Is walking every day even good for anything?

It's good for not being some kind of wierd super strong cripple

Good for mental gains if you do it without music blaring in your ear-holes or looking at your phone constantly.

Our heel touches the ground at the start of each step. ... studies show that the heel-down posture increases the economy of walking but not the economy of running. You consume more energy when you walk on the balls of your feet or your toes than when you walk heels first.

the virgin heel lead vs the chad forefoot strike

That's when jogging, tard
You'll look like a moron walking with forefoot strike

Wrong

Proper Walking Step Motion

1. Strike the ground first with your heel.

2. Roll through the step from heel to toe.

3. Push off with your toe.

4. Bring the back leg forward to strike again with the heel

Enjoy your busted knees, hips and spine

>You'll lose and maintain weight.
I just don't believe that is true.
You can run on a treadmill, hard, for twenty minutes and only burn 150 calories. That's the equivalent of like one single salt packet. I don't think cardio helps with weight loss.

Maybe not but movement is good

Basically the only form of exercise you actually need and the only one that's rarely harmful.

Ok, I'm gonna do 10k every day

user, you burn the same amount of calories if you walk a mile or run it.
Secondly you can walk more miles if you walk them throughout the day.

Someone who can only run for 20 minutes will be lapped by someone who walks for most of the day.

The weight loss race is won by the tortoise not the hare.

Well, studies had showed that any kind of exercise helps people with weight loss.
Understanding of how long you need to walk or run to burn that one donut certainly helps with eating control thus better weight reduction.

Prevents diabetes and heart disease, increases bone density, prevents depression, etc.

Bros on toes lmbo

>only burn 150 calories. That's the equivalent of like one single salt packet.
?????
salt has no calories

The thing is, developing your aerobic system makes resting metabolism use more fat for energy. Its not about how many cals you burn, it's about re-mapping your engine

>user, you burn the same amount of calories if you walk a mile or run it
Lmao that is absolutely untrue.
It takes more energy to maintain a high speed. Energy is calories.

When you turn sixteen and get a drivers license, you'll notice that you burn fuel at a faster rate the faster you go.

Btw, you should do this light&long cardio on an empty stomach, preferably in the morning when your cortisol is high

>posture
>weightloss
>blood pressure

Walking is the single most important thing a human can ever do.

Imagine needing advice on how to walk holy shit hahaha

This is not entirely true. The best speed for highest mpg is close to 60mph, not 20

No you burn the exact same amount of calories for the same mileage.

Whether you run a mile or walk it, you still burn the same amount of calories during the act.
Period.
That's it.
That's all.
Do you understand what I'm saying?

Also, you'll be able to walk many many miles during the day compared to whatever relatively small number of miles you are running or jogging.

MPG is about consistency of speed whatever that is mostly.

>Whether you run a mile or walk it, you still burn the same amount of calories during the act.

You're so wrong, and it concerns me that you have this strong of an opinion on something when you've clearly never even taken a highschool physics class.

False, it's about optimizing rev range and distamce based on gearing.
Youbcan extrapolate this to humans by how hard they breathe and their heart beats vs distance.

Tldr the optimal point is somewhere between walking and sprinting

kek

I say fuck running (but thats just me). A rule of thumb is 100 calories = 1 mile of walking at a normal or fast pace. Walk 3-5 miles and thats 3-500 calories burned through cardio. I walked 18 miles one time. 9 going somewhere and back.

You're a fucking retard.
Nothing you're saying is true.

For one my car gets 36MPG when at 85 miles per hour, but only 21 sub 60 miles an hour.

It's all about efficiency.
The more you walk the more efficient you become at walking, the less calories you burn.
The more you run the more efficient you become at running, the less calories you burn.

LOLOL, i hope you joking

> t. user who doesn't know about the nonlinear curve of (muscular efficiency)/percent-max-effort

Attached: 1507320651707.jpg (246x261, 11K)

Thw problem is, even if what you say is true (500cal burned walking 5 miles) then let's assume it takes you something like am hour, hour and a half to walk that. 500 calories is like... a small fruit cup and a yogurt. You might as well just save the 1.5 hours and not eat the 500 calories. It takes less than 5 mins to consume those calories and 18 times longer than that to burn them off. To me, the answer is thus revealed.

>It's all about efficiency.
>The more you walk the more efficient you become at walking, the less calories you burn.
>The more you run the more efficient you become at running, the less calories you burn.
I guess i should be really efficient at railing ur mom then lul

It's true.
You burn the same calories based on distance.

Walking a mile = running a mile.
The socalled afterburn effect and hormone changes in running and jogging is what you people are after.
HOWEVER those changes burn very few calories in the grand scheme of things and are just setting your body up to be more active overall.
HIIT works because it continuously creates a powerful stimulus that forces your body to burn a lot of calories and cause changes that you need extra calories to repair not to mention the hormonal changes.

However it burns nothing in terms of overall calories compared to a good purposeful casual 5 mile walk.

Cardio does not cause weight loss from caloreis burned. It causes weight loss through positive hormonal changes.

If you want to lose weight then eat fewer calories and be more active throughout the day.
Exercise is just a nice bonus and way to make yourself more efficient at day to day activity and change your look.

OMEGALUL

If you make it into a lifestyle habit its great. Lets say my maitenance is 2300 calories, if I walk a few miles before breakfast it will be 2700 and I haven't even had my first meal yet.

Also I believe in metabolism too. So waking up, drink some tea, smoke a cigarette and walk a few miles your metabolism will be going really high. I did this type of stuff and got a 6-pack without even working out.

I guess, and if you receive other benefits from walking then that's fine, but if you're a busy person with a full-time job and other hobbies competing for your time, then I assume it is easier to just eat slightly less.

I like walks, but I think that hour spent doing something else, like cycling or hockey or whatever, would be more effective.

who is this man in the picture?

That is not how the body works you idiot.
We aren't cars.

You only burn more calories when you run for a short period and only because your body is inefficient at it.
Even then, it is a small amount of extra calories.
It won't take long for that to change.

The American education system is equal parts comedy and tragedy.

Attached: 1554497087294.jpg (1000x1687, 238K)

On a treadmill, the “ground” literally moves for you

Lifelong 30yo 'walker' here, parents never drove and although I have a licence for making my CV look better, I have never owned a car nor ever intend to. IMO people's disdain walking as a 'waste of time' is reflective of today's lazy, instant-gratification-addicted, constantly stimulated, depressed, anxious, society.

Yes, it's good for general physical health and I've heard that it burns as many calories per unit of distance as running, although it obviously takes longer.

There was a really fat, rancid smelling guy at my work who decided to lose weight. He changed his diet to salads everyday for lunch and walked for 1 hr 20 mins each way to and from work five days a week, as well as walking in parks and forests on the weekend. The lbs melted off him.

Or maybe some people have actual lives and provide value that requires them to be capable of reliably extending beyond a 10 mile radius of their fucking pointless village.

I used to not walk with my heels back in High School when I was 17 because I thought because running is supposed to be you hitting the ground first with the ball of the foot, but I realized how effective the heel is for turning, and that landing on your toes and shit only make sense when you're doing a fast strike in combat sports or because you're running. Just think about it and it'll make sense.

I forgot to ass the rancid stink dissipated and his skin cleared up quite a bit as well. Obvs the diet was a significant factor as well, but he knew the city and it's surroundings like the back of his hand, which was pretty cool.

Now that summer's coming to the northern hemisphere I'd say there's no reason not to walk, unless you live in the ghetto or something.

I'm back lads. Didn't quite make 10k but it was nice being out in nature

Attached: Screenshot_20190428-102909.png (1080x1920, 100K)

Are you the stinkiest one at the office now?

The american education system does not teach people the basics of fitness or health.
Whatever country you are pretending to be from doesn't either apparently.
Please.
Explain why I'm wrong to everyone.
It FEELS wrong is not an explanation.

Do you know what I am saying?

Attached: p7823738_e_v8_ab[1].jpg (960x1440, 142K)

you burn the same amount of calories walking or running a mile

period
thats it
thats all
do you understand what im saying?

how do you genuinely believe this

i honestly believe you burn the same amount of calories walking a mile or running a mile. it's the same distance, how you get to it does not matter

Walking got me a gf, won the lottery, got a job promotion, got a new car, kids got an A on his test, man put a base on Mars, aliens contacted us, God revealed himself, heaven on Earth, no more evil.
Unironically

Not the guy you were talking to.
Mechanically there are more motions to running and greater energy expenditure to maintain speed than walking.
Googling the subject matter confirms this from multiple sources as well.
>Trusting the internet
I’m just making a point, it is a very common myth that walking burns as much as running.

retard

Almost a 30% difference in fact.

Attached: EE42F79F-E246-40F7-B4D3-3EA681908AD5.png (640x1136, 399K)

You're going by your beliefs and not any actual facts.

Open your mind user.
Go look for the truth.

user it says it burns more calories per minute. Not for distance.
You can cover more distance in less time by running then you can walking.

And once the newness(for lack of a better word)of the movement of running is over any excessive calories burned by the hormonal changes in your body and body recomp caused to make you more effficent will drop the amount of calories burned by running considerably.

You can burn more calories from running in less time then you can from walking.
But you do in fact burn almost the exact same amount of calories when you look at distance covered and not time.

Why walking is better as a way to burn weight for everyone is that everyone can do it, it's easy on the body, and you can do it for the rest of your life.

>slow walk
sure, but this is walking with a brisk pace, there is a difference

It literally says a 30% increase in calories burned for the same distance.
Adaptation to the exercise doesn’t negate the fact there are more motions involved in a running stride than walking.

So there’s a calorie difference when you change speed.

they are comparing running to slow walking as in the kind of walking you do when you are window shopping or touring around somewhere

this is walking with a constant brisk pace with no pause. again there is a difference

>But you do in fact burn almost the exact same amount of calories when you look at distance covered and not time.
Just discovered this thread. My opinion: No.

Listen, just because your knees are too shit to run doesn't mean there's no point walking, you do you bro, just stop pretending that you have anywhere close to the intelligence you're fronting, please.

except what i am saying about the amount of calories you burn is true

"to the intelligence you are fronting" please...

you are wrong dude
just go into extreme cases and it becomes pretty clear why

>Fuel economy is measured in miles per gallon
>Highway fuel economy is better
What is work a unit of? Force times distance. Do more work >expend more energy >burn more calories.
While yes, you burn more calories from running a mile than from walking it, it's not a massive difference, and the average person can walk much farther than they can run, burning more calories.

user, there is a change in speed of brisk walking that makes it more active than a slow walk. That difference is even greater with running.

I’d argue that is more sustainable for bigger people than jogging or running.

Calorically speaking, you will burn more in the same distance by running. I’m not here to call you names, the facts are just facts.

>you do in fact burn almost the exact same amount of calories

Once the person running becomes more efficient at running at whatever speed they are at that 30% will drop by a lot. Unless they continuously up the pace.
Which isn't exactly the healthiest thing for many people. Espescially new runners and the overweight.

Look. Your entire fucking sense of self depends on your ability to run. WE FUCKING GET IT!
But you are not burning so many more calories then someone who walks.
That is what we are saying.
YOU DONT HAVE TO RUN TO BURN CALORIES
WALKIGN BURNS MORE CALORIES AND IS HEALTHIER FOR MANY PEOPLE IN THE LONG RUN
You know, like those people with bad knees you're shitting on.

You do you.
You're a runner
That's awesome.
You're fit to run.

If you have to go to extreme cases to prove your point, then you have no point.

Can you be bad at walking?

>user, there is a change in speed of brisk walking that makes it more active than a slow walk
Yes and that is what I am trying to argue here is that they are comparing running to slow walking which that is not what anyone does when they go out to walk a mile or more, they keep a steady pace going. They are comparing slow walking in what you do when you are just walking and not under the context of working out which is misleading.

What is the difference between a slow and brisk walk?

Speed is the obvious answer.
An increase in the speed of walking has a greater effect on calories burned. The same is true to an even great degree when you run.

>SHOULD YOU DO BRISK WALKS:
Yes, especially if running is too taxing on your body.

>DOES IT BURN THE SAME CALORIES AS RUNNING?
Definitively no.

A slow walk is what you do when you are window shopping with your gf, just casually walking with many stops in between, looking around, talking pictures, sitting on park benches etc. It's the kind of walk everyone does day to day in their lives. Like walking to the library or going out to get the mail. You aren't consciously keeping an elevated and active pace when you do that you are just walking

Yes it does, walking the same distance burns the same amount. Not the same time. We are talking about just distance as the control group here.

Your pace is further elevated and you are more active when you run.

In context to what? Time? Or distance?

I’ve supported my argument that with distance as a control group, running burns more calories.

Do you have any proof to your claims other than anecdotal evidence?

Even if I did you still would not change your opinion on walking. Nothing will change your opinion on it ever. Like wise with me. We can just sit here in this thread posting back and fourth until it 404s and neither of us will ever have our opinions swayed.

>If you have to go to extreme cases to prove your point, then you have no point.
where the fuck did you get that nonsense from? when trying to see how complex systems behave and if your fucking assumptions even make sense it is often fundamentally helpfull to check the limits and extrem cases
getting a little triggered here desu senpai

You could try to present evidence user.
I’m not always right, but my confidence on this specifically is high, and my persistence is due to me wanting to avoid misinformation for other anons.

Some people actually do keep up a moderately high pace when they walk and walk a lot.
Which leads to very high NEAT
Combine that with them eating less and you'll see the fabled "high metabolism".
What they mean by high metabolism isn't that they sit on their ass and burn like 1000 calories from just looking at the wall.
They have a high metabolism because their body is highly active and their metabolism is in perfect shape.

Running is better short term but continued running will only increase your risk of join problems in the future. If you want to maintain a good physique for longer, walking is better for you.

Attached: Untitled.jpg (607x99, 35K)

I agree. Sustained long distance running could lead to joint stress.

This is not true for people in the 5k/3mile range even daily.

Running while overweight can be difficult on joints as well, brisk walks could be much better.

But you do NOT burn as many calories per mile walking fast than you do running.

It’s good for cardiovascular health. Go for a walk with a dog, friends or your own company. You lose nothing but time you’d waste browsing Jow Forums anyway.

Could I theoretically go for walks on my rest days?

> t. absolute retard