Why is walking always viewed so negatively on letsrun when many of the experts promote it?

wtfaysaying? wrote:

tinman. wrote:

I don't think so. Swim and bike are vastly superior and less time consuming.

swimming and biking are less time consuming than walking? Please explain. Thanks.

30 minutes swimming or 30 minutes of intervals on the bike and you have done a good workout. 30 minutes of walking is nothing. You would have to walk hours to get similar benefit.

tinman. wrote:

wtfaysaying? wrote:

swimming and biking are less time consuming than walking? Please explain. Thanks.

30 minutes swimming or 30 minutes of intervals on the bike and you have done a good workout. 30 minutes of walking is nothing. You would have to walk hours to get similar benefit.

That's because you walk too slowly.

And by talking about intervals, you are confusing the intensity with the training mode. Those are two separate things.

You can learn to walk fast for more intensity, or you can walk uphill on a treadmill and make it as difficult as you want to make it- and it will be more similar to running than biking or swimming.

In summary - biking, swimming, or walking can all be useful cross training for runners- and you are underestimating walking because you assume it must be very low intensity (i.e. low heart rate).

Walking is recommended as exercise for fat people. It is low impact and sustainable. Fat people can do it without getting injured. They often can't run. It is not an efficient form of exercise (it takes 2+ times as long to walk 10K as to run them) and it doesn't get the heart rate elevated.

It's much better than nothing, and anyone trying to be seriously fit ought to walk or bike everywhere and never get in a car. Walked kms are kms too. But it's not running.

I went through a period where I didn't exercise except for the walking in my daily life (I don't use a car, so this was normally about 10k). It kept me from getting fat rapidly, but certainly didn't keep me fit. Far better than nothing, and far less than exercising.

One has to contextualize what one reads. First, the "experts" aren't. Sports scientists/doctors in general are mostly quacks and incompetents. The people quoted in newspapers are likely to be publicity hounds, which is a contraindicator to quality. Second, most of what is in the media is directed to the average population, which is mostly fat and doesn't want to work hard.

It is FALSE that you can not get your HR elevated by walking.

If an old runner wants a non-running recovery day of aerobic stimulus that is beneficial to running performance, fast walking is excellent. If you think walking is "too easy", then you are ignorant about walking.

If you want a "hard day" of walking, that is possible also, especially on a treadmill (hills).

Of course, runners who are capable of running daily should run daily.

If you want to get fast then run don't walk. If you want to be healthy walking is great. Unfortunately my body can't handle much running anymore so I walk with a weighted vest while carrying Indian clubs. I don't care how silly it might look, it gets my heart rate up and it burns extra calories.

I really like this post and the voices of reason. I, too, have always used walking in my training. I have also walked full marathons and half marathons in the past before running (most) of them [I still walk some]I put my name as Mr. El Camino because had I put Stoppit Smith, I would have been trolled here for weeks.However, it is nice to see how many real runners do also walk, as well.I like to run, but I would not give up my walking, as well, for the world.It mirrors what many of those experts who make money for their advice say.Thank you.I am glad to see this.It is also nice to see that many of the good runners here are also good walkers.

During the 2016 Comrades Marathon, the eventual ladies winner (Caroline Wostmann) did the unexpected while going up Botha's Hill, which is only about 35km or so into the race. She walked. A deliberate and planned walk of about 1 min. The commentators were blown away, social media erupted with surprise, the king of Comrades who was commentating in studio (Bruce Fordyce) couldn't believe what he was seeing. Never before had a leading contender chosen to follow a run/walk strategy so soon in the race. It wasn't long before she did the same thing again on the next big hill, and again after that.

She ended up winning the race in 6:13, which wasn't a record due to the slightly longer course as a result of road works and detours, but her average km split showed that she had technically run the fastest Comrades Up run in history of the ladies race using this strategy.

Her average km split during the last hour was faster than the men's winner on the day. This was purely because the walk breaks allowed her to conserve energy while her competitors ran themselves into the ground

There's a well-studied "cross-over" pace at about 12:30 where walking is "harder" than running. Walking at that pace raises your heart rate higher than running at that pace. That's because running uses a different biomechanics than walking, and it becomes relatively more efficient at faster paces.

Walking is the more efficient way to cover super long distances without a clock ticking in the background. Running is more efficient if you are competing against the clock.

Because most people here think that race "walkers" are actually running, in that on virtually every stride both feet are off the ground.

Example:

https://youtu.be/EOYdS5QZasM?t=13

The actual rule is that both feet must be on the ground "visible to the human eye". Except of course if you capture it on video or in a picture that isn't visible to the human eye?

I read that Seko walked something like 30K on the track when he couldn't run.

Some walking can be an effective part of the recovery process. The Japanese have used long walks (2 hours or more) and even a guy such as Joe Rubio has mentioned making or allowing for walking during super compensation days. This would be interspersed during the recovery run.

For those who've gotten a little older, it's possible that all recovery runs should include at least some walking less the stress of the run becomes to high. It's certainly worth experimenting.

Walking and trail running go hand in hand.

If the hill is steep, it is almost always faster to walk than run. Running does allow you to slightly faster up steep hills but it much harder on the lungs and legs. The net benefits of running up steep hills are negative.

When doing a long run or a recovery run, every runner should be walking up steep hills. It allows the body to keep a low heart rate and recover well to hammer the next workout.

BTW1:Every XC skier users walking as a central part of their training. Even the best XC skiers walk up hills during runs.

BTW2: The hardest workout I ever did was ski walking. bascially speed walking up at hill for three mins repeated 18 times.

How does fast walking compare to slow running in terms of stress on the body? Shuffling along at 10 minutes per mile might be easier than walking 12:00 per mile.

Zlatan wrote:

How does fast walking compare to slow running in terms of stress on the body? Shuffling along at 10 minutes per mile might be easier than walking 12:00 per mile.

I am 67yrs old and a mid-19s 5K guy when healthy. In the process of rehabbing runner's knee and piriformis strain injuries I have been doing nearly all of my recovery work (~7 miles on those days) walking in the 14:00-14:30/mi pace range. For me, heart rate walking at that pace is very close to running at about 10:00/mi pace. The joint and tendon stress of walking are drastically less than running for me. On my running days my legs feel much fresher and my paces are noticeably quicker than when I was running on recovery days.

tinman. wrote:

Why would you walk when you could bike, swim or elliptical though? You can hammer intervals and get much more bang for your buck with little stress on the body.

Because walking out my front door and being outside is more fun.

currently experimenting wrote:

Zlatan wrote:

How does fast walking compare to slow running in terms of stress on the body? Shuffling along at 10 minutes per mile might be easier than walking 12:00 per mile.

I am 67yrs old and a mid-19s 5K guy when healthy. In the process of rehabbing runner's knee and piriformis strain injuries I have been doing nearly all of my recovery work (~7 miles on those days) walking in the 14:00-14:30/mi pace range. For me, heart rate walking at that pace is very close to running at about 10:00/mi pace. The joint and tendon stress of walking are drastically less than running for me. On my running days my legs feel much fresher and my paces are noticeably quicker than when I was running on recovery days.

Interesting. My pirformis flares up pretty bad after running. I started walking only and took time off. But when I was walking at 15min/mile pace, my pirformis got pretty irritated afterward. 17-18 min walking pace put a lot less strain.