How much walking is enough?

[Paradise555]

I have been readin online by googling and on the fitbit forums in regarding how much walking is acceptible and how much is too much. I found this from  livestrong saying for the ideal "weight loss" and what not is between 12000-15000 steps a day. Yeah sure working out and burning calories is a big thing but  there is 2 sides of the coin. I want you guys opinion; what is the ideal daily step count for the average person?

[WendyB]

I really think it depends on the person myself.

I walk 4 miles every morning dont stop til I get 10K steps in. But 10 miles? I dont have that kind of time. Maybe when I retire.

But I also believe you need strength training as well. Its not all about walking

[Tinman53]

I am retired, but dealing with some health issues. I currently have my daily goal set at 10,000 steps. I meet that goal 99% of the time, but with life it is sometimes tough to get all my steps in. I have projects that need to be done around the house, family obligations, etc.

I have toyed with the idea of moving my goal to 12,000 per day and probably will once it cools down a little. My walk this morning was in a temp of 88 with humidity of 85%, makes it tough....

[Raviv]

Honestly, I set my goal at 7,000 steps.  It just felt like 10,000 was not going to happen most days.  It didn't mean that I was Netflix binging all the time, but not everything I did involved steps.

Since I have changed it, then I usually achieve my goal before breakfast on Sundays, often by the time I leave work on busy days, and by the time I eat dinner on gym days.  So it's more reasonable.

I think it's going to be a different number for everyone, depending on how large a chunk of their activity they want walking to be, as well as just how much they're physically able to do at any given time.

[honeygram]

I have found that I need to walk 20k steps a day in order to lose weight.  I also lift 4 days a week.  This is the first time in my life I've needed to lose weight and it isn't much just 12 lbs.  I'm walking constantly now.  Instead of calling I walk to that persons office and sometimes that means walking across campus.  I will reach my goal by Oct. 1st and I've tried to make it a doable time line so I'm not killing myself. I did make some adjustments to what I eat but for the most part I eat pretty healthy any way.  Had to start saying no to all the goodies people constantly bring in.  It's worth it.  With the first 8 pounds off I already feel more my normal self.

[Incognito]

To me, there is never enough.  Everyday as I look at my step count from previous days, I always think of what I could have done to get that extra 1 step.  

But I love walking.  It boosts my energy levels, and it is my therapist.  I can truly be alone with my thoughts on my peaceful walks.

[Proudpatriot]

It depends on the intensity of the walking.  You can meander around for 20,000 steps a day and not really do much to improve your fitness level.  Conversely, you can walk for only 10,000 steps a day in a manner than increases your heart rate (fast, and maybe on an incline).  The latter will increase your fitness.  The former is just a waste of time.

[extra_medium]

---

@Proudpatriot wrote:

It depends on the intensity of the walking.  You can meander around for 20,000 steps a day and not really do much to improve your fitness level.  Conversely, you can walk for only 10,000 steps a day in a manner than increases your heart rate (fast, and maybe on an incline).  The latter will increase your fitness.  The former is just a waste of time.

---

Meandering for a mile or jogging for a mile will burn about the same number of calories in the end.  The difference is that one can take you an hour and the other can take 15 minutes.   If calorie burn and weight loss is your only goal, it really doesn't matter which you do if you have the time.

[Raviv]

---

@extra_medium wrote:

Meandering for a mile or jogging for a mile will burn about the same number of calories in the end.  The difference is that one can take you an hour and the other can take 15 minutes.   If calorie burn and weight loss is your only goal, it really doesn't matter which you do if you have the time.

---

I don't know about that.  When I walk, especially if I'm doing it to exercise or as a warmup to running, then I'm going at a 3.5-4.0 mph pace.  I can start to sweat after a while, so I know my heart rate is more elevated.

When I'm cruising around a car show, I'm taking just a few steps at a time, stooping to look at cars, and it sometimes feels like I'm almost falling into the next step.  My heart rate is quite low and there's not a chance I'm going to break a sweat unless it's really hot outside.  I make get a mile or two in after a couple of hours, but there's no way I'm burning as many calories as when I fly through those same 2 miles in 30 minutes and have to take a breather at the end.

[Proudpatriot]

I'm going to have to disagree with the idea that walking a mile and running a mile will burn the same number of calories. I don't know where you got that information but it just isn't true.

If your heart rate is increased your body is burning more calories than when your heart rate is not increased.  In order to get fit you have to do more than just meander around for hours.  You have to increase your heart rate.

[rain_girl]

I have mine set to 9,000 steps and sometimes I reach it and sometimes I don't.  I like the motivation of it, but I don't let it rule my life.  I have a desk job and so even getting in 5,000 steps some days is difficult.  Any movement is good and if you're doing more than you did before and eating right then we can become healthy.

BTW, I am guilty of pushing the grocery cart with one arm so I can swing my arm and count those steps.

[Knaidel]

I don't think there is an average person! The ideal amount of walking is just a little bit more than you're already doing, however much that is. Isn't that always the way with fitness? Set a goal for activity that's a little more than what you're doing, and you'll keep improving. If you always set your goal in the zone of proximal development, you won't injure  yourself and you'll be able to keep improving, pretty much forever.

Before getting the FitBit, I went to the gym several times a week and rode a bike everywhere. Now I've added walking, sticking with the minimum of 5 miles a day that's preset into the dashboard. (My steps are set to 10K, but I guess I'm too short for that to equal 5 miles!) My weight seems to be dropping gradually, but more than that, my gym workouts seem to be taking off. Walking is just adding that little extra something. 

[DominicJ]

"Meandering for a mile or jogging for a mile will burn about the same number of calories in the end.  The difference is that one can take you an hour and the other can take 15 minutes.   If calorie burn and weight loss is your only goal, it really doesn't matter which you do if you have the time."

"I don't know about that.  When I walk, especially if I'm doing it to exercise or as a warmup to running, then I'm going at a 3.5-4.0 mph pace.  I can start to sweat after a while, so I know my heart rate is more elevated."

"I'm going to have to disagree with the idea that walking a mile and running a mile will burn the same number of calories. I don't know where you got that information but it just isn't true.

If your heart rate is increased your body is burning more calories than when your heart rate is not increased.  In order to get fit you have to do more than just meander around for hours.  You have to increase your heart rate."

Bit of "BroScience" going around so until Heybales rocks up I'll do my best.

The actual difference between running a mile and walking a mile exists, but it is a lot less than most people believe.  To the point where my fitbit actually records more calories on the walks, because of the "BMR boost".  You do burn more when running, but not a lot.

You'd have to record a 1 mile walk and 1 mile run + rest time after for better numbers.

[Raviv]

When I finish a treadmill workout, rather than write down the numbers (especially since I don't wear my glasses) I just take a screenshot of the treadmill display and log the data later.  I did manage to find a few where the distance was the same but the time was different - not by much, though.

I don't enter my weight on the treadmill, so the assumed weight would be the same for all workouts.  I'm not saying these are accurate for me or anyone else, just that the treadmill is saying there is a difference, however much it might be.  Whether its programming is correct or not is another question.

3.10 miles     :46:46     329 calories

3.10 miles     :46:21     339 calories

3.10 miles     :45:26     348 calories

As the time gets shorter (I'm running more and walking less), the calories burned covering the same distance gets larger.  But not by a whole lot.  Also, keep in mind that my walk is at 3.5 mph and my run is at about 4.8 mph.  So there isn't a huge difference there either.

Added issue: as I build up my endurance, the treadmill is going to keep the same calorie/mile/speed calculation even though I will be actually burning less since I'm more adapted and the task becomes easier.

So... yeah, we need Heybales.

[Proudpatriot]

Dominic you aren't seriously proposing that there is no difference between meandering around the mall and running (or walking) at a pace the increases your heart rate are you?  That was my original point.

All steps are not equal when it comes to burning calories, and more importantly, working out your heart.  You do not get the same benefit from walking a longer distance at a snail's pace as you do from walking (or running) a shorter distance at a pace that increases your heart rate.  Of course, I could concoct an examlple where you burned more calories simply because you walked a really really far distance but another person sprinted 100 yards but that's not what we are talking about here.

In order to get fit (in a cardio sense) you must increase your heart rate.  When you are starting out in a fitness program you may be able to raise your heart rate by walking at 2.5 mph vs someone else who needs to walk at 4.0 for the same increase in heart rate.  A third person might need a 6 mph run for the same increase in heart rate.  No matter what your fitness level you must raise your heart rate in order to get a cardio benefit from it (and burn more calories)  Walking up and down your hallway at home, at a snail's pace just so you can make 10,000 steps a day does nothing (or next to nothing) for your fitness levels unless it raises your heart rate.

What exactly is "broscience" about such a statement?  If you are going to criticize please let me know where I have gone wrong.  

From UC Berkely Wellness

"To benefit most from aerobic exercise, you should work out hard enough to raise your heart rate to its training zone (target heart rate) for at least 20 minutes on most days."

That is a far cry from meandering around aimlessly at a snail's pace to get some arbitrary number of steps to register on your Fitbit.

Mayo Clinic

The Mayo Clinic says "To reap the most health benefits from exercise, your exercise intensity must generally be at a moderate or vigorous level. For weight loss, the more intense your exercise, or the longer you exercise, the more calories you burn."

I guess it's "broscience" if I say it but surely you must trust the Mayo Clinic and UC Berkely just a little bit.

[pcobb8]

I think about it this way.  If I drive my car 80 MPH vs 55 MPH, I am going to get significally less miles per gallon over the same distance. If I run a mile vs walk a mile, Like my car using gas, I will burn much more overall calories running.   

[DominicJ]

ProudPatriot

"Dominic you aren't seriously proposing that there is no difference between meandering around the mall and running (or walking) at a pace the increases your heart rate are you?  That was my original point."

I'm saying the difference in calorie burn is SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than you seem to believe, and that you are misinterpreting what your fitbit is telling you.

Not everyone cares about "fitness", the majority of people here are interested in Calorie Burn.

"In order to get fit (in a cardio sense) you must increase your heart rate."

But thats not a question that was asked.

"The Mayo Clinic says "To reap the most health benefits from exercise, your exercise intensity must generally be at a moderate or vigorous level. For weight loss, the more intense your exercise, or the longer you exercise, the more calories you burn.""

Notice that *OR* in the last sentance?

Its not so much that your answer was incorrect, just that it wasnt actually realted to the question.

PCob

"I think about it this way.  If I drive my car 80 MPH vs 55 MPH, I am going to get significally less miles per gallon over the same distance. If I run a mile vs walk a mile, Like my car using gas, I will burn much more overall calories running"

Actualy a lot less than you would think, and running on a treadmill specifically excludes the air resistance that causes most of that difference, its breaking that kills your fuel efficiency in a modern car, sure that doesnt hold true for a Veyron doing 200+ mph, but for a hatchback doing 50-85

All, theres a very simple test for this, someone, needs to

Walk 1km and record that activity

Jog 1km AND rest until the times match

Run 1km AND rest until the times match

If someone records those, the run will be a clear winner, but if you just compare the walk, the jog, and the run without adjusting for time, they will be little different.

For PURE calorie burn, the time spent excercising is going to be the driving factor, time, consistancy and effort matter, but they matter in that order.  

If you want to get better at something, well, those priorities change.

[Paradise555]

Well this will be interesting though when I am starting college on Tuesday. There is some distance between buildings and I feel on Thursday with my orientation was just the beginning of something when I walked 15,000 steps without even trying. Once I get usewd of where my class romoms arew then that might be a different story.

[Proudpatriot]

The difference is pretty significant.  When I am walking at a slow rate I burn aroun 2 cal per min.  When I do a HIIT session I burn 10 cal per min.  The difference over 40 minutes equates to 320 calories.  If that's all you care about there is your difference.  If you actually care about your health you should be doing something that increases your heart rate.

This is NOT "broscience".  It is real.  You can change the subject but the truth is that if you want to improve your cardiovascular health you need to increase your heart rate.  That looks different for different people but it doesn't  change the fact that you need to increase your heart rate to burn more calories AND to improve your health.  Why would someone be concerned about calorie burn but not care about cardio vascular health?

[Raviv]

---

@Proudpatriot wrote:

The difference is pretty significant.  When I am walking at a slow rate I burn aroun 2 cal per min.  When I do a HIIT session I burn 10 cal per min.  The difference over 40 minutes equates to 320 calories.  If that's all you care about there is your difference.  If you actually care about your health you should be doing something that increases your heart rate.

This is NOT "broscience".  It is real.  You can change the subject but the truth is that if you want to improve your cardiovascular health you need to increase your heart rate.  That looks different for different people but it doesn't  change the fact that you need to increase your heart rate to burn more calories AND to improve your health.  Why would someone be concerned about calorie burn but not care about cardio vascular health?

---

I wouldn't take it as being disrespectful.  What he's saying is that no one is bringing up any real evidence.  Which is true.

But the other thing - yes, you do need to get your heart rate up to improve your health, but that wasn't the question.  The question was whether walking a mile/km at a slow pace would burn as many calories as walking at a fast pace.   It's obvious that 30 minutes of fast walking burns more than 30 minutes of strolling along, but the calories burned for the same distance is going to be closer than most people like.

Where it gets interesting too is considering how long your heart rate is elevated as well as what you do with the extra time you have after finishing the distance ahead of the slow walker.