T Nation

Walking

You know, I hate when I see some fat guy speed walking down the sidewalk. I know he’s not REALLY doing himself that much good. I know he has convinced himself, however, that he is “working out” and “making headway.”

But walking is not a work out.

And if all he CAN do is walk, then by god, he needs to make “able to run” his immediate priority in his workout goals, and get there.

I hate it. I’ll say something about how these women where I work out are on the treadmills at 3 mph, reading a book. And I’ll say “They aren’t really doing themselves any good”

And someone will say “At least they aren’t sitting at home slacking on the couch…”

And I can’t agree with the statement. They are in the way. They are not getting a workout in, not at all. They obviously don’t even want to be there - they are reading a fucking book TRYING to be elsewhere.

Why do we care if they are at home on the couch. If people are in the gym, not working out, taking up space - I say LET them stay home and slack and eat.

I much prefer THAT to the option of having them at the gym when they obviously don’t want to be there and won’t be getting any results.

Why do people think that way “At least he’s not at home on his couch…” Man. I say let him BE at home on HIS couch

  • not READING SCI FI on my elliptical runner.

So the whole thing is someone was on YOUR eliptical and you got a bug up your ass.

I say–Anyone on an eliptical is as gay as Tony Little. Take your gay ass home because nobody cares.

It must be nice to sit up on your pedastal and proclaim who is worthy of working out and who should just be on their couch. What if that fat slob was a much fatter slob one year ago and has gotten himself to the point he is now by doing what he could?

What if that fat lady reading a book just had major surgery and is recovering? What if she is doing the very best she can right now? What if this is the beginning of her journey to a healthier being?

Don’t like public gyms, build one in your basement. I’m sure you have enough room for a big eliptical down there. Glide away…

You don’t know much about heart rates and how they relate to fitness, brother.

That fat slob walking fast is burning more fat by speed walking than he would if he was running.

You are incorrect. Walking at a fast pace for a long distance is a great way to exercise. It burns fat, doesn’t burn much muscle, and is much easier on the joints than running. It doesn’t give the heart the same workout, but its certainly not useless

The fatasses that occupy the cardio room for countless hours help keep your monthly gym dues low.

Walking is one of the best things a person can do for their overall health.

It will not win you any physique competitions but it is damn good for you.

Agreed with the posters. Who should really get irritated seeing an obese person pace walking?

I see it as a good thing. Walking burns a lot of cals, more than most people think.

BTW why are you wasting time waiting on an elliptical trainer when you could be jumping rope, doing burpees or running outside?

Lift weights in the gym and get the hell out. Unless you have a physical limitation that forces you into it, using cardio machines is generally the lazy way to go.

I kinda appreciate people like that. I mean everytime I want to use the squat rack or find any 60+ DB its there.

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Agreed with the posters. Who should really get irritated seeing an obese person pace walking?

I see it as a good thing. Walking burns a lot of cals, more than most people think.[/quote]

Especially in an obese person. He probably doesnt have the capacity (heart strength) to run in his current state and walking is the best (safest) form of cardio for him.

[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
You don’t know much about heart rates and how they relate to fitness, brother.

That fat slob walking fast is burning more fat by speed walking than he would if he was running.[/quote]

Basically, a negative energy balance is what’s responsible for fat loss, not the percentage of fat burned during a particular bout of training. Run faster and burn more calories - it’s as simple as that. Besides, even if the percentage of fat burned may be lower at a higher intensity, the total amount of fat may be higher.

Factor in the added benefit of a raise in resting metabolic rate, at least after an intense workout, and I guess I’d rather choose running.

Of course I’m aware of the fact that sparing muscle or going easy on one’s joints can be a goal as well and that one must consider the individual level of fitness, but the sole issue in the quoted post seems to be burning fat.

All that being said, I’d be the last person to underestimate the value of NEPA (non-exercise physical activity). I try to get about half an hour to an hour of walking every day (on the way to work, lunch break, etc).

[quote]michael2507 wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:
You don’t know much about heart rates and how they relate to fitness, brother.

That fat slob walking fast is burning more fat by speed walking than he would if he was running.

Basically, a negative energy balance is what’s responsible for fat loss, not the percentage of fat burned during a particular bout of training. Run faster and burn more calories - it’s as simple as that. Besides, even if the percentage of fat burned may be lower at a higher intensity, the total amount of fat may be higher.

Factor in the added benefit of a raise in resting metabolic rate, at least after an intense workout, and I guess I’d rather choose running.

Of course I’m aware of the fact that sparing muscle or going easy on one’s joints can be a goal as well and that one must consider the individual level of fitness, but the sole issue in the quoted post seems to be burning fat.

All that being said, I’d be the last person to underestimate the value of NEPA (non-exercise physical activity). I try to get about half an hour to an hour of walking every day (on the way to work, lunch break, etc). [/quote]

The original poster was looking for sympathy because those darn walkers get in his way and don’t know as much as he does about exercise and health.

You are correct when you say that a negative energy balance is what causes fat loss. You can also cause a negative energy balance by not eating anything for a week, doesn’t mean its optimal

Walking = good for many people
Running= good for many people

Basically, who gives a shit either way. Train for your goals and don’t worry about what someone else is doing

[quote]michael2507 wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:
You don’t know much about heart rates and how they relate to fitness, brother.

That fat slob walking fast is burning more fat by speed walking than he would if he was running.

Basically, a negative energy balance is what’s responsible for fat loss, not the percentage of fat burned during a particular bout of training. Run faster and burn more calories - it’s as simple as that. Besides, even if the percentage of fat burned may be lower at a higher intensity, the total amount of fat may be higher.

Factor in the added benefit of a raise in resting metabolic rate, at least after an intense workout, and I guess I’d rather choose running.

Of course I’m aware of the fact that sparing muscle or going easy on one’s joints can be a goal as well and that one must consider the individual level of fitness, but the sole issue in the quoted post seems to be burning fat.

All that being said, I’d be the last person to underestimate the value of NEPA (non-exercise physical activity). I try to get about half an hour to an hour of walking every day (on the way to work, lunch break, etc). [/quote]

It seems like you are disagreeing with me and then helping make my point, just more eloquently.

The optimum heart rate for burning fat is slower than a higher heart rate obtained when running.

Those who initially start on heart rate monitors are usually amazed at how slow they must go in order to keep their heart rate at the optimum fat burning rate. As their heart becomes stronger their pace becomes quicker, but their heart rate is still the same. And so on and so on. An avid/experienced runner might indeed be jogging/running at the optimum heart rate needed to burn fat, but not the fatties or regular joes.

So the fat slob the OP is talking about would most definitely benefit more from speed walking then running. Less calories burned from fat would be better than more calories burned from muscle in my opinion.

This doesn’t bother me as much as the fat people in wheelchairs because of their obesity. Especially when those same whales are on the treadmill IN their fatboy wheelchairs!!!

DB

P.S. Tony Little uses the Gazelle, not an elliptical. Geesh.

Before I started lifting about 5 years ago, I lost 60lbs by eating a better diet and, you guessed it, walking! I found a good place to walk and found that it realy relaxed me. I still go for walks just to relax or wind down.

[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
This doesn’t bother me as much as the fat people in wheelchairs because of their obesity. Especially when those same whales are on the treadmill IN their fatboy wheelchairs!!!

DB

P.S. Tony Little uses the Gazelle, not an elliptical. Geesh.[/quote]

And if that’s not a form of elliptical, well then I apologize.

[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:
You don’t know much about heart rates and how they relate to fitness, brother.

That fat slob walking fast is burning more fat by speed walking than he would if he was running.

Basically, a negative energy balance is what’s responsible for fat loss, not the percentage of fat burned during a particular bout of training. Run faster and burn more calories - it’s as simple as that. Besides, even if the percentage of fat burned may be lower at a higher intensity, the total amount of fat may be higher.

Factor in the added benefit of a raise in resting metabolic rate, at least after an intense workout, and I guess I’d rather choose running.

Of course I’m aware of the fact that sparing muscle or going easy on one’s joints can be a goal as well and that one must consider the individual level of fitness, but the sole issue in the quoted post seems to be burning fat.

All that being said, I’d be the last person to underestimate the value of NEPA (non-exercise physical activity). I try to get about half an hour to an hour of walking every day (on the way to work, lunch break, etc).

It seems like you are disagreeing with me and then helping make my point, just more eloquently.

The optimum heart rate for burning fat is slower than a higher heart rate obtained when running.

Those who initially start on heart rate monitors are usually amazed at how slow they must go in order to keep their heart rate at the optimum fat burning rate. As their heart becomes stronger their pace becomes quicker, but their heart rate is still the same. And so on and so on. An avid/experienced runner might indeed be jogging/running at the optimum heart rate needed to burn fat, but not the fatties or regular joes.

So the fat slob the OP is talking about would most definitely benefit more from speed walking then running. Less calories burned from fat would be better than more calories burned from muscle in my opinion.[/quote]

To clarify:

I consider the whole concept of an “optimum heart rate” or a “fat burning pulse rate” pretty useless in the given context. Again, in order to lower your bodyfat level, it’s not important how much fat you burn while training but how much you burn over the course of the whole day. Training is relevant when it comes to the total amount of calories burned during the bout, not the question how much of these calories come from fat or carbs.

[quote]wires wrote:
You know, I hate when I see some fat guy speed walking down the sidewalk. I know he’s not REALLY doing himself that much good. I know he has convinced himself, however, that he is “working out” and “making headway.”

But walking is not a work out.

And if all he CAN do is walk, then by god, he needs to make “able to run” his immediate priority in his workout goals, and get there.

I hate it. I’ll say something about how these women where I work out are on the treadmills at 3 mph, reading a book. And I’ll say “They aren’t really doing themselves any good”

And someone will say “At least they aren’t sitting at home slacking on the couch…”

And I can’t agree with the statement. They are in the way. They are not getting a workout in, not at all. They obviously don’t even want to be there - they are reading a fucking book TRYING to be elsewhere.

Why do we care if they are at home on the couch. If people are in the gym, not working out, taking up space - I say LET them stay home and slack and eat.

I much prefer THAT to the option of having them at the gym when they obviously don’t want to be there and won’t be getting any results.

Why do people think that way “At least he’s not at home on his couch…” Man. I say let him BE at home on HIS couch

  • not READING SCI FI on my elliptical runner.[/quote]

Where are your pics? I need to see them before determing whether you are worthy of lifting in a gym, or whether you should stay on the couch. Please post your pics…

To add to my previous post:

In this article, Alwyn Cosgrove goes into more detail with regard to the point I am trying to make…
http://www.alwyncosgrove.com/Energy-System-Training.html

To the OP: if somebody in the gym is running on the treadmill at, say, 85% of his MHR but he/she is staring at a NFL game on TV for all of 30 minutes, then despite that intensity of exercise, would you say that person would rather be elsewhere?

Cardio is very boring. Personally I’d rather do it outdoors where I’ll have more to look at, but if you gotta do it indoors (because of weather and such), you might as well do something that will make you hate it a little less.