Walking better than running..."official"

20 messages
05/04/2013 at 08:37

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/05/brisk-walk-healthier-running-scientists

 

So, DF3 no worries when you have to walk during your marathon, you'll be getting plenty of health benefits anyway

WiB
05/04/2013 at 08:46

We may need to define 'brisk' though.

WiB
seren nos yn canu    pirate
05/04/2013 at 08:49

much much faster than you can run David......

05/04/2013 at 09:03
Olympic 50k walk won in 3.36. That's just over 3 hr marathon pace!!

20k in 1.18
Edited: 05/04/2013 at 09:05
seren nos yn canu    pirate
05/04/2013 at 09:06

a marathon is only 42k David........you realy think you can run under a 3 hr marathon....

so I will repeat.David...faster than you can run

WiB
05/04/2013 at 09:08

Thats a good 50k time. It's a shame they look so silly doing it

WiB
05/04/2013 at 09:28

To comment on the article, I don't really get their findings. First it says "Brisk walking reduces the risk of heart disease more effectively than running when the energy expenditure of both activities is balanced out, a study has found."

But later it says "If the amount of energy expended was the same between the two groups, then the health benefits were comparable."

Also surely the energy expenditure isn't equivalent between running and walking?

Finally I love the fact that in the first sentence the BBC have added a link to an explanation on the word running, just in case you are not sure what it is!

 

05/04/2013 at 09:42

"The more the runners ran, and the walkers walked, the better off they were in health benefits. If the amount of energy expended was the same between the two groups, then the health benefits were comparable."

I'll stick to running then, thanks. Walking 60mpw would take to feckin' long!

(Although I do about 30mpw walking to work and back, so I think I've got the bases covered...)

05/04/2013 at 09:49

Is it true that if you walk one mile in say 25 minutes you expend the same energy as if you run one mile in say 7 minutes?  I've often read that but it just doesn't seem right to me.

Rafiki    pirate
05/04/2013 at 10:03

Big G - technically yes you would use the same amount of energy as you would be moving the same mass the same distance (the definition of energy - kind of). There may be a slight difference when you consider the efficiency of running a 7 min mile as opposed to a 25 min mile - but I agree, it doesn't feel like it!!

05/04/2013 at 10:19

Thing is, most runners will walk as well. Walking is just kind of a fact of daily life. I've no idea what exactly they define as "brisk" but I've always walked pretty quickly.

Also, doing this in terms of energy expenditure is pretty daft. Most people only have a certain amount of time they can devote to exercise and to get to the same amount of energy expenditure you'd get from running, by walking instead, you'd have to be going one hell of a lot longer. In terms of benefit based on time spent, running is better for you.

05/04/2013 at 11:14

When are they going to come out and admit that 'staying in bed is better than exercising...'?

05/04/2013 at 11:23
Peter Collins wrote (see)

When are they going to come out and admit that 'staying in bed is better than exercising...'?

Well if you stay in bed you are much less likely to get injured. Mind you it depends what you are doing in bed I suppose!

05/04/2013 at 11:42

Mind your own business, Marten!

05/04/2013 at 12:03
Martenkay wrote (see)
Mind you it depends what you are doing in bed I suppose!

 

 

Getting eaten by bed bugs, and therefore losing weight.  They probably give you cancer though.

05/04/2013 at 13:08
PhilPub wrote (see)
Martenkay wrote (see)
Mind you it depends what you are doing in bed I suppose!

 

 

Getting eaten by bed bugs, and therefore losing weight.  They probably give you cancer though.


I'll have a look in the Daily Mail about bed bugs and cancer, bound to be something there

05/04/2013 at 13:14
Only if they are foreign bed bugs. Nothing wrong with good old British ones.
05/04/2013 at 14:25

Aaaaaaagh! I hate stories like this. I'm a physicist and I hate 'science' stories like this because the way it has been presented makes it look like really, really bad science. How on earth can they control for other factors like diet and even genetics. As to the energy equivalence thing, they are either comparing people who walk a lot with people who run a little (I don't have to point out the stupidity of that surely) or they are playing with the statistics to level the playing field and I can't even begin to tell you the number of ways that is ridiculous. With the massive error that is inherent in even a large study like this when they haven't controlled for other obvious factors, to come out and make a definitive statement like they do is at best misleading and at worst fraudulent.

I apologise for the rant but this epitomises the kind of media science story I absolutely hate! 

05/04/2013 at 15:54

http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/walking-better-running-benefits-heart-strain--095132714.html

I hope the above link works. Please tell me if I'm reading it wrongly, but it does refer to running 3 miles in 15 minutes rather than walking it in 38? Wish I could run that fast, or walk that speed, sure a lot of you can.

05/04/2013 at 18:53

bol sauce - I wonder if they mixed up miles and km?


We'd love you to add a comment! Please login or take half a minute to register as a free member
20 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW Forums