by feel, around 2.5mph.
Same thing on LED. From 11min miles up to 7min miles. Most of these by feel and on the slow side of the spectrum.
Bulk of the volume is done at an easy - very easy pace, with around a medium hard short session per week/ two weeks.
Click to expand...
Yes. If it’s not easy, it’s not easy.

-S-
 
Francisco said:
Walking, is IMHO, and in my n=1 experiment the foundation upon which LISS/LED builds. Carrying, and jogging/running build on top of it. Other forms of cardio such as swimming, biking, skiing, rowing, are ok but if there are no medical conditions nothing substitutes the natural - contra lateral, odd balance keeping gait this “clever“ monkey evolved to do a few million years ago…
Click to expand...
Walking is uniquely beneficial in this way, yes. But I'd be surprised if anyone could say that if one did the recommended amount of cardio (let's just say 300 min/week), that 25% walking 75% something else is significantly different in health related outcome than 75% walking and 25% something else. I suspect the difference is negligible, or more significantly related to intensity, in which case the "something else" probably wins because more people would be able to target a "zone 2" HR for a significant amount of time.
 
There is a book called Wild by Cheryl Strayed. Now this is a rather lengthy walk, but it is a great story and good read. I think there was also a movie, I've not seen that but can recommend the book. Kinda highlights the restorative powers of walking for the mind and body.
 
A little while ago I introduced some Nordic Walking into a couple of my hilly dog walks each week. Poles hit the ground at an angle so you are pushing down and back like you would in cross-country skiing

It certainly makes you more aware of a lot of things, primarily lats and tris.

You can obviously put as much into it as you wish, but it's a fun change.

Richard
 
I have read two books by Stu mcgill and he states 30 minute walk 3 times a day for optimal health- reference back health since that was the book. so 90 minutes total. He also states it shouldn’t be a mall walk- You want to build up to a faster walk with arm movement. If one enjoys jogging that can be incorporated but it is not necessary. From his book back mechanic.
 
Anna C said:
Walking is uniquely beneficial in this way, yes. But I'd be surprised if anyone could say that if one did the recommended amount of cardio (let's just say 300 min/week), that 25% walking 75% something else is significantly different in health related outcome than 75% walking and 25% something else. I suspect the difference is negligible, or more significantly related to intensity, in which case the "something else" probably wins because more people would be able to target a "zone 2" HR for a significant amount of time.
Click to expand...
Hey Anna! As you know English is my second language. Maybe I did not explain myself well. Generally speaking, I do not consider walking as cardio. I consider it the foundation upon which cardio may be built. This OFC depends on the individual but for me - healthy male 38 years - 5’7” and 150lbs walking does not get the HR up enough.
 
That quote concerning the 10 miles a day was a discussion on my forum. There is a "Hollywood" trainer that makes his clients consume ONLY 1600 calories a day and walk 12,000 steps a day. Well, yeah, they lose weight. I recommend walking after every workout. Stu McGill taught me this for back health and Rusty Moore teaches this for fat loss. I usually lift for maybe 45-60 minutes then walk for 30-60 minutes. It is the best "fat loss" program I have ever done and it is stupid simple. My best progress came from a tight Easy Strength workout...15 minutes...followed by about a 45 minute faster paced walk with some kind of load (hand weights/ Heavy hands were the best for me). I'm sure that 15 miles a day would have value but I have some other things to do, too.
 
I think people are overthinking walking, in general, a bit too much. Personally, I found that I can add walking easily to my routine, and even if it's not calorie intensive, it's calories, and most importantly it's something I can do without getting fatigued and killing 2 birds with one stone walking the dog or going somewhere, but if you have to force yourself to find time to walk I'd just try something else.
I think yes, diet is key, but if you can find activities not labelled as workout/exercise that you enjoy/have to do and add to your daily neat unconsciously it can definitely help, be it playing "active" videogames with your family, dancing, visiting town etc...
My rule is to stay active at least 30min-1h during the day in addition to working out, and personally if I try to track everything I do it becomes just obsessive. I suggest trying to reframe active hobbies as fun instead of "Workouts to burn calories" and in general trying to learn to enjoy more outdoors.
 
Francisco said:
Hey Anna! As you know English is my second language. Maybe I did not explain myself well. Generally speaking, I do not consider walking as cardio. I consider it the foundation upon which cardio may be built. This OFC depends on the individual but for me - healthy male 38 years - 5’7” and 150lbs walking does not get the HR up enough.
Click to expand...

I can understand your point about walking not counting as cardio because HR is not high enough. However, there is some overlap. Many of the benefits in the decrease in all-cause mortality graph from walking 10,000+ steps, and the benefits described in the Physical Activity Guidelines (300 min moderate or 150 vigorous intensity min/week, or a mix) are the same. So in that way, walking can fulfil some of the Physical Activity Guidelines for aerobic activity and does have many health benefits that higher intensity cardio such as "zone 2" or MAF would have. Just not quite as many benefits as zone 2, perhaps, and certainly less performance-boosting stimulus. And, as you say, walking does have some additional benefits -- restorative, natural, good for the mind. So it has some plusses and minuses when compared with other options. I agree, some of both is best.

Pg 20 of the PAG defines moderate activity: "Moderate-intensity activity requires 3.0 to less than 6.0 METs; examples include walking briskly (2.5 to 4 mph), playing doubles tennis, or raking the yard."

In summary -- all good points... I don't think we have any disagreement. :)
 
John K said:
I would agree for myself and for plenty of fit people. I would suggest that there are a lot of folks (maybe majority) for whom walking puts them into "zone 2" heart rate, and then it would be cardio.
Click to expand...
I agree there's probably a difference between fit and non-fit, and that for non-fit, walking may be close to a zone 2 activity.... but I'm not sure it matters. There IS cardio benefit to walking, whether you are fit or not-fit. It's not like the benefits are just "not there" under a certain HR threshold. The reduce in all-cause mortality shows that there is clearly a health benefit. And since it's an aerobic activity, I put the benefits squarely in the cardio/aerobic realm.
 
My first eye opening experience with walking as a fat loss exercise was when I went on vacation for 3 weeks.

I ate more than my usual diet and walked all day just about every day, touring villages, cities, etc.

When I got back from vacation, I was surprised to see I had lost 5 lbs of bodyweight.

I would not argue that walking should be the only exercise for fat loss, nor would I argue that exercise can make up for poor eating choices. However, I did find that walking can be a useful part of one's overall routine for fat loss.
 
Anna C said:
I agree there's probably a difference between fit and non-fit, and that for non-fit, walking may be close to a zone 2 activity.... but I'm not sure it matters. There IS cardio benefit to walking, whether you are fit or not-fit. It's not like the benefits are just "not there" under a certain HR threshold. The reduce in all-cause mortality shows that there is clearly a health benefit. And since it's an aerobic activity, I put the benefits squarely in the cardio/aerobic realm.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. I think this is reflected in how some folks may workout/train a lot and still be sedentary - even if walking isn't "cardio" for them (zone 2 or above), incorporating regular walking pushes them from being sedentary into a more active lifestyle, which is definitely looks like it is beneficial.
 
Walking has its place in routine in my view. I don’t think it’s enough to reap Cardio benefits because HR zone is actually very important. A person who has been sedentary their whole life, might start walking as exercise and get into zone 2. Yet someone who has ran/jogged into zone 2 and more the last ten years would benefit from walking in a different way, joint health and mindset etc. I think for the most part we saw Covid as an example that the better someone’s cardiovascular strength the better chance of fighting and surviving. My dad is in his 80’s and even though he doesn’t know he’s doing a fartlek run every morning.. he is. He walks, then sprints then jogs and then repeats for about 20 mins. He’s in great shape and beat Covid easy and also has a heart rate of below 65 at rest. I look at this as a road map for myself. I definitely think effort matters and zone 2 mixed with other heart rate training is important. I’ve heard the same from Dr. Andy Galpin, Andrew Huberman, Peter Attia.

Training strength and cardio concurrently would be the best plan for longevity in my eyes. I do not believe you would need hours of this daily though to reap the benefits. 20-30 mins seems great and elicits the response needed for longevity. Diet cannot be replaced for weight/fat loss and longevity, though. So if walking gets you into zone 2, then great. If not it means your fitness level is higher and though walking would be good on off days or just as a break from work, you’d need a bit more.

(Btw I do know healthy and fit people have passed away from Covid and not meaning to diminish that possibility either or any disrespect. All of this is my speculation).
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom