Faster long walks. Seems that working up a good sweat really helps
Fitness Minutes: (77,845)
414 3/24/13 3:59 P
running 2min fast walking 4min .... and so on
Fitness Minutes: (46,377)
4,493 3/24/13 3:35 P
My time is limited, which is what started me running in the first place. I had been walking, but to cover the distance and burn the calories I want to, I simply didn't have that much time. Not only do I find that jogging burns the calories faster (although comparable numbers for the distance involved), jogging tends to reduce my appetite (especially for sweets) and seems to also have an afterburn effect as well as helping me to sleep better.
Fitness Minutes: (0)
9,083 3/22/13 2:20 P
Walking with two dogs is usually slower paced walk Sometimes longer but often times one block One day at a time
Fitness Minutes: (16,557)
1,220 3/22/13 6:24 A
both, depends on who I am walking with.
Fitness Minutes: (6,835)
610 3/22/13 6:17 A
Fitness Minutes: (0)
55 3/22/13 6:09 A
Do both. Going faster boosts fitness, and going slower gives you a chance to recharge your batteries and probably helps you avoid injury. In terms of calories out, there may not be that much difference between long slow walks and short fast ones, although the latter have an "afterburn" effect that is not to be sneezed at.
You will probably find, though, that exercise also affects the calories-in end of of the equation strongly. Gentle exercise is great for working up a big appetite. More intense exercise may reduce appetite. Jogging motivates me more to eat healthily in a way that walking doesn't because it isn't difficult for me to walk at the weight I'm at now, but it isn't easy for me to jog, and it obviously would be if I were lighter. But jogging can also set up a sense of entitlement that leads me to pick up a jam doughnut on the way home. (That's also because I have to be hungry to go jogging - or I would get a stich. I can walk right after a meal.)
So I'd say to just keep a mindful eye on what exercise at different intensities does to your appetite, cravings and your weight.
Fitness Minutes: (0)
5 3/21/13 11:57 P
Do both as a means of interval training! Walk fast for 30 seconds or so and then walk slowly for the same amount of time. Keep doing it over and over and then as you get better or more efficient at this interval pace, either increase the intervals times or decrease the recovery time or increase the total walking time over all! Mix it up and have it fun! Instead of time intervals, you can use distance and walk fast to one point and slow down to the next one. You can also do intervals over different terrains if you have some hills in your area! Love interval training! It is the MOST effective way, coupled with weight training, to lose weight!
I have been walking outside all winter since we were in Fl. I variate my speed. I start out at a comfortable pace, then go fast for a bit and then moderate etc. Lately I have added in some short bouts of jogging.
Fitness Minutes: (43,392)
55,332 3/21/13 9:01 A
Both, I miss it up as well depending on the day!
Fitness Minutes: (0)
2 3/21/13 8:41 A
I think both and mix it up some if you get board.
Fitness Minutes: (169,705)
6,752 3/21/13 7:27 A
Happy: I think intervals are a happy medium for me. Some days I do slower walks if I am more tired, sick, or just know that if I force myself to go faster, I won't do it. But then at least once a week I do try and push myself a bit more. (Been failing a bit more on this, with our move in November and since, but getting back to it.) That pushing may be intervals (speed walk for say 3 minutes, then a slower walk for 1.5 minutes, etc.), or it may be adding a bit more incline. For me, I need to mix up my treadmilling a bit. I like to watch old episodes of TV while I treadmill. IE something I have seen before, so I can still miss little parts during my faster intervals, but something to not get quite so bored on the treadmill. Music works well too for me.
Happychanges, it appears you've just begun your weight loss and healthy journey, so I would recommend doing what you enjoy so you develop a love of just MOVING. I can pretty much guarantee that in time you're "slow" walks will get faster. I tend to walk at a 3.5 mph pace now but when I started I was probably doing less than 3 mph on my leisurely walks.
There is some research which indicates that longer steady state cardio produces stress. Stress elicits cortisol which is a fat retaining hormone so that is the downside of longer steady state workouts. While the calorie burn is similar the shorter duration workout reduces the amount of time you use to get to the same point. As for the "enjoyment" factor the reality is that you will soon find your body adapts to the shorter workouts and your mind will suffer less from boredom and lack of concentration.
Fitness Minutes: (650)
78 3/20/13 4:57 P
I agree with doing both as well. I think its important to get ones heart rate up. Its great for cardiovascular health, as well as burning calories. Plus it pushes your body to be more efficient.
Fitness Minutes: (72,243)
3,943 3/20/13 4:01 P
i do both to get my heat rate pumping. i think it is more benefcial to incorporate both as much as you can.
it's about the one you consistantly do that burns the most calories. it's about training smarter not harder. For me it would be 30 fast minutes on my treadmill instead of 1 hour slower. But do what you like.......it's your workout as they burn around the same amount.
Fitness Minutes: (2,155)
1,324 3/20/13 2:25 P
For weight loss, as others have said, there's not much difference if any. If you care about building cardiovascular fitness and endurance quickly, you will probably want to do some of each, since you need to push yourself every so often on both fronts. If you have time issues, shorter is better provided you can actually go fast enough to burn a similar number of calories (for a long time I could not). And there is some evidence that heart health is best promoted by simply moving your body more often, which might be more compatible with a long exercise regime than a short one, depending what you do the rest of the day.
Fitness Minutes: (14,252)
9,673 3/20/13 1:16 P
What matters isn't how fast you walk, but how many calories you burn. No matter which you choose, though, you'll be aiming for about the same daily calorie deficit... you adjust your food to the exercise you do, not the other way around.
Fitness Minutes: (29,419)
847 3/20/13 12:56 P
From a weight loss perspective, it doesn't make much difference, if you're covering the same distance (as a previous poster said). From a time management perspective, I would much rather be done with my workout in 30 minutes than have to spend an hour at it. Much easier to find that time in my day and, since I personally hate the treadmill, much less boring. :)
Fitness Minutes: (6,555)
2,416 3/20/13 12:54 P
Calories burned running/walking are almost completely dependent on distance traveled. Most people burn between 100-120 calories per mile, with the variation coming mostly from fitness level and body type. So basically, do what challenges you and makes you happy :)
I would imagine the calorie burn is probably similar for both. Even tho you're exercising longer with the slower pace, you are working out harder at the faster pace. So the best choice is the one you enjoy most. After all, if you don't like what you're doing, you are more likely to quit. If you like doing both, then it can be good to switch between them every so often to keep your routine from getting stale.
Fitness Minutes: (740)
26 3/20/13 11:51 A
Just wondering, have yall had more success with longer walks on the treadmill (like an hr) or shorter (like 30 mins) at a faster pace. I enjoy walking on the treadmill close to an hr around 3.4mph (my legs are crazy short) but when I up it to 3.8-4 mph I feel completely done at 30 mins. Which do you think is better for weight loss?
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.