Walking better than running..."official"

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 anywayimage

Comments

  • We may need to define 'brisk' though.

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

  • MillsyMillsy ✭✭✭
    Olympic 50k walk won in 3.36. That's just over 3 hr marathon pace!!



    20k in 1.18
  • 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

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

  • 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!

     

  • PhilPubPhilPub ✭✭✭

    "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...)

  • Big_GBig_G ✭✭✭

    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.

  • 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!!

  • 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.

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

  • MartenkayMartenkay ✭✭✭
    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!

  • Mind your own business, Marten!

  • PhilPubPhilPub ✭✭✭
    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.

  • 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

  • MillsyMillsy ✭✭✭
    Only if they are foreign bed bugs. Nothing wrong with good old British ones.
  • 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! 

  • bol saucebol sauce ✭✭✭

    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.

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

Sign In or Register to comment.