Could I substitute LISS for a 90min-2hour walk that doesn't raise my HR too much?

I really enjoy going to the gym at night and walking on the treadmill for a long time because I don't have a TV and the gym has personal TVs on each treadmill. When I do it, my HR is usually around 90 when I check...I don't know what my RHR is....I don't break a sweat, that's why I'm wondering if this is helpful or not.

I'm most concerned with diet and lifting, and I don't dislike cardio, but I'd rather spend 90min. or so watching TV at night than 30 min. on the bike or walking up hill at a higher rate. Also my mp3 player is broken, so cardio is a HUGE drag right now...
-Andrew

p.s. I tried to search and find a thread with this question as I'm sure many people have asked this...sorry for the repeat.

LISS will not increase HR much anyway. It would still be LISS even if take it really easy...And doing really low intensity "LISS" for 90 min should be OK. It will burn some fat.:)

If you want to do this for 2 hours+ and prevent muscleloss you could start drinking a pwo-drink after the first hour. Drink some of it after 1 hour, drink some more 10 min later and continue like this.

Your HR being at 90 is quite slow. How slow are you walking?

Either way, I'd bet 1.5-2 hours walking is a great way to burn fat. There is of course only one way to find out. :)

Yeah, I walk really slow.

When I do my normal LISS I do 15 min. warmup as a walk to the gym that is brisk (usually up to about 100-110 when I get on the bike/treadmill..i only do uphill walking, no jog/run), then I stay at 130-150 (aiming for 150-155 to get a 150 average), then I cool down on my 15 min. walk back.

Now I'm talking about a slow paced walk where I don't break a sweat, but do it for 3 times as long...I still have to walk 15 min. to the gym, 15 min. back, then about 90 min. walking whilei'm there...

Think of it this way- walking a mile burns as many calories as running a mile. It just takes longer to travel the same distance. If you like walking, then walk.


Yeah, I walk really slow.

When I do my normal LISS I do 15 min. warmup as a walk to the gym that is brisk (usually up to about 100-110 when I get on the bike/treadmill..i only do uphill walking, no jog/run), then I stay at 130-150 (aiming for 150-155 to get a 150 average), then I cool down on my 15 min. walk back.

Now I'm talking about a slow paced walk where I don't break a sweat, but do it for 3 times as long...I still have to walk 15 min. to the gym, 15 min. back, then about 90 min. walking whilei'm there...

Walking is one of the best ways to burn fat if you have the time. The issue is that you have to walk quite a bit to burn significant calories, but if you have that time, great! Walking is low impact and your body can easily recover. This is why when cutting for photo shots I'd use walking - for me, to burn more calories, I'd do it on hills and sharp inclines.

Jeremy

Think of it this way- walking a mile burns as many calories as running a mile.

Whoa, I'm really confused now...wouldn't the level of physical exertion cause more calories to be burned because you are more active.

If I walk a mile in 20 min., and you run a mile in 3min56sec (I know you're that quick tennisball, don't be modest!), wouldn't you burn a TON more calories than me?

What type of goals should I shoot for in a 1-2 hour walk, if not HR? Distance? I'm not even sure the treadmills do distance, or if they do it's in meters or some system like that...

Whoa, I'm really confused now...wouldn't the level of physical exertion cause more calories to be burned because you are more active.

If I walk a mile in 20 min., and you run a mile in 3min56sec (I know you're that quick tennisball, don't be modest!), wouldn't you burn a TON more calories than me?

What type of goals should I shoot for in a 1-2 hour walk, if not HR? Distance? I'm not even sure the treadmills do distance, or if they do it's in meters or some system like that...

You burn a bit more calories if you are running a mile compared to walking a mile. But the difference is small and not very significant..a few percent.

If you run a mile as fast as you can your body will only use carbs as fuel. If you walk your body will use fat instead. But this is not significant if you consider the whole 24 hour period. You will burn more fat when resting if you use only carbs and no fat when doing cardio...it will be the same when the day is over...If you eat the same food.

I would assume if you run a 4min mile, the EPOC (Excess post-exercise oxygen consumption) will be higher than a normal 20min mile walk. This would contribute to higher caloric expenditure over the course of your cooldown and activity later in the day.

zen knows a lot more about this than I do- I hope he chimes in.



Whoa, I'm really confused now...wouldn't the level of physical exertion cause more calories to be burned because you are more active.

If I walk a mile in 20 min., and you run a mile in 3min56sec (I know you're that quick tennisball, don't be modest!), wouldn't you burn a TON more calories than me?

What type of goals should I shoot for in a 1-2 hour walk, if not HR? Distance? I'm not even sure the treadmills do distance, or if they do it's in meters or some system like that...

Whoa, I'm really confused now...wouldn't the level of physical exertion cause more calories to be burned because you are more active.

If I walk a mile in 20 min., and you run a mile in 3min56sec (I know you're that quick tennisball, don't be modest!), wouldn't you burn a TON more calories than me?

What type of goals should I shoot for in a 1-2 hour walk, if not HR? Distance? I'm not even sure the treadmills do distance, or if they do it's in meters or some system like that...

There are a few parts to this. It SEEMS like running harder would burn a ton more. But think about this ... if you run it less than 4 minutes, you might burn calories at a faster rate, but you're doing it for a much shorter time.

It turns out that there are two things that contribute to burning more calories from an intense workout ...

1. EPOC - as mentioned above, your metabolism will be elevated longer so you would burn more in the long run. However, this is over time and doesn't "kick in" DURING the run

2. Ultimately, it's efficiency of work. The calories burned are based on the work it takes to go the distance. If you look at your mass over distance, etc, you'll find speed or rate doesn't factor into it at all. It's the distance. HOWEVER, when you are running harder, there are certain inefficiencies that come into play and adjustments your muscles must make due to the heavier impact/footfall/etc - these add up to slightly more calories burned.

Here's an example:

http://www.primusweb.com/cgi-bin/fpc/actcalc.pl

I plugged in 200 lbs for weight and then 30 minutes duration.

Running: 10 mph (6 min/mile) 960 calories
Walk: 2 mph (30 min/mi) 150

So basically, we have running @ 5 miles = 960 calories
Walking @ 1 miles = 150 calories

(Each is "miles per hour" but the duration was 30 minutes).

So what if we walked 5 miles? It would take longer (2 1/2 hours versus 30 minutes) but the calories burned would be 150 x 5 = 750 calories.

So, you do burn more running it ... but it's not a major difference. In this case, walking 2 1/2 hours versus running all out for 30 minutes straight is the difference of just 210 calories. Over time, makes sense, but then you have to weigh that against increased risk of injury, etc, from running (And then think of the extra calories you'd burn in the 24 hours AFTER the run for doing it intensely).

Jeremy

Walking a mile burns the same amount of calories as running a mile. But since running a mile will take shorter time and more effort, it'll raise your metabolism higher than walking a mile. In the end, with the raise in metabolism counted, running burns more.

Walking a mile burns the same amount of calories as running a mile. But since running a mile will take shorter time and more effort, it'll raise your metabolism higher than walking a mile. In the end, with the raise in metabolism counted, running burns more.

you beat me!!!:lol:

As a corollary to Jeremy's point #2

Work done = force x distance

From a strictly theoretical mechanical viewpoint, speed and time taken to cover that distance is irrelevant to the amount of work done. But in reality as you switch from a walking gait to a jogging to a sprinting gait, your centre of mass displaces more in the vertical axis each stride. So you are actually covering a larger distance.

Lemon,

In the past, I have used walking almost exclusively as a means to lose body fat, and it has worked like a charm. Now, like many others on this forum, I use a combination of high-intensity cardio, low-intensity cardio, and weight training. But in the past, I have used long-distance walks to torch down calories (8 - 12 miles in a session).

I will say this about long-distance walking: Pay very close attention to how your knees and feet feel during the course of a week. Don't tackle 40 miles of walking in a week if you've only been walking 20 in previous weeks.

While walking is low-impact and gives you reasonably low recovery times, you can find yourself facing repetitive stress injuries if you don't give your body time to adjust to increased distances. I speak from experience on this one-- walking 36 miles a week in San Francisco, I developed a rather painful case of plantar fasciitis in my right foot last year. (This was probably exaggerated by the insane amount of hill climbing and descending one does walking in San Francisco.)

As an aside: You've got to be the first person I've met that has used television as a reason to hit the gym! ;)

Best,
E.

Lemon,

In the past, I have used walking almost exclusively as a means to lose body fat, and it has worked like a charm. Now, like many others on this forum, I use a combination of high-intensity cardio, low-intensity cardio, and weight training. But in the past, I have used long-distance walks to torch down calories (8 - 12 miles in a session).

I will say this about long-distance walking: Pay very close attention to how your knees and feet feel during the course of a week. Don't tackle 40 miles of walking in a week if you've only been walking 20 in previous weeks.

While walking is low-impact and gives you reasonably low recovery times, you can find yourself facing repetitive stress injuries if you don't give your body time to adjust to increased distances. I speak from experience on this one-- walking 36 miles a week in San Francisco, I developed a rather painful case of plantar fasciitis in my right foot last year. (This was probably exaggerated by the insane amount of hill climbing and descending one does walking in San Francisco.)

As an aside: You've got to be the first person I've met that has used television as a reason to hit the gym! ;)

Best,
E.

E,
I've never done HIIT and I stumbled on this as a possible "substitute" for LISS. Maybe someday soon I will want to play basketball one day a week or two days a week, but I'd prefer just to do some walking.

Today I walked on the treadmill for 90 min. and it takes me 30 min. to walk to and from the gym. Total of 2 hours.

I don't know how to tell how much distance I am walking, but I think my HR reaches a max of about 100. I could get a pedometer but I'm really just not that interested in knowing. What I am interested in is using my walking time to my advantage.

Today when my feet started hurting I stopped immediately, and I've never had knee problems. I have excellent posture so I'm sure that helps me in the walking capacity.

Finally, the TVs are great! Today I brought my dictionary and watched the Israeli soap operas! What a way to study, right?! For some reason (maybe for immigrants) Israeli TV shows are subtitled in Hebrew...so I can hear it, read it, and if I need to look up a word my dictionary is there! ...and now I'm going to try to start going around 6pm so I can catch each episode in sequence!!

-Andrew

I find that tv shows+fitness is a great combo. I record shows throughout the week and pop it in my garage tv in front of the treadmill. Sometimes when I feel pumped, I run, but mostly I just walk for an hour or so. It's great, makes you want to actually go walk too.

I find that tv shows+fitness is a great combo. I record shows throughout the week and pop it in my garage tv in front of the treadmill.

Definitely so. I remember my father used his stationary bike for years in front of the television. Over the years he put on over 14,000 miles watching M*A*S*H and ballgames.

Commercials are great for interval training. As soon as you hit the commercial break, try going all out for the 30 or 60 seconds, then scale back for next commercial, etc. No clock watching required.