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

Just wait Pal. I’m 75. A track coach at the highest level for many years and a pretty good competitive runner in my time. I still run a bit but it’s mostly walking now. Ah, the ignorance of youth.

I think these are all good points. The authors mostly want to draw conclusions about total activity level and activity variety in relation to mortality risk. Comparisons between activity types are not part of their statistical analysis.

Re: your point 2) It’s also interesting that because of how they decided to construct groups differently for different activities, the comparison group for walking is ~the bottom quarter of the whole study population for total activity whereas for running the comparison group is 90% of the study population and much more active on average than the walking comparison group.

Last thought - if you are running 3+ hours a week, you are not really represented in this study.

This is old news. The ground breaking study on this was done by some guys in SC 20 yrs ago. Russ Pate and Steve something. This was the study that gave rise to "30min 5 days a week" that every doctor quotes. Very large prospective study.

I always wondered how they know someone died early.

You die when you die. It's not like we're born and they say- You're dying 64 years, 230 days from now.

Then you die 58 years 139 days later. THAT'S an early death.

Also, if there's an early death that implies that there must be a late death.

But seriously, I personally prefer very light jogging and stopping to walk when you feel like it to just walking when it comes to fitness.

Maybe because I've been running for over half a century just walking doesn't seem to so anything for me.

Oh no, running miles and miles endlessly is not optimal for not dying? Really? Have we been living a lie? Who would’ve thunk?

I find this to be a very strange comment:
"Swimming didn’t show a measurable benefit in this dataset—possibly because “swimming” can mean anything from floating around to hard laps."

and...how is that true of only swimming? The exact same thing is true of running (or walking).

Agreed. Though why would anyone non-pro even want “performance”, whatever that means? No one needs to be very strong or fast in the modern world that is designed just fine for reasonably intelligent small 100’ish lb individuals to navigate it with ease.

Performance just for the sake of a hobby isn’t even in the same league as health considerations or in the top 10 concerns in my life, even as someone who enjoys running regularly. If a genie offered me a 10% improvement in running performance or lifting performance or whatever, I’d be like meh and probably ask what else is on the wish menu.

Blue Zones are the small handful of locations in the world where people live the longest. A disproportionate number live past 100.

Walking a lot is one of the key components that distinguishes a Blue Zone.

Without knowing about this study, I have been walking briskly since I damaged my left achilles tendon three months ago. I have found that walking 5K in 38 minutes (just over 12 minute miling) actually feels harder than if I broke into a trot - which I can't do as it hurts. Even so my average HR is only 100 to 110, I suppose this is what ultradistance types do.

Both running and walking have modest longevity benefits. Runners on average live ~3 years longer than non-runners. Large studies to that effect [1] are observational following subjects who are actively running (though very few really geriatric people continue running at all), so they can’t show causation. In fact, some twin studies suggest that much of the longevity benefits may reflect an underlying healthy phenotype (so possibly some reverse causation or no causation).

Walking is just as good or better for longevity, just that it takes 3-5x longer time to achieve the same cardiovascular benefits as running. Walking can increase your life expectancy by 5.3 years [3] (though the pop sci article for the same [2] claims “11 years”). Walking unlike running is safe and sustainable till the very end even for very old people, and more importantly directly translates to and can be coupled with a daily activity that is essential for a fulfilling life.

[1]

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Leisure-Time Running Reduces All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality Risk

Although running is a popular leisure-time physical activity, little is known about the long-term effects of running on mortality. The dose-response relations between running, as well as the change in running behaviors over t...

Open link

[2]

prevention.com

Scientists Say Walking This Much Could Add Up to 11 Years to Your Life

Hitting the target may significantly increase your lifespan.

Open link

[3] https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/59/5/333

I think the ideal exercise regime for longevity and aesthetics is a combo of walking and lifting.

When I was younger I would see people walking on the Monmouth County, NJ boardwalks and wonder why they just didn't run!! Now that I am 65 I think the exact opposite. I still run, but really enjoy going out for a walk occasionally. Don't worry about pace or time just go for a walk!!

i agree the MET score argument is goofy, putting your thumb on your own scales, and question-begging.

my answer is it's complicated. i personally think you get better health benefit from running. i feel better and if i get my numbers taken, they show up improved, relative to walking. however, my experience running beats you up more which might result in either more time off or "playing hurt" more than a strict walking regime.

so a trade-off.

given the superior health benefit, normal week, run about half the week, mix other things the other half including walking. both recreational and walk the dogs every day.

so either/or is goofy. you can do both.

don't know if you read the journal pieces posted but the pro-walking article says it's great for you if you walk 160 minutes a day. as in, nearly 3 hours. most of us wouldn't have that time, or the daylight, to do it. and retirees with that much time are probably not doing 8-10 mile daily hikes to hit that number.

plus i wonder if they have cause and effect backwards. ie that someone who is already trim and fit, who did something like hike 2-3 hours a day, would then be healthy if tested. and you could say the hiking did it, but they are doing 3 hours' walking a day because they're already a unit. so to speak. and that can't be many middle aged or older people.

most people i know if they hopped off the coach and did more than an hour walking, they would be beyond sore the next day, or over a series of weeks, things would start to sprain or tear or get tender.

to be fair, i have noticed past a point either running or walking your metabolism really kicks in. however at an older age, if you haven't built up and don't do it regularly, your friends tendonitis and such also start coming to visit.

Not sure about the study but the article does not say WHY walking was so effective. It also contradicts itself when the take home message is.variety, which would apply to walkers as well.

Dammit, I've been walking and running too much in my life. I'm not out here trying to live to be 60, so its really counterintuitive to that goal. I will do what I enjoy, life extension be damned.

Remember when Queen was asked to write the score for that epic film, "Flash Gordon?" They not only nailed it, but they raised a really relevant musical question:

I, for one, am jealous of Brian May's luxurious full head of hair! But, that is beside the point. Why do we treat everything as if it has to be optimal, when even less-than-optimal results are good?

Exercising in any way for any amount of time will give you health benefits. Period.

Well, look at the time...already shared my opinion in the most obnoxious way imaginable. Guess it's time to move onto other things...