What to choose - walking or running?
Last reviewed: 16.10.2021
All iLive content is medically reviewed or fact checked to ensure as much factual accuracy as possible.
We have strict sourcing guidelines and only link to reputable media sites, academic research institutions and, whenever possible, medically peer reviewed studies. Note that the numbers in parentheses ([1], [2], etc.) are clickable links to these studies.
If you feel that any of our content is inaccurate, out-of-date, or otherwise questionable, please select it and press Ctrl + Enter.
Among the few free sports are singled out by jogging and walking. The pros and cons of such trainings have been debated for a long time. The fact that a sedentary, sedentary lifestyle is harmful to all systems of the human body remains proved.
According to experts in the fight against excess weight is helped by running. Studies of the American journal published data of a large-scale project of the Lawrence Laboratory, in which more than 40 thousand admirers of running and walking participated. At the beginning of the test, we measured weight, waist circumference, recorded dietary habits, diet compliance, daily distance traveled. After a certain period of time (maximum 6 years), scientists noted the greater harmony of runners in the beginning and after the experiment. They managed to control their weight better than walkers.
Particularly noticeable results were observed among the participants of the group for 55 years. Runners of this age in a week managed to burn the same number of calories from which the elderly participants who chose to walk got rid. True, their indicators such as body mass index and waist circumference, were characterized by smaller values than pedestrians of the same age.
Naturally, more calories burned during the run. However, it is obvious that runners and walkers spent about the same amount of calories in a week's interval. This is due to the fact that the pedestrians overcame longer distances than their rivals could run out.
No less interesting experiment on the effect of the activity on appetite was conducted by employees from the University of Wyoming. We studied a group of nine women runners and ten walkers. The essence of the study was to observe the expenditure of energy and the presence of a hormone in the blood that affects the appetite. Representatives of both groups trained for about an hour on the treadmills for about an hour. After they were invited to the buffet, not limiting the choice. And then it was noticed that the ladies, who chose walking, consumed about fifty calories more than they could burn at a walk. While running subjects, they tasted an average of two hundred calories less. In their blood, a substance was also found that reduced the strength of appetite.
Actively moving people are less prone to developing age-related cataracts, which can not be said about lovers sitting on the "fifth point". Based on the research, there were no problems with blood pressure, cholesterol, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, both in runners and walkers. To reduce the risk of heart disease by almost 5% helps daily running for an hour. If walking can manage to squander the same amount of energy, then the risk group falls by 9%. It is noted that walkers for burning the equal amount of calories with runners have to spend more time for a walk and overcome a greater distance.
Walking is chosen by people who are difficult to run or have contraindications for health. Yes, and a lot of walking is a lot - sports (among other things, the Olympic discipline), Scandinavian with ski poles (ousted even popular jogging), etc. For every taste, as they say. In any case, an active way of life is more beneficial than "buying corn" in a soft place. Still lacking in motivation? I would like to note the following: the latest experimental data showed that among the people sitting for an hour a wild thirst for food awoke, which eventually turned into a search, at least three hundred calories.
Conclusion suggests one - a mandatory jog before eating!