Exercise Alternatives (walking)

[NY2TX]

So here's a question I tried asking my wife and I didn't get quite the opinion I hoped to hear.

What's a better alternative?  Walking 10 miles over a 2:45-3:00 period or doing 3-5 miles per day during the week at 14:50-15:20 per mile and 6-7 miles a day over the weekend at 15:00-15:30 per mile.

I walked with a friend of mine on Saturday and he tends to concentrate on distance and not pace, so we covered 10 miles in 2:51:24 (just over 17 minutes/mile); on Friday I did 6.5 miles in 1:39:30 (15:16/mile) and this morning I walked 5.2 miles in 1:18:06 (15:16/mile).

Runkeeper estimated my calories burned at 1308 over the 10 miles walk and 902 on Friday and 665 today.

Are the calories burned all that count?

[Colinm39]

@NY2TXHere is a link to an interesting study by Gretchen Reynolds which can throw more light on the subject.  Here is the link

[Malpeg]

It depends on your goal. I try for 60 active minutes a day for health benefits. For weight loss calories burned are calories burned. Focus on what works for you.

[NY2TX]

---

@Colinm39 wrote:

@NY2TXHere is a link to an interesting study by Gretchen Reynolds which can throw more light on the subject.  Here is the link

---

Thank you @Colinm39 you've confirmed my belief. I've been targeting the Army Physical Fitness Test pace for Men over 62 for the 2.5 mile walk of 38:30.  Of course, I've been walking alot further than 2.5 miles each time I go out on the road (June 6 - July 6 I've done 147 miles in total, usually in the 14:50-15:20 pace per mile).  As a result, I've lost 32 pounds since March 23rd...and I have miles to go etc.

[Colinm39]

@NY2TXExcellent effort. I'm only allowed to walk. The only links I can find are the US Forces running tests. Are you converting those to walking with time ?

---

@NY2TX wrote:

---

@Colinm39 wrote:

@NY2TXHere is a link to an interesting study by Gretchen Reynolds which can throw more light on the subject.  Here is the link

---

Thank you @Colinm39 you've confirmed my belief. I've been targeting the Army Physical Fitness Test pace for Men over 62 for the 2.5 mile walk of 38:30.  Of course, I've been walking alot further than 2.5 miles each time I go out on the road (June 6 - July 6 I've done 147 miles in total, usually in the 14:50-15:20 pace per mile).  As a result, I've lost 32 pounds since March 23rd...and I have miles to go etc.

---

[slysam]

I agree it depends on your goals. Walking faster you do burn more calories in a shorter time (not that it is the only thing that is important). It can look like you burn more in total walking slower for a longer duration--but part of that is because most calorie burn estimates include a portion of your BMR (the calories you would burn anyway). For health in general (and calorie burn) it is recommended to move a certain amount of time in the day--and more is usually better (within reason you still need sleep and rest). So I guess in that way slow can be good. But for aerobic fitness benefits, you would need some activity regularly at a more vigorous effort--if your activity is walking that usually means walking faster. I think it usually works out well to work vigorously when you are intending to exercise and to also just try to be active as much as you can outside your workout. It isn't a bad idea to keep the extra activity lighter. The CDC guidelines offer a choice between vigorous and moderate exercise (or a mix). Basically you spend less time doing aerobic exercise if it is vigorous, and you spend more time exercising if you are doing moderate exercise. I recently read about exercise and blood sugar regulation, there was an interesting study (studies) where they found people had good health results (lowering blood pressure in one and regulating blood sugar in another) with several short, vigorous exercise sessions a day as opposed to a longer duration, slower stroll. Here is an another article by the same author as article Colin posted: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/exercise-snacks-to-control-blood-sugar/