1 more exercise question

D

Dr sharp

Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Messages
299
People say walking is great exercise, but my heart never gets pumping like when i jog or mt bike. when your heart is pounding hard isnt it better and burn more calories then if you went walking? I just feel like im working harder , thus losing more weight when my heart is pounding? am i wrong?
 
Try this. Use trekking poles to add arms and shoulders to the equation. Use a day or backpack, add weight gradually by putting 2 or 3 liter soda bottles refilled with water in the pack, and find a hill to walk up and down. This can get my heart pounding.
 
Get and read Covert Bailey's most excellent book Fit or Fat. It's an older book but still widely available. It's a short book and easy to read. It will answer many questions for you.
 
Well, to an extent, your heart pounding harder shows how hard you are working. It pumps harder to supply more blood to muscles that are working hard.

You do not need to notice your heart moving your shirt around to still be getting a workout. Also, because you do jog and bike, your cardiovascular and muscular system will be in good shape, so walking will seem very tame to it. You won't need to work hard to do it, as opposed to if you were an out of shape 300LB couch potato. ;)

Moderate exercise is good and does help you lose (if not just keep off) extra weight. It is still causing you to burn calories and therefor lose weight. Just, not necessarily as fast. Also, moderate exercise can be healthier on joints than hard exercise.

Walking is less damaging to knees than jogging, under standard definitions of jogging (very slow run with up/down motion instead of forward). Moutain biking could also be harder on joints, but IMO, not as bad as jogging. If by jogging, you mean running, then it is more forward motion and less hard on joints.

So, there are tradeoffs:

Hard cardio will burn more calories because of increased muscle stress. May cause more unhealthy stress on joints.

Light cardio will burn less calories (over the same amount of time) but will be less stressful than hard cardio. and it doesn't hurt my nads like a bike seat!! hehe.

So, long answer short. Your heart is pounding because of stress on the body (good stress) and you DO burn more for working harder. If you want to have a pounding heart while walking, do as was suggested above and increase the weight you are carrying.
 
It's my understanding that if you wallk, jog or run five miles you burn the same amount of calories. You'll just do it faster if you run. As well as increase the stress on your body. You can of course do Power Walking which calls for carrying additonal weight and has a more dynamic stride than casual walking. My friend Barry lost over 100 lbs just walking in sand at the beach 30 minutes a day. You can also increase the workout if your route has hills.

I think the most important thing is to do some regular exercise. Start at whatever level you have to, but start. Three ten minute walks a day would be a very good start. You will naturally increase your pace and distance as your body gets used to the exercise.
 
Phil, I don't think (hey, I could be wrong) that going the same distance at a different level of output is the same calories. On a short level, I believe that running a 100yd at full speed will use more energy than walking the same 100yd.

I don't know that I could quickly figure out any kinda formula or paperwork to back it up. It's what I think I've learned. You'd need to figure out how many calories/hr each specific exercise uses, then the amount of time it takes to walk. I don't think that running at 6MPH only burns 2x as many calories as walking at 3MPH over the same distance.

Still, I could be wrong. It's happened numerous times over numerous subjects with numerous people.

It is still, as Phil said, a really good idea to do some exercise. Almost regardless of what it is, it's much healthier than sitting at the pc!
 
Dr sharp said:
People say walking is great exercise, but my heart never gets pumping like when i jog or mt bike. when your heart is pounding hard isnt it better and burn more calories then if you went walking? I just feel like im working harder , thus losing more weight when my heart is pounding? am i wrong?
Click to expand...

You'll burn the same amount of calories if you walk compared to running the same distance. If you are trying to lower body fat, then I would suggest increasing the distance so that you spend at least 40 minutes walking. Recent studies show that the body starts to burn fat stores at a higher rate right around the 40 min. mark. I enjoy running myself, but walking is the most natural form of excersise for the human body. If you walk on a treadmill, you'll need to set it at the highest incline. The reason being, is that walking on surface allows you you to propell you own bodyweight forward. On the treadmill, the surface moves for you. Inclining compensates for the lack of body weight being carried. Happy walking! :)
 
I reccomend Covert Baily's book as well, it's the clearest explanation of the actual chemical processes that take place in making us move.

Leonard Schwartz, the author of "heavyhands", advocated the use of hand-weights for walking, using the idea that sports that involved the upper body in aerobic activity posted the highest levels of VO2 Max. (aerobic efficiency)
Such things as cross-country skiing, rowing, etc.
Most of these sports are difficult to do regularly for most, so adding vigorously-pumped handweights to a walking regimine can easlily allow you to reach your working aerobic heart-rate zone.
Many fit people have difficulty walking hard enough to get to the aerobic level, unless they have large hills handy....
That book, "heavyhands" is a wealth of information on excercise physiology, whether you use hand-weights or not.
 
Wunderbar said:
You'll burn the same amount of calories if you walk compared to running the same distance.
Click to expand...

It may sound like I'm being argumentative. I apologize if it appears that way. I just wish to make sure we are all accurate.

It still seems that going the same distance, faster, requires more energy, hence more calories. Your body requires more energy to produce the constant acceleration your body requires to keep it's higher speed. If I casually stroll for 10 miles and take 5-7 hours to get there, I will not be very tired, though my feet would hurt. I will have not expended very much energy, at least compared to someone who made it there in <2 hours.

Out of the human anatomical realm, if you drive 100MPH in 5th gear in a given car, for 10 miles, you will expend more fuel than if in said car you drive 35MPH in 5th gear for 10 miles.

The same person running and walking the same distance should burn more calories, expend more energy, running than walking.

Rate x Time = Distance, you must increase the rate to reduce the time by adding energy/acceleration to the item covering distance. Decreasing time takes an increase in energy. Also, if Mass x Acceleration = Force, a guy running has more Force, and if that Force were to hit something, it would transfer more energy. That's because he has more energy. He also has to keep adding more energy to keep up his constant acceleration. The faster his constant acceleration, the more energy.

For the same distance, the faster your rate or more force you carry, the more energy has to be used to keep up the pace.

Now, for the last two paragraphs, I've invoked physics...something I haven't used mathematically in awhile, and only present some basic theories. If I have this all wrong, I would like peeps to show me what I messed up. I'd be willing to listen, cuz I don't think I stumbled upon the equation that would prove this. I just want to make sure we don't confuse anyone who reads this post, tooooo much. ;)

http://www.Fitnessonline.com has some calorie burning forms, to see how many calories you would burn doing "X" exercise for "Y" time at your body weight. It doesn't have anything for "per distance" but you can kinda do the math, if you want. It isn't the best form out there, I'd like to get a link for a better one for ya, but I don't have one for now.

In all this, we still know that doing exercise is much better than NOT doing exercise.
 
Time is the determining factor. If two people were to cover the same distance, let's say 5 miles, one person running and the other walking, the runner would finish the distance first. The walker would still be walking and burning calories while the runner (who finished running) would not be burning the high amounts of calories anymore. The reason running leaves you fatigued is because there is greater stress on the cardiovascular system and muscles, joints, etc. If you are looking to increase your heart rate while walking, you can use hand weights, walk up hills, or even use a weighted rucksack/backpack (like the army does :) ).
 
Do you have any proof of that, cuz i'm very interested. it really still doesn't seem probable to me. walking is more effiecient, except for timewise, so i cannot see it burning calories at the same rate per mile. even if you are to walk the same distance. although, it is going to matter per exercise, too. someone riding a bike at the same speed as someone running probably would take less calories, it would seem, because of the nature of bikes. to put less expended energy into higher speeds.

the reason your cardiovascular system has all that stress is because you are stressing your muscles more. therfor, more oxygen is required by them, requiring your heart to pump out more oxygen loaded blood, requiring you to breathe more/harder to get more oxygen. or a dog ran out and scared the crap outta my while walking... :)

I checked on the site maximus otter posted, to make it "neutral 3rd party" and came up with these numbers:

Male 27, 6', 240 lb BMI=32.5 RMR=2,102
Running - 6 mph
544 calories in 30 min

Male 27, 6', 240 lb BMI=32.5 RMR=2,102
Walking - 3 mph
359 calories in 1 hr
 
Blackwatch said:
Do you have any proof of that, cuz i'm very interested.
Male 27, 6', 240 lb BMI=32.5 RMR=2,102
Running - 6 mph
544 calories in 30 min
Click to expand...

Let me check one my college text books on cardivascular fitness. A person running 6 mph and burning 544 calories in just 30 min. seems like a little too much. There are various formulas for determining caloric rates though. Now you made me curious and I'm going to have to do a lot of research. :)
 
well, it IS a 6', 240lb person. mebbe they are figuring in that this person mebbe a bit outta shape, or something. try maximus link with a lighter person, see if it works better...

i'm also very interested.
 
so? did anyone find out anything different? if not, i'm still gonna hold to my opinions.

also, it is possible that the mechanical differences between walking and running burn different amounts of calories. pre-digested calories for though.
 
Just wanted to mention something: Walking is a "weight-baring" exercise, while biking isn't. Weight-baring exercises are good for your bones as well as muscles.

~ashes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top