Walk don't run?

[DeliaItaly]

Have you seen this is today's Guardian?

guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle...

We seem to be damned if we do and damned if we don't

Look forward to reading your responses on this one.

[Landesman Graduate]

The best thing to do then is both!

I like my running time as I can do it on my own in the early morning. And I like walking/hiking as I tend to do it with others at more social hours. But after either or both I feel good - so that's what counts for me.

[jenniej Graduate]

The Guardian has summarised the results very poorly. In fact the study showed that f the energy expended was the same then the results were comparable across walkers and runners. The study noted that runners expended the energy in a much shorter time i.e. its more time efficient to run than walk. Also the authors noted that because of that runners reap greater health benefits!

I didnt go back to the original but noted in a better summary than the Guardian's that there seems to be an issue with the population studied, I'm guessing there's an element of self-selection here so the authors said to treat the results with some caution. See medpagetoday.com/primarycar...

[thinnerandfitter Graduate in reply to jenniej]

Hi Jennie - you put it more succinctly than I did - I hadn't seen your reply when I typed mine (it took me a while to look at my Garmin stats). I'll have a look at your link later - thanks for posting it.

[greenlegs Graduate in reply to jenniej]

Interesting how the overall drift of that article you've linked to, jennie, is almost exactly the opposite of the guardian one - about the same research!

I'll carry on doing both I think. Interesting, but not all that surprising really that equivalent amounts of energy used give equivalent health benefits.

Sometimes walking suits me better, sometimes running.

[thinnerandfitter Graduate]

I had a quick look and I think the important thing is where they say "calorie for calorie". Looking back at my Garmin stats, a 5km run burns roughly 380cal whereas a 5km walk burns only 290 even though the walk takes give or take an hour and the run about 35 minutes. So walkers burning the same number of calories as runners are walking for well over twice as long as the runners are running. Maybe the benefits aren't as simple as being calorie based but by increasing the heart rate moderately for a longer time is what brings the benefits. However, you then need getting on for 1.5 hours available for a long walk instead of the half hour plus shower time for a run.

I know that since losing weight and starting running I'm feeling good (although I've had more colds/flu and now sinusy problem since running than ever before in one winter, not that I think these things are linked), and my blood pressure is better (it was already OK) etc. so I think we all have to do whatever fits into our very hectic lifestyles. Speaking of which, my work e-mail just pinged so I'd better get back to it....

Thank you for (another) interesting article.

Ann

[swanscot Graduate]

It's not a case of "damned if we do and damned if we don't". More a case of win if your run, win if you walk.

I don't run, walk or cycle to keep healthy. The being healthy is a (good) side affect of the running, walking and cycling. I do all of these, because our bodies are designed to move. So I move! Plus we live in such a wonderful, diverse world, that it would be 'wasteful' not to be out there exploring it, and you can't do that properly when enclosed in a metal box.

Keep on running.. and walking!

[Lynds Graduate in reply to swanscot]

Hear hear. Very nicely put Swanscot.

[swanscot Graduate]

"We run, not because we think it is doing us good, but because we enjoy it and cannot help ourselves...The more restricted our society and work become, the more necessary it will be to find some outlet for this craving for freedom. No one can say, 'You must not run faster than this, or jump higher than that.' The human spirit is indomitable."

-Sir Roger Bannister, first runner to run a sub-4 minute mile

[Cazvs Graduate]

The mainstream press is terrible at reporting on scientific research, they just pick the quotes they need to back up what they wanted to say anyway.

Running is sort of like coffee, one week it's good for you and the next week it's not. Speaking of which, if you haven't seen the Daily Mail list of things that can cause or prevent cancer (or in many cases, both) then it's good for a laugh- kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/

[Oldgirl Graduate]

I'm with Swanscot here, run if you enjoy it, walk if you enjoy it, do both if you have time to. The so called experts said years ago that eggs were not good for us, margarine was better than butter and now they have changed their minds!! I rest my case and to be honest I no longer read these articles. I know my health is better for having started running, I know I have lost my excess weight, I know I'm a happier person and I know I'm having fun.

What more could I ask for? Well there is one thing more, to be able to keep this up for a least another 8-10 years by which time I will be in my 70's and will perhaps have to just swim and do my Zumba Gold and ride my exercise bike and walk instead of run to keep active. But whatever exercise you do, do it because you enjoy it, there would be nothing worse than spending precious hours doing something you disliked doing.

[notbad Graduate]

Really interesting Delia, thanks for posting. Like others I enjoy both, so it's win-win for me. One point I can think of is there is less injury risk walking, please don't think me a traitor but as I'm currently suffering a running related injury it's on my mind.

[Hidden]

You're all spot on, article factual but fails to mention time spent clearly enough

I probably started running, because I needed to do some exercise.

I now run because I want to and I love being outside exploring my surroundings, I thought I knew where I lived, how wrong I was until I started running I had only scratched the surface, it absolutely amazing all the beautiful spots I've found on my travels

[greenlegs Graduate in reply to Hidden]

I was thinking this today - over the 5x50 challenge, I'm intending to investigate as many new places as I can. By stopping off at different points on my route home from work I can get to a huge range of places that I've never looked at closely before. I visited a wood I'd never been too before today, and it was lovely. I've realised that I see them differently depending on whether I'm running or walking (don't see as much when I'm running - though I do see more if I'm running slower).