The virtues of walking vs. running for health? [Archive]

lucindaj

14-Mar-06, 10:50pm

Found this on Web MD:

"All things being equal, you will burn more calories by running an hour than walking an hour. It is true that walking a mile will burn more calories than running a mile -- although it takes longer to do so. When you run a mile, you're burning mostly sugar, or carbohydrates, which is how your body gives you fast energy in bursts. When you walk a mile, it gives your metabolism time to switch from burning carbohydrates to burning fat.

The risk of injury -- whether shin splints or knee injuries or back pain -- is directly proportional to the intensity of exercise. So is the risk of sudden cardiac death. Walking gives you most of the health benefits of more intensive exercise while minimizing these risks. More is better, but only if you do it consistently.

So, if you want to burn the maximum amount of calories, then run for an hour rather than walking for an hour. But do it consistently; otherwise, you're better of walking."

Having said (quoted) this, a point to note is that when you run, you activate all of your gluteal muscles. When you walk you don't activate all of these muscles.

You may want to consider mixing it up and doing some interval training ie. walk, run, walk, run for periods of time when you're out for a session.

LowJohnny

15-Mar-06, 01:25am

Walking to lose fat is like beating off while wearing a baseball mit seriously.

crowy

15-Mar-06, 02:48am

so that where ive been going wrong...........

both with beating off and loosing fat.

Optimus Rhyme

15-Mar-06, 03:51am

If weight loss is your only goal walking is better, unless you are already really fit.

I wanted to lose weight and was trying to decide which way to go. But fact is I'm not incredibly fit, and I didn't really care about increasing my fitness, I just wanted to lose weight.

Walking is way better if this is your situation. You need to be excercising and in motion for at least 20 minutes before you even start to burn any fat whatsoever.

So i decided to walk. I've lost 15 kgs so far. It works. Haha and I was never obese.

But all this taken into account, the best thing to do would be go for a long walk, make sure you've been walking for a solid half-hour to an hour, and THEN run until you are tired, which is what I've started to do. I still can't run for huge amounts of time, so if I do it at the end of a long walk at least I know I am burning fat when I'm doing it.

tim-e

15-Mar-06, 06:49am

Another vote for walking. I do it, with some cycling, and have lost 9kg since I began. The keys are to 1. walk more than 20 minutes, and 2. do it every day.

I can't run anyway, I get the worst shin splints, and I have fucked knees from playing netball, and fucked ankles from playing basketball when I was younger. :(

xxnu

15-Mar-06, 07:59am

Walking to lose fat is like beating off while wearing a baseball mit seriously.

"I like to imagine I'm getting a handjob from a giant..."

try walking up hills if you can't be assed running or find it hard getting the motivation to go for a run.

Cranker

15-Mar-06, 08:24am

Interval training FTW Walk-Jog-Run Repeat

Citizen

15-Mar-06, 08:35am

Walking is way better if this is your situation. You need to be excercising and in motion for at least 20 minutes before you even start to burn any fat whatsoever.

So i decided to walk. I've lost 15 kgs so far. It works. Haha and I was never obese.

You lost 15kgs thru walking?!!

Erm, i don't really need to lose wieght (maybe just a wee bit), but it is more just to get some regular exercise. I sit in front of a computer most of the day and if I'm working heaps, my diet is crap and i don't get to exercise.

I'm just looking to stay fit and healthy, and there fore need to make the most of the short periods of time that I have to exercise. I'm lucky if i can find 30mins three times a week.

(PS: What the hell are gluteal muscles?!)

Chunky

15-Mar-06, 08:41am

This thread is hillarious. You got all the big fat ass bitches telling you that walking is better and all the super fit people telling you running is better. I know which one i'd choose.

smilla

15-Mar-06, 09:32am

supa

15-Mar-06, 09:39am

I do the walk/jog/walk/jog thing.

I find that I get really sore muscles down the sides of my shins if I walk too much though. Is it because I am trying to walk to fast?

Is a brisk walk as good for you as a power walk?
the soreness is just because you've increased your activity. once you've done it for a while your body will adapt and you'll stop being sore.

on the other hand people with shin splints from running would be better to back off a little and do some strengthening exercises so the muscles in their legs can better support them. then they could follow a routine where they ran until their shins hurt (which may be immediately) then walked for a while.

icing any niggles you have straight after exercising also helps. massage will help at the other end of the day (NOT just after/before you exercise) to help loosen up any strains.

but yeah the end conclusion is: increasing your activity levels is good. if you can run then do so. if you can't then go out for a long walk and as you advance put little running spurts in between your walking.

emskina

15-Mar-06, 09:49am

This thread is hillarious. You got all the big fat ass bitches telling you that walking is better and all the super fit people telling you running is better. I know which one i'd choose.Nice assumption buddy, that those advocating walking are all fat asses.

I walk because I have screwed up ankles and my physio advised that I should not be doing any running on hard surfaces. It's also a cheaper option than joining a gym to use their exercise bikes, as I have a small apartment and can't fit any equipment in there either.

I have lost 7kg through walking. I was already well within the recommended weight range for my height etc before I lost this weight. So, not a fat ass bitch by any means.

Msraver

15-Mar-06, 10:10am

I run twice and powerwalk twice a week, and have done for years. There's no doubt you'll lose more fat running. But vigorous powerwalking with a controlled diet will shift heaps of weight too. Yes running is obviously more high impact on the joints. I used to get very bad shinsplints until I bought good shoes, got orthotics made and started stretching properly. I also have a bad back which sometimes gets jarred when I run. I find the walking strengthens it, so it's a balance. I only run on hard surfaces as I found that, running on grass, my feet were coming down at a different angle everytime, and aggravating the shin splints. I haven't had them in several years now. Just my experiences anyway.

Davomaxi

15-Mar-06, 10:27am

For me personally running was the best for losing weight.

Mickstah

15-Mar-06, 12:29pm

Aw chunky, the irony in that statement.
:lol:

The irony indeed.

I'd say 20 mins of walking then build up to jogging then running then warm down to walking again. Then again recently I've begun half hour of kayaking, then jog then run then jog then another half hour of kayak. Wonder how long that will last :P

Kayak - excellent upper-body workout :thumb:

Chunky

15-Mar-06, 12:33pm

Nice assumption buddy, that those advocating walking are all fat asses.

I walk because I have screwed up ankles and my physio advised that I should not be doing any running on hard surfaces. It's also a cheaper option than joining a gym to use their exercise bikes, as I have a small apartment and can't fit any equipment in there either.

I have lost 7kg through walking. I was already well within the recommended weight range for my height etc before I lost this weight. So, not a fat ass bitch by any means.

Considering most people that have advocated walking in this thread have stated that they are actually overweight and are looking at losing weight, i'd say that *most* people in this thread who advocate walking are in fact salad dodgers.

Anyone who is about 15/20kgs overweight should have no problem running, and if their joints hurt maybe they should try bike riding.

Any high intensity exercise will give you better results than a walking, not only that it will speed up the process.

Debz

15-Mar-06, 12:38pm

I wouldn't diss the walking either - my sis lost about 13kg just from going for walks each night - consistently - for about an hour each time and has kept the weight off by doing so. She walks along the beach though so a bit better than just walking along a footpath. She has also added on top of this yoga and pilates, so not extremely strenuous types of exercise. She was never overweight either, just had a bit of extra wobbly bits here and there from having 2 kids!

Dbauch

15-Mar-06, 01:03pm

Why not combine walking with bike riding?

I have a knee injury and can't do high impact exercise... but I still raise my heart rate by doing spin classes and using the cross-trainer... if you dont have the cash to join a gym then buy a second hand bike... you will always use it because it will be a lifestyle choice

lucindaj

15-Mar-06, 01:08pm

(PS: What the hell are gluteal muscles?!)
Gluteal muscles are your backside / ass.

liz_r

15-Mar-06, 01:14pm

I am fit, not at all overweight, and I prefer to walk. I have problems with my hips, and I get a lot of pain if I run too much. Plus, for some reason, I really just don't enjoy it. It's not a matter of fitness, I can run a decent distance if I want to, I just like walking more.

I chose to do fitness classes and cycling for high intensity cardio.

magictorch

15-Mar-06, 02:26pm

Walking is good for burning calories (though not as good as running), but it is not vigorous enough as exercise to provide much benefit for your heart or lungs and reduce your chances of suffering from cardiovascular problems. Cardiovascular disease is the cause of death for a very large proportion of people in Western societies, and you can drastically reduce your chances of getting it by doing vigorous exercise for at least half-an-hour, a few times a week.

This means something that raises your heart rate and leaves you slightly short of breath at the very least. For the majority of adults, this means something a bit more intense than walking.

alowflyingpig

15-Mar-06, 02:33pm

I run at least 3 times a week and run for approx. 3.7km..

Keeps me fit and in shape.

Optimus Rhyme

15-Mar-06, 02:47pm

Yeah Citizen, for your situation if fitness and whatnot is your goal, running is better, definately.

Msraver

15-Mar-06, 02:52pm

I can really recommend rollerblading too for an aerobic activity which is low impact on the joints - except for when your nose hits a metal bridge before the rest of you does!... (Not recently, in case any of you ask...)

Anyways, got the day off, might go for a run shortly! :)

moylo

15-Mar-06, 02:54pm

CYCLING FTW... still the most efficient form of transport created... plus i got a dodgy knee n when i run for too long i cant move my leg the next day...

emskina

15-Mar-06, 02:57pm

Considering most people that have advocated walking in this thread have stated that they are actually overweight and are looking at losing weight, i'd say that *most* people in this thread who advocate walking are in fact salad dodgers.

Anyone who is about 15/20kgs overweight should have no problem running, and if their joints hurt maybe they should try bike riding.

Any high intensity exercise will give you better results than a walking, not only that it will speed up the process.It's the way you said it. And seeing you can't read with comprehension either, I will phrase it a little differently for you.

Some people can't do high impact exercise such as running due to prior injuries. Some people don't want/can't afford to pay for a gym membership or don't have room for exercise equipment at home.

Walking is a good alternative form of exercise and will still allow you to improve fitness and burn calories.

And Dbauch - my place is just way too small to fit a bike in there! I'd practically have to sit on it to eat my dinner or watch TV. :)

Msraver

15-Mar-06, 05:35pm

Anyways, got the day off, might go for a run shortly! :)
Faaantastic run, did anyone say the endorphins are better when you run rather than walk?... :)

mike_L

15-Mar-06, 05:52pm

Yeah Citizen, for your situation if fitness and whatnot is your goal, running is better, definately.Running beats walking for fatloss hands down. And the harder you run the more calories your body burns while you sit on your ass just after you run. After you finish walking and sit down your body goes back to fatty mode.

So the ideal thing is to push yourself as hard as you can. But if for some other reason you can't run (injury, weak joints, recessive softcock gene) then walking is obviously a better alternative becasue running was never an option anyway.

If anyone wants to get schooled on Interval training search for HIIT in the buffed thread and have a look at that little puppy. That is one fast way to burn fat off your body while simultaneously feeling like your heart is going to explode lol.

In any event, diet is 10 times more important than what exercise you are doing for fat loss.

mike_L

15-Mar-06, 05:56pm

Some people don't want/can't afford to pay for a gym membership or don't have room for exercise equipment at home.

Walking is a good alternative form of exercise and will still allow you to improve fitness and burn calories.You wont improve fitness by walking (Marzy back me up here I'm just wingin it lol).

But anyway, you;re allowed to run on the street you know, you don't have to go to a gym, you just run where u would walk :P Running on treadmills exerts less energy because you are not driving yourself forwards, only upwards; so you're better off running on the ground :thumb:

Optimus Rhyme

15-Mar-06, 05:57pm

Running beats walking for fatloss hands down. And the harder you run the more calories your body burns while you sit on your ass just after you run. After you finish walking and sit down your body goes back to fatty mode.

Not if you are unfit, like I said. Read the whole thing first, then comment. Obviously, if you can run for as long as you can walk, it's better, many can't.

It's an important distinction... if someone can only run for 20 mins until they need to stop, they are only excercising anarobically (sp?) and not aerobically.

mike_L

15-Mar-06, 06:14pm

Not a chance. Anaerobic exercise is things like weight lifting, sprinting etc. I'd say runnign becomes aerobic once you get your 2nd breath, which might take a few minutes?

In any case, anaerobic exercise is good for fat loss too because it depletes your glycogen stores, and in order to replenish them after you're done your body burns calories.

I did read your whole post first . How do you think you are going to get fitter? By walking forever? You just have to push yourself. So many people think they can't run because they never actually push themselves into their second breath. Running for 20mins is an honest effort to someone who is unfit anyway.

I'm assuming that if someone is asking "should I walk or run" that they can run. So in answer to the thread I'd say yes, running is better for fitness. And in answer to the fat loss debate, running is proven to be more efficient at burning fat.

Obviously, if you can run for as long as you can walk, it's better, many can't.:lol: who can do that? being scared of running or having shit stamina doesnt change the bimechanics of your body. If you're too unfit just run as much as you can and make up the rest of the energy exertion through walking until you improve.

Optimus Rhyme

15-Mar-06, 06:51pm

I did read your whole post first . How do you think you are going to get fitter?

You are just not listening. I never said or implied that walking does anything for fitness, and when citizen said fitness was his goal, I suggested running.

And in my initial post I suggested walking for a while to take care of the anerobic, and then run, using the intensity of running, as opposed to walking, purely aerobically.

Jesus fucking Christ.

mike_L

15-Mar-06, 06:57pm

I was arguing the science of fat burning, not how lazy some cunt is.

SpaceMonkey

15-Mar-06, 06:59pm

CYCLING FTW... still the most efficient form of transport created... plus i got a dodgy knee n when i run for too long i cant move my leg the next day...

Word. One of my knees is fucked so running's a no-no, but I cycle to work every day and love it.

Optimus Rhyme

15-Mar-06, 07:01pm

It doesn't matter what you were arguing because you directed it at me, and it was irrelevant to what I was saying, the angle I was coming from and for which people in which situations I was referring to.

So the question is why direct it at me rather than just saying it, hence my comment.

Anyway hopefully it is all cleared up for you now.

mike_L

15-Mar-06, 07:11pm

lol rhymes....but what's the point of recommending walking over running if you cant run anyway....isn't the answer obvious then?

My argument was directed at you because I think saying "im too unfit to run" is just an easy way out of doing some hard work that would yield awesome results. My bad though, not everybody has the same priorities as me.

Moving along, as I said earlier - diet is a big factor, dont forget that people :P

spudy

15-Mar-06, 07:23pm

so much internet hate these days :lol:

i concur, running is better then walking

but also, dont overlook swimming... it's tops.

Marzy

15-Mar-06, 07:26pm

Read this and stfu

Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism.

Tremblay A (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Tremblay+A%22%5BAuthor%5D), Simoneau JA (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Simoneau+JA%22%5BAuthor%5D), Bouchard C (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Bouchard+C%22%5BAuthor%5D).

Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada.

The impact of two different modes of training on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism was investigated in young adults who were subjected to either a 20-week endurance-training (ET) program (eight men and nine women) or a 15-week high-intensity intermittent-training (HIIT) program (five men and five women). The mean estimated total energy cost of the ET program was 120.4 MJ, whereas the corresponding value for the HIIT program was 57.9 MJ. Despite its lower energy cost, the HIIT program induced a more pronounced reduction in subcutaneous adiposity (fat) compared with the ET program. When corrected for the energy cost of training, the decrease in the sum of six subcutaneous skinfolds induced by the HIIT program was NINEFOLD greater than by the ET program. Muscle biopsies obtained in the vastus lateralis before and after training showed that both training programs increased similarly the level of the citric acid cycle enzymatic marker. On the other hand, the activity of muscle glycolytic enzymes was increased by the HIIT program, whereas a decrease was observed following the ET program. The enhancing effect of training on muscle 3-hydroxyacyl coenzyme A dehydrogenase (HADH) enzyme activity, a marker of the activity of beta-oxidation, was significantly greater after the HIIT program. In conclusion, these results reinforce the notion that for a given level of energy expenditure, vigorous exercise favors negative energy and lipid balance to a greater extent than exercise of low to moderate intensity. Moreover, the metabolic adaptations taking place in the skeletal muscle in response to the HIIT program appear to favor the process of lipid oxidation. If running hurts your joints, use an exercise bike. It's not the type of cardio that matters, but the intensity at which you do it. Running, swimming, cycling, rowing ... same shit as long as you go balls to the wall.
Unless you're obese there is no reason to walk for the fatloss - ever.
It's a pretty dumb option to take when you think about it.
Because most people walk for 40-60 mins (fucken yawn) ... when you could just be going all out for 20 mins. That's reason enough for me to run, and thats not even taking into account the fact that it will get you ripped about 10x faster (seriously).

:lol: and the funny thing is, that study compared intervals to a fast jog and it was several times better. Imagine if they compared it to walking :lol:

:slap:

Now I understand this thread was about health benefits, i.e. more than fatloss. But it seemed to go off on that tangent so I thought id put an end to the bs.

Chunky

15-Mar-06, 07:31pm

It's the way you said it. And seeing you can't read with comprehension either, I will phrase it a little differently for you.

Some people can't do high impact exercise such as running due to prior injuries. Some people don't want/can't afford to pay for a gym membership or don't have room for exercise equipment at home.

You fatties always have an excuse not to exercise.

And what�s with all the hate? I thought you people were meant to be jolly.

Optimus Rhyme

15-Mar-06, 07:32pm

It is intensely obvious that walking should not be the be all and end all of your excercise. But some people do NO excercise and it's a very good place to start if you are very overweight or unfit or yes, lazy. It is a very easy and effective way to lose weight. Fact. You're right mike, the key is priorities. Some people just can't be fucked running or dont want to, or don't care about increasing fitness and whatever.

And word on the swimming... it's my new favourite.

Marzy

15-Mar-06, 07:57pm

It is a very easy and effective way to lose weight It's actually quite ineffective.

You may as well just eat less because walking offers little to no benefit to the fat burning process during and more importantly after exercising. So essentially youre just burning your ~300 calories when all you had to do was eat one less chocolate bar.

p.s. diet is much more important than cardio when trying to lose fat. Notice i said FAT not weight.

Optimus Rhyme

15-Mar-06, 08:02pm

It's actually quite ineffective.

You may as well just eat less because walking offers little to no benefit to the fat burning process during and more importantly after exercising. So essentially youre just burning your ~300 calories when all you had to do was eat one less chocolate bar.

p.s. diet is much more important than cardio when trying to lose fat. Notice i said FAT not weight.

OK well I haven't measured my body fat percentage then as opposed to now, and I have since adjusted my diet and added a lot more excercise, but i lost 10kg really quickly just by going on a walk each night. I was never obese.

spudy

15-Mar-06, 08:06pm

Optimus Rhyme

15-Mar-06, 08:11pm

power walking etc is ok, you get your heart rate up. not by just strolling somewhere... but if doing that there is no reason why you couldnt run in the first place, and get better results. i think thats what everyone is getting at. you are just hampering your gains

Yes, exactly. that's why it's a good place to start for people who are really unfit/overweight.

But there's only so much you can do walking, and for comntinued benefit further excercise will have to be added to one's regimen.

magictorch

16-Mar-06, 11:27am

The problem with recommending that people walk for their exercise is that there are some people out there who will deliberately take that to mean that they can get off the bus two stops earlier every day and that will be enough for them to improve their fitness and help reduce weight - let's face it, some people are just lazy. Walking is so ineffective that it isn't uncommon for thin people who walk everywhere all the time to have higher cholesterol than fat people who do regular cardio.

Now apart from recommending walking to people who are physically incapable of running (or other forms of cardio), we really shouldn't be telling people that they are doing themselves a lot of good by walking when they can do so much better with regular cardio, which is not much extra effort. There is a great deal more benefit to cardio over walking for little extra time or effort.

but also, dont overlook swimming... it's tops.

It's tops for improving your overall fitness, but if you are specifically trying to lose weight, it might not be your best bet. Allegedly, swimming has little effect on weight loss.

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/swimming.htm

liz_r

16-Mar-06, 11:39am

I walk on the beach every morning or evening because I enjoy it.

I really don't like running, so I do high intensity cardio classes for fitness a few times a week.

I'm quite fit, so I do believe that you can get fit without necessarily running your arse off several times a week, as long as you do some form of cardio. If you don't like something you are less likely to keep it up, so if you don't like running find some high intensity exercise you do enjoy (I love my body combat classes and dancing classes in particular).

Walking is good for those days when you don't do cardio though, as it gives your body a bit of a rest but still means that you are doing something active.

Citizen

17-Mar-06, 06:54am

Ok, wow - a lot of different opinins on this matter, gee!

I can run for 10 minutes solid - which is about my limit (I think!). Am I wasting my time if I can't run for at least 20-30mins solid, as some people suggest?

What is "interval training"? Is it alternatiing between two activities- ie, walk, run, walk, run

Msraver

17-Mar-06, 09:22am

Citizen, I've always been slim but used to be very unfit. When I started running I was puffing badly after 500m. Now I can run the City to Surf. If you can run 10 mins without stopping you are already well on your way. Interval training can be run-walk, run-walk, or run-rest-run, whatever routine you want to devise for yourself. I am a horse rider/trainer as well and we also use interval training to build up horses' fitness for eventing (cross country jumping).

Citizen

18-Mar-06, 02:58pm

Cool, so I don't need to run for 20-30mins non-stop?

And you can keep your City to Surf! :P

SPOKEYDOKEY

18-Mar-06, 08:24pm

how about running from masked men holding sharp knives?

littleblonde

19-Mar-06, 11:47am

At the moment to get my fitness up & shed a few extra kg's i'm doing interval training (run-brisk walk-run). So far I'm happy with the results & it's working, so i advocate both. I also walk everywhere as we don't own a car.

By way of those saying running is better to lose weight, perhaps quickly, but i know a lot of people who have lost over 10-15kgs by walking. It does the job & does less damage to your joints.

Msraver

19-Mar-06, 04:57pm

Cool, so I don't need to run for 20-30mins non-stop?

And you can keep your City to Surf! :P
It's up to you, depending on how fit you want to be and whether/how fast you want to lose weight. If you're already running 10mins non stop, you're probably covering about 2 kms in that time.

You're absolutely right, not everyone wants to do the City to Surf. I wonder why I'm there sometimes myself! If I do it again this year then I'm probably going to walk it instead of running. That's purely because I've been so competitive with myself the last few times, I haven't enjoyed the sights and the atmosphere at all. I've also realised I've got no intention of getting any fitter than I already am, I'm no Kerryn McCann!

easternmyke2000

19-Mar-06, 05:34pm

For general health walking would be sufficient. If you want to lose weight/get fit you need to lift your heart rate to a certain point and keep it there for 20 to 30 minutes at least twice a week. It all depends on your current fitness levels if you are unable to run for 20 to 30, run for say 5 minutes and walk for 5 minutes. As your cardio system strenghtens you'll eventually be able to run the whole lot.

If your goal is to get fit or lose weight you should be aiming at lifting your heart rate to a certain level and keeping there. that level is dependent on your current fitness and would change as you get fitter meaning you would have to soon have to run to get it there.

Make sure you combine cardio with weight training also, as the more muscle you have the more efficient your body becomes at burning fat. Finally watch what you eat make sure you combine your meals properly with adequate protein, carbs, and vegetables...

easternmyke2000

Redl1ne

20-Mar-06, 10:53am

if running takes 20 mins to do the same job that 60 mins of walking does, that creates 40mins extra eating time where they can stack it all back on! for this reason walking can be considered better for the overwight because they will rarely walk and eat at the same time (though it is possible) and every second that they aren't eating pies is helping them out...

emskina

24-Mar-06, 01:29pm

But anyway, you;re allowed to run on the street you know, you don't have to go to a gym, you just run where u would walk :P Running on treadmills exerts less energy because you are not driving yourself forwards, only upwards; so you're better off running on the ground :thumb:Bloody hell, did you even read my whole post?

I am talking about not being able to run because of prior injuries or joint issues.

You fatties always have an excuse not to exercise.

And what�s with all the hate? I thought you people were meant to be jolly.
Again try reading my posts. Here's a tip: take your hand off it and some blood might actually reach your brain.

Where did I say that I didn't exercise?

krafty_x

24-Mar-06, 02:18pm

1. I'm not fat and never have been.

2. I can't run for health reasons.

Brisk walking and swimming are what I'm restricted to.

I"ve also practiced yoga for 6 years now.

k_x oxo

Lockz69

24-Mar-06, 03:55pm

I run about 28kms per week for excercise...

Not because im super keen... not because I wanna lose weight or any other reasons...

I just really hate walking... I dispise it..

So instead i absolutly slog myself as fast as I can around the track...

I know that surly Im doing way more work that those that are just walking.. I got my heart rate up... im sweating profusly.. by the end i feel like dying... Its a real workout..

However, im constantly getting sore/sprained/stressed muscles in my legs ect.. and am thinking if its worth it..

So id say if you really want to lose weight/get fit/make the most of it.. then run and risk injury

or for the safe bet.. walk (shudder)

spacedstace

26-Mar-06, 08:05pm

I am not a fat girl and never have been. I have never been overly sporty either. But I run just to keep fit and to feel good about myself.

I do interval running most nights for about 40 mins, plus sit-ups, push-ups and stretching at the end.

For those people having trouble finding the motivation to run, I recommend listening to great tracks that make you feel like dancing. The music is great to energise you and get you wantint to move.

Also, even tho i think it's important to push yourself, I reckon when you first start out, don't go too hard on yourself. Make it manageable so that you don't kill yourself and dread doing it again. When I first started I mostly walked and ran a bit, because I got shin splints. Now I mostly run, it's just a matter of getting your body and particular muscles used to it.