Walking has long been touted for its various low-impact mental and physical health benefits, especially for those who need activity the most and are limited by constraints of exercise tolerance to "just" walking rather than jogging, cycling or juggling live cobras. But researchers at the University of Alberta have concluded -- ar at least emphasized -- that walking may not be as beneficial in terms of overall health as more vigorous forms of exercise.
As a marathon runner, I understand the key differences between walking and running. Exercising at a higher intensity lowers my resting heart rate, helps me sleep better at night, and improves my 10K time to a degree that no amount of walking could, and it's more efficient by any measure (a nine-mile run takes me about an hour, while I might cover four miles or so by walking for the same amount of time). But most people aren't concerned with how their exercise regimen impacts their road-race medal collection, nor should they be. During periods where I've been unable to run, walking has emphatically proven a mood-booster, motility regulator, and overall boon, and I say as much while freely admitting that as an exercise addict I find walking wanting as compared to running. Pointing out that slower walking is not as useful by some metric(s) as is faster walking or jogging is both misleading and superfluous.
The Canadian team seems to be sending the wrong message -- that if you're not exercising hard, don't bother. They don't seem to have examined nearly as many of the relevant health parameters as one would expect in such an investigation, and have in effect said that if you're not raking in big-time dough, you might as well reconsider being employed at all. Their message is exactly what North Americans, growing heavier by the hour, don't need to hear.
Comments
I understand your final comment, but on the other hand, I've come across people who think that their "exercise regimine" of a 30 minute stroll and some gardening on the weekends is all they need. My experience as a teacher tells me that people will tend to fall into one of three groups: 1. Those who are highly motivated and will do more than you ask, 2. Those who are somewhat motivated and will (maybe) do the bare minimum that you ask, and 3. Those who will do next to nothing no matter how much you beg, cajole, or threaten. When it comes to exercise, people like you and I tend to fall into group one (and these are the folks who might tend to overtrain, too). Lots of Americans fall into group three and their idea of exercise is 12 ounce beer curls while watching football. No amount of "University recommended exercise reportage" is going to nudge them. Group two, though, may just increase their efforts a bit. I find that when teaching, people will often live up to (or down to) your lowest expectation of them.
I have always thought that the minimums presented in the past were too light, suspecting that most folks who do anything will only do the minimum. The biggest problem that I see now is that if you tell folks to do X when they were told to do Y before is that their reaction will be "If you keep changing your tune then you don't know what you're talking about" and quit doing anything.
Posted by: Jim | September 22, 2006 12:37 PM