To the experts: Do you think you can achieve the same level of fitness from fitness walking as you can thru running?
Printable View
To the experts: Do you think you can achieve the same level of fitness from fitness walking as you can thru running?
I ain't no expert, but I wonder: "fitness for what?"
Right now I'm pretty "running fit" but I can tell you that going back on the bike in March/April (when I will be at the top of my running fitness) will be painful, and I will not be climbing those hills the way I climbed them at the crest of my cycling fitness last summer... In "fitness" there's "fit," as in "fitting (with something)," in my view.
I would probably get fatigued long before a trained "fitness walker" if we went walking together for a long time...
Now there might be a few "universal" markers of fitness, one of them being feeling energetic and happy. Then any aerobic sport can help towards that!
I was thinking in terms of cardiovascular fitness, weight control and, bone density maintenance. I guess what I'm getting at is that I have always kinda thought of walking as something you do if you aren't "fit" enough to run. I'm beginning to question that assumption and wondering what others of you out there think.
Fitness walkers include many many former runners who have permanently injured their joints and simply can no longer run. If that's walking because they "aren't fit enough to run" then I guess its true! ;)
As for myself- I sprained all my ankles and knees so many times as a child that as an adult running is out of the question for me. It produces immediately and significant joint pain. I do fitness walking alternating with my bike riding.
Personally, I think fitness walking can keep you just as "fit" (healthy?) as running. MORE fit, if you take into account the many stress injuries runners tend to get.
We already know that walking is great for heart and lungs.
I have also read that brisk walking is good for preventing bone loss (biking is not).
As to weight control- watching calorie and fat intake is just as important as the type of exercise you do. If you exercise regularly and are still overweight....well you need to eat better (and less) as well.
I agree with Lisa that running produces more "stress injuries" than fitness walking. In my experience, running has produced faster results than brisk walking in terms of weight loss and fitting into those "special" pants, etc. I can also say that I have become injured when I run too much or increase my mileage too quickly, which will curtail my exercise all together. When I'm unable to exercise after injuring myself during running, than NO ONE is happy! You have to find what's best for you and your body !!!!
I used to subscribe to Runners' World (before I got tired of how little actual content it usually has, then I moved on the Running TImes, which used to be great -- then I started getting frustrated with RT for the same reasons I'd dropped RW, and lo & behold, turns out it had recently been bought by Rodale, the company that publishes RW... anyway...) and remembered reading this article some time ago. Amazingly I was able to find it in about 5 seconds (what did we ever do before the internet?):
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/...8402-0,00.html
I think you will also see more muscle development with running, if that's important to you. But walking is still good exercise.
Also with regards to bone density -- I believe that walking is good, but running is better. Jumping rope is even better than running -- really!!! (It's actually great exercise too). From what I've read, the higher the impact of the activity, the better it is at building bone density.
Of course, you have to balance all of this with your personal propensity to get injured. Getting sidelined certainly won't help build your fitness (and it just sucks!).
Slight hijack:Quote:
Originally Posted by liza
Just for fun, check out the covers of the January Bicycling and Runner's World magazines (both owned by Rodale) side by side: they're almost the same. It's ridiculous. "New Year, New You". It's even funnier when you take old issues (which are also the same).
Interesting. And it pretty much accords with the idea that Chi Running does burn fewer calories than inefficient running (although obviously that's not a reason not to run the most efficient way)!Quote:
Originally Posted by liza
I have to think that when you're outdoors, though, even at foot speed, air resistance is a factor, and the calorie difference would be greater than in the treadmill tests. Heaven knows I notice even a very gentle breeze when I'm running (especially on the beach, running a straight line out and back).
If you don't like the sound of 'fitness walking', just call it hiking and off you go!