I like this study because it seems to confirm my personal experience with aerobic exercise. Running is not required. Walking gets meaningful results.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/nur.4770130403
Research finding same benefits from moderate or low intensity exercise long term
charlie3
(charlie3)
#1
Bobt
#2
Walking is extremely important for continued mobility. If you don’t get off the couch the chances for a fall when you do ( for older individuals especially) increases substantially. That is one of the biggest fears for my parents. Regardless of how many “calories” it burns, it is important to keep the walking muscles in shape.
atomicspacebunny
(Bunny)
#3
I agree with you on that, I apply the same concept to lifting weights, resistance training or any kind of locomotion or physical exertion in general and I could write real long and endless post about why but the science is clear to me about the how and why.
Alex_PN
(Alex )
#4
I’ve been told by 3 personal trainers now, that as far as weight loss goes, you may as well walk, rather than run and avoid the stresses on your body from the higher impact. Even if you look on the cardio machines in a gym, you’ll see the optimum fat burning zones are usually in the “moderate” effort zone, not high end.
Don_Q
(Windmill Tilter)
#5
Lol. That is what the stickers say, but they’re made for carb eaters. I burn more fat on my couch on a fasting day than a whole pilates class does put together right after eating “healthy whole grains”.
Bobt
#6
Body physique is about 85% diet. The biggest thing that I get as far as weight loss goes from exercise is that it mentally keeps me more focused. “Why punish my body and then go eat a bunch of junk nullifying all the effort.”
Even if you work out hard if you have a bunch of fat hiding your effort it won’t do much good. Diet is where it is.
Don_Q
(Windmill Tilter)
#7
Physique is a bit nebulous since it includes both fat % and muscle mass. I’d say that 99% of fat loss is diet, and muscle gain is 50% diet & 50% exercise. Losing fat is a hell of a lot easier, and a hell of a lot less complicated than gaining muscle!
That’s my experience anyway.
charlie3
(charlie3)
#8
My frustration is body fat and muscle mass track closely. I can add muscle with reletive ease but a Pyric victory if it’s covered in fat. When I diet down fat and muscle decline together.
I get a couple of benefits from exercise/activity besides heatlh, etc. My RMR is about 1600-1700 calories. I do an additional 800-1100 calories of exercise daily. Other things being equal I get to eat those calories. It’s easier to get all the micros when I’m eating more and over all I feel less hunger.
During the last summer season, 6 months, I walked 50 miles a week, 2 hours a day. My resting heart rate trended down about 5-7 bpm during that time. These days I’m spending most of that time on my airbike which is still easy work and burns a lot more calories for about the same perceived effort and less wear and tear. 5.5 calories per minute walking and 9 calories per minute on the airdyne.
ctviggen
(Bob M)
#9
Anytime someone says the science is clear, they are usually wrong. For me, the science is never clear. Ever.
Even in this area, there are studies indicating walking allows one to lose weight. However, then there’s this, which seems to show that running is better than walking:
Some people have a theory that low energy exercise causes less intake, but that’s a difficult sell for me. You mean if you walk a mile instead of jog/run one, your body doesn’t mind the extra calories from walking but doesn’t like the calories from jogging? Makes no sense to me.
I think if YOU think something helps you to meet your goals, whatever those might be, then that’s what’s important. If that’s walking, then so be it.
Bobt
#10
I played competitive sports growing up and have no desire to ever incorporate running back into my life. I’ve seen too many people that require knee replacement surgeries later on in life. I’ve seen people lose tons of weight by running (a lot of them take it as far as running in 5k races). The transformations are super, but in reality how long is their body going to endure the high impact of it?
atomicspacebunny
(Bunny)
#11
I agree with you on that but what I like to look for is indicators that give me clues as to what might going on, two different bio-analytical methods or more. And most importantly can it be replicated as Dr. Peter Attia puts it. And can it be replicated in a double cross-blind placebo to exclude paradox. It is a revolving door of variables like a slot machine sometimes.
And also on the difference between walking and running thing, running could mess with your set calorie intake because exercise can be like restricting calories if your constantly doing it too much even if your eating a whatever you want and how much you want diet can be the same as eating nothing, so you may end up short on calories thus throwing you into constant state of starvation and slowing down your metabolism.
The more you exercise then restrict calories and fast on top of that is not good (muscle atrophy), the more calories you need to build muscle, to speed up the metabolism or you end up making a small fatter un-muscular version of yourself.
Adipose to muscle ratio is the most important, the more fat than muscle you have, the harder it’s going to be and when you constantly starve yourself for long long periods of time you just gain it all back because you don’t have the muscle volume needed or involved in the oxidation process of carbohydrates.
charlie3
(charlie3)
#12
I’ve always had a bad attitude about running. I’m glad to have alternatives. Among other things, seems like everyone who runs for years consistantly has injuries. Good for them, not for me. The wear and tear would be a source of inflamation which takes energy and resources to fix. I’d rather use those resources improving cardio efficiency.
Another bias I have is never being worse than borderline overweight. I needed to get rid of 30 lbs of fat. 2 years ago dieted down from 170 to 140, lifting all the way but ended up too skinny. Today I’m near 160. At least half of that is lean tissue and wouldn’t mind another 10 or 15 lbs of muscle if this 71 year old body is willing. But in the mean time being healthy has to override other considerations. I should want to be healthy more than I want to be ripped. I think walking is as health promoting as running and has the advantage of less wear and tear but might take more miles and time to get comparable health outcomes.
My secret weapon is the vintage airdyne in the basement. I can work as hard on that as running, burn the same calories per hour as running, without the wear and tear.
Shinita
#13
People lose fat by walking too (and eating better or at least not too much, of course)… But running is normal for a land animal so I want to learn it. I don’t want anything excessive, just some marathons now and then but nowadays I start to realize it might be too much for me, even in 1-2 decades. It’s a little distance for walking but running?
Of course, we should be careful but some running should be fine. I won’t run as much in my life as some people in a year, I won’t do the biggest mistakes, running is pretty normal though yep, we are humans, we run on 2 legs and I am a woman with normally wide hips but really, some careful running can’t be so bad. And the alternative is surely worse, I dislike too much restrictions, it harms the quality of my life. That’s important too.
(I rode my bike in winter too. Rarely and carefully 
Knees are usually mentioned regarding that.)
Moderate or high intensity exercise is so different from low intensity ones, I can see the charm.
Walking is nothing, it’s as easy as sitting to me and it’s not exciting at all. Except power walking with certain twists but that’s not low intensity 
And when I ride my bicycle, it would be super boring to do it at low intensity all the time. Not like I can avoid hills here but if they don’t come, I totally need to ride as fast as I can sometimes, it’s fun and feels good to my body as well. So I see higher intensity exercise a very good idea to me even if I don’t get particularly healthier (but I am sure it helps. without proper exercise, just walking without elevation, I am in a worse shape, it’s clear when I try to do something slightly harder).
charlie3
(charlie3)
#14
keeping below aerobic threshold favors mostly fat burning and minimal sugar burning. Higher intensity burns mostly sugar. I believe I get enough high intensity all-out-effort from resistance exercise. I’ve learned that maxium effort is valuable, but not very often.
charlie3
(charlie3)
#15
Here is another study that seems to validate my approach. The authors say there is good evidence that aerobic exercise creates hypertrophy more than the reverse, in young and old. They also seem to be saying that aerobic and resistance training will leverage each other.
atomicspacebunny
(Bunny)
#16
A really fascinating subject to me when discussing hypertrophy is ADP (Adenosine diphosphate, also known as adenosine pyrophosphate) and ATP (Adenosine triphosphate), and AMP (Adenosine monophosphate). The interaction between them are the molecular micro motors; what move your body parts against gravity.
Moving your arm up ATP starts firing and down ADP is created.
ATP->AMP->ADP give the energy and locomotion needed to create hypertrophy.
Footnotes:
[1] “…ATP first binds to myosin, moving it to a high-energy state. The ATP is hydrolyzed into ADP and inorganic phosphate (Pi) by the enzyme ATPase. The energy released during ATP hydrolysis changes the angle of the myosin head into a “cocked” position, ready to bind to actin if the sites are available. …” …More
[2] “…ATP, ADP, and AMP differ in the number of phosphates and the amount of energy obtained by each compound. ATP stands for adenosine triphosphate. ADP stands for adenosine diphosphate. AMP stands for adenosine monophosphate. Therefore, one difference between ATP, ADP, and AMP is the number of phosphates associated with each compound.
Another differences between the three molecules is the amount of energy stored within each molecule. Simply put, the more phosphates, the more energy stored. Thus, ATP has the most stored energy and AMP has the least amount of stored energy. ATP is the main energy source for most cellular functions. ATP is created during cellular respiration in the mitochondria of eukaryotic cells. During cellular respiration, the sugar called glucose (C6H12O6) and oxygen gas (O2) is converted into carbon dioxide gas (CO2), water (H2O), and ATP. The energy within ATP is released in order to perform everyday cellular functions as phosphates are removed. …” …More
[3] Creatine Enhances Energy Production: Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is the most basic form of energy in your body’s cells. It plays a fundamental role in metabolism and muscle function. Unfortunately, you can only store enough ATP for 8–10 seconds of high-intensity exercise. After this, your body must produce new ATP to match the demands of the activity (4Trusted Source). Performing exercise at maximum intensity requires more ATP per second than your body can produce (5Trusted Source). This is one reason why you can only sprint at full speed for a few seconds. Your body’s ATP energy simply runs out. Creatine supplements increase your body’s stores of phosphocreatine, which is used to produce new ATP during high-intensity exercise (5Trusted Source). In fact, just a 6-day creatine load followed by a 2 gram/day maintenance dose can drastically elevate your muscle stores, as shown in the graph below (5Trusted Source, 6Trusted Source).
[3] Is taking creatine bad for you? Some early research also suggests that creatine is POSSIBLY SAFE when taken in doses up to 10 grams daily for up to 5 years. Creatine can cause stomach pain, nausea, diarrhea, and muscle cramping. Creatine causes muscles to draw water from the rest of your body. …More
[5] “…Creatine occurs naturally in many foods that we eat. Fresh meats like beef, pork and fish are excellent sources of creatine. A pound of fresh beef contains around 5 grams of creatine, while 1 pound of red meat contains around 2 grams. A pound of salmon and tuna contain around 4.5 grams of creatine. …” …More
[6] “…Creatine (Cr) supplementation associated with resistance training produces greater muscular strength improvements in the upper compared with the lower body; however, no study has investigated if such region-specific results are seen with gains in muscle mass. …” …More
charlie3
(charlie3)
#17
I tried creatine for a couple of months and finally realized the only claim is if it’s acting beneficially it increases the ability to create more intensity. I don’t need that because I’m trying to gain for as long as possible, not fast as possible. That priority also means I can do less of everything else which should reduce the risk of injury and over training. Currently I’m doing 1 set of 10 exercises every 48 hours. Over the summer I was doing 3 sets of 8 exercises twice a week. I’m finding a lot of research papers on fat metabolism. Going to keep reading those.
atomicspacebunny
(Bunny)
#18
I really doubt that we can exclusively burn fat for energy/fuel the human body is continuously switching fuel sources although we may think we are by some ones definition because of what appears to be the exogenous source, it is more about natural metabolic flexibility not about eating more or less of a type of food to get an essential calorie or micro-nutrient? Glucose can in fact also be oxidized by the fat cell itself before it is stored as a lipid droplet of fat.
Because I eat fat I’m burning (oxidizing to ATP ect.) ketones for fuel?
Because I eat protein I’m burning (oxidizing to ATP ect.) amino acids for fuel?
Because I eat carbohydrates I’m burning (oxidizing to ATP ect.) Glucose for fuel?
That does not make sense to me, if it were that simple there would be no problems.
There can be no one exclusive supraphysiologic process or calorie exclusively from diet, it is not possible.
image link image link
Footnotes:
[1] High Fat Diet
This is contextual, and depends on the composition of your diet overall. Eg total calories , the relative contribution of fat type to total calories, dietary antioxidants, fibre intake and refined carbohydrate intake.
In the context of a ketogenic/low carb high fat diet, a high fat intake may not be indicated here (providing these diets are rich in antioxidants, fibre and balanced in fat type).
But generally:
- A low intake of n-3 polyunsaturated fats decreases insulin sensitivity and MF (*)
- A high intake of saturated fats decreases insulin sensitivity and MF (*)
- A high intake of n-6 polyunsaturated fats (and low n-3) is pro-inflammatory and decreases insulin sensitivity (*)
- A high intake of trans fats reduces Insulin sensitivity (*)
- Monounsaturated fat improves Insulin sensitivity when switching from high saturated fat (*) …More
[2] “…Glucose is converted into glycogen to replenish its stores in the liver and muscle. Although some glucose may be oxidized in muscle, fatty acids are the major fuel consumed by muscle. Excess glucose is then converted in the liver into *fat
(triglycerides), which is stored in adipose tissues. …” …More
[3] Section 16.1 Oxidation of Glucose and Fatty Acids to CO2
image link image link image link image link[4]
charlie3
(charlie3)
#19
A core principle of low carb is it’s better to burn more fat and less sugar and we can encourage that with diet and exercise. So the way I encourage it is eating 70% fat, 20% protein, 10% carbs, plus 1.5 - 2 hours daily of low heart rate training that burns about 1100 calories a day, mostly fat. For good measure I lift about 90 minutes a week which should be consuming some glycogen so there’s more places for carbs I eat to be stored.
Don_Q
(Windmill Tilter)
#20
From an evolutionary perspective, it seems probable that more primitive and firmly hardwired intracellular nutrient-sensing networks of the cell override hormonal stimuli when the signals disagree.
The metabolic inflexibility paper is mind bending, but amazing. I would love to hear Dr. Fungs take on it. It’s way over my head, but I think I’m at least getting the gist of it.
The quote above jumped off the page and organized many disparate, incomprehensible, ideas into a framework. As an explanatory principle, it causes a lot of ducks to fall into a row. It was worth reading for that alone.
Just to check if I’m on the right track, the author is arguing that insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome are largely the consequence of metabolic inflexibility resulting from mitochondrial confusion when overnutrition saturates all 3 energy pathways simultaneously rather selecting a single energy pathway appropriate to one of the discrete points of the nutrition cycle.
Am I at least stumbling in the right direction?