Study: Vigorous walking results in larger reduction in risk of early death (17 percent) than running (13 per cent)

I looked at the study. They were comparing "Metabolic Equivalent Task (MET)" scores per hour of activity. I assume that means that 1 hour of walking was NOT compared to anything close to 1 hour of running. Or 1 mile walking to 1 mile running either. If I'm understanding this right, somebody who walks 7 hours / week at 15:00 mile pace (25 miles) is probably compared to who runs much less than 7 hours and something less and 25 miles (Depending on how they figure the MET scores.)

So it's not all that surprising to me that somebody who walks, say, 7 hours- 25 miles / week has lower mortality than someone who runs 2 hours - 12 miles/ week (or whatever the MET calculation yields). This would be especially true if the MET score was calculated based on real running and the subjects were jogging very slow.

From the article:
Based on a compendium of physical activities,16 each activity was assigned a metabolic equivalent task (MET) score, which represents the metabolic rate for that specific activity divided by the resting metabolic rate. The MET hours/week for each physical activity was derived by multiplying the average time spent on the activity (in hours/week) by its MET score. Total physical activity was defined as the sum of specific MET hours/week across all physical activities in each questionnaire cycle.

Walkers have a lot more patience and likely make safer choices. They are less risk takers and definitely not the pain seeking thrill seekers that running attracts. Aside from health benefits, I love the endorphin rush running gives me vs the brisk walk blues feeling you get after (and it takes too long). I live for the speed stuff, the race day adrenaline and also do everything speedy which gives me more probability to lead to a chance of early death.

No one is surprised.

I walk before and after the run so I'm good...........

Exactly how fast do I have to run before it starts to feel thrilling?

I run 4 miles and walk 2 with the dog every day. A lot of people don't have that kind of time available though. The dog also gets his sprinting in at the park. He's atheletic.

There's some old research showing higher lipid utilization at fairly high racewalking intensities compared to running: https://worldathletics.org/download/downloadnsa?filename=d61c1d1a-e2c8-4b62-9573-b86985931d6f.pdf&urlslug=marathon-and-50km-walk-race-physiology-diet-a

I guess there could conceivably be some link between lipid metabolism related to exercise and lifespan (or there might not be, I think it's really hard to say). I'm also not sure what lipid utilization during "vigorous walking" is like.

100 mph or 100 mpw

The dog doesn't jog though. He sprints and he walks.

My instagram feed has a lot of content for longevity and one thing that always pops up is muscle mass during your 70's. And running won't help you there.

Time is the major issue for sure.. I get a quick walk as soon as I get out of bed in the dark ( again, ego, even after 2 years I hate to be seen walking) a quick 2 mile run a couple of hours later running with a couple more miles walking as well ( hiding the best I can ha)

Muscle mass is a problem and after my knees went bad I noticed that creapy? look starting two years ago

Weight lifting not helping that.

I think longevity of life is just luck, pure and simple. This is just simply the lifestyle that I always wanted to live, one as a Ron Hill/David Bedford totally dedicated type running lifestyle even after incorporating walking

Running with shingles is fun too

Not sure if this is pertinent, but last year I ran only. On average I ran about 70 min per day. Some days were longer and some were shorter, with a day off about every 2 weeks. I am 66 years old.

After a month off, I began walking 3 miles every morning with my wife, and running at night. Right now I run 40-50 minutes per night. The running is slow and I am still getting used to walking 3 miles briskly every morning. I hope to be walking 3 miles every morning and then running 60-70 minutes at night by summer.

Since I began walking every morning I feel a lot healthier. I feel that 1 hr in the morning and a light run in the evening would make me healthier and feeling much better than running alone.

One thing I noticed about running is that I feel healthier if I do the exact same training every day. Adding a long run, occasion intervals, an occasional hard 1-hour run, etc, with recovery days, screws with my metabolism. Running 45-60 minutes, day in day out, at a moderate pace, works out better for my overall health.

I suspect walkers have better metabolism they are more likely to do almost the same thing every day.

My gut reaction would be that the positive effects of both are similarly beneficial, but Running carries higher risks in some areas than Walking does.

GO. ONE. MORE.

Lower intensity exercise does burn a higher percentage of fat (lipids). This is related to lower intensity running, below the first metabolic threshold (first ventilatory threshold {gas exchange threshold} or the first lactate threshold), which is easy jogging. A decent description would be an extended warm up jog while still being able to carry on a conversation. This is also what L-carnatine does and what the Norwegian training does, it enhances fat metabolism and shifts the speed curve to the right, meaning one can run at a faster pace before getting into greater amounts of carbohydrate metabolism and accumulating more lactate.

People are forgetting the cortisol issue. Walking works the heart without the high stress to the body that running brings.
We are capable of handling small amounts of stress and adapting to it. But the chronic levels of stress that many runners, who train too hard, too often and too long, expose themselves to, must be at least a little detrimental in the long run.

This is where they get the MET values:

pacompendium.com

2024 Adult Compendium

Steve Herrmann

Below are the 22 Major Headings of the 2024 Adult Compendium for ages 19-59. Select Heading to see Specific Activities and their MET values. At the bottom of the page is the Adult Compendium Tracki???

Open link

These are also used, incorrectly I might add, by a number of smart watch companies that I've checked, although they may be adjusting them in their algorithms, which they don't disclose. Those METs are meant for population research, but they are often being used for individuals without correcting them for age, gender, height, and weight.

pacompendium.com

Corrected METS – Adults

Steve Herrmann

Corrected MET Calculator The Compendium of Physical Activities (Compendium) was developed in the late 1980s for use in epidemiologic and surveillance studies to standardize the MET intensities used…

Open link

Our metabolism does slow as we age, and that Compendium site updated a new category for older adults (>age 60) in 2024, which Rojo's posted study did not use:

pacompendium.com

Older Adult Compendium

Steve Herrmann

The Older Adult Compendium presents the energy expenditure as MET60+ with a baseline value of 2.7 ml/kg/min to adjust for lower resting energy expenditure in older adults. 01 – Bicycling Olde???

Open link

I had my resting metabolic rate tested when I was 55, it was lower (3.14) than the Compendium's conventional standard value of 3.5 mL/kg/min. I'll have it tested again in a few weeks and I'm guessing that it has slowed even more, perhaps closer to the 2.7 older adult MET.

I run and walk (dog), but I like to run to get an equivalent amount of METs in less time, but it takes a conscious effort to slow down on my easy runs as I tend to default to an effort that is probably harder than I should be doing on a recovery run. Plus, for me, walking is at a very low intensity since my VO2max is still quite high (70+ mL/kg/min during that same testing session when I was 55). That VO2 max is ~20 METs (3.5 conventional standard) or 22+ METs (3.14 my measured), but walking at 4-4.4 mph is only 5.5 METs (3.5 conventional standard), which is only ~25-27.5% of my max, which is not considered moderate intensity exercise.

Questionnaires are not as accurate as smart watch data, and smart watch data could be more accurate if they'd use corrected METS. Measuring resting metabolic rate is preferable, but it's not easy to find a place to do it, and for research, most studies can't afford pay the cost.

2 cents

M67 here: I’ve been following this a while. Pro bodybuilders use walking rather than hard cardio because it burns more fat, you don’t pump out cortisol, and you don’t get as hungry. They get shredded just by walking.

But like everything, it’s not black and white. I have a defect in my kneecaps called bipartite patella (basically my kneecaps fused in two parts). It explains why my entire life I cannot walk for long distances, but I can run for short distances. Slow jogging, marathon pace, or walking absolutely kills me.

Holy crap, that's an incredible study for me! Thanks!

Huge win for the race walkers here