New research: To walk or run?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2002
New research: To walk or run?
8
Tue, 04-15-2003 - 2:40pm
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/15/1050172598125.html

I heard about this on the radio this morning AND E sent me this link with his own comments.

Any comments from the gallery?

Judie (who's looking outside at the gorgeous 85 degree day while she's stuck in an office building)

Judie Image hosted by Photobucket.com

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-20-2003
Tue, 04-15-2003 - 2:48pm
I think it makes sense. I don't think of it as walking vs. running, but being in your target heart rate vs. being below your target heart rate. A stroll is better than doing nothing, but I think race walking can be as good as, if not better than, jogging.

Is it 85 there already? One reason I don't think I'll ever get back in the office work force is that I hated being inside on a nice day. I miss the pay, but it's great being outside biking while everyone is heading inside to work.






iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Tue, 04-15-2003 - 3:13pm
I read the article in my local paper. I'm not sure I agree with the findings. The article I read says that moderate exercise does nothing to prevent heart disease or prolong life. It says the only people in this study who benefited from exercise, were those who exercised vigorously. One study isn't enough to persuade me that moderate exercise isn't beneficial, especially when there are so many other studies that say 30 minutes of moderate exercise IS enough to have healthy effects on the heart. I think it's dangerous to tell the public that is has to be all or nothing because too many people will choose nothing. Even moderate exercise helps people at least FEEL better and then once they've become accustomed to moderate exercise, many begin to add more vigorous exercise to their routines.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-20-2003
Tue, 04-15-2003 - 3:41pm
Are they different articles? The one Judie posted said:

Australian doctors said the results correlated with previous studies showing heavy exercise was more beneficial than light exercise, but they stressed that even a small amount of light exercise was better than none...

He said at least five bouts of 30 minutes of light exercise each week was recommended, though there was some evidence that 10 workouts of 15 minutes may be just as beneficial.



That goes along with what you're saying that light/moderate exercise is beneficial. I agree that if you tell people it's all or nothing, a good number will just not bother.






iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Tue, 04-15-2003 - 3:52pm
Yes, they're different articles but based on the same study. The article I read said that light exercise only helped people FEEL better but didn't do anything to help the heart. I guess it depends on who's reporting...
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Tue, 04-15-2003 - 3:57pm
Try this article, it's a little different but based on the same study. It's hard to get the truth, isn't it?

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/5635365.htm

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-20-2003
Tue, 04-15-2003 - 7:33pm
That's interesting. It makes you wonder about studies (since I'm constantly quoting them). No wonder people are so confused about how much exercise, etc.





iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Wed, 04-16-2003 - 9:28am
i think the studies might be testing different things. the study that came out that said people should get an hour of exercise a day was based on burning calories to keep weight down, and the resulting health benefits that come from mananging a healthy weight. the studies that say that low level exercise has benefits are probably also measuring the benefits from the calorie burning of the exercise. this is a huge health benefit to most of the population because most of the population is above the range of healthy weight. but it's not new news that to improve cardio health directly from exercise, you have to get your heartrate up - that's been the recommendation all along. (though i also agree that it is possible to get your heartrate up from walking, maybe the people in the study were doing leisurely walking at like 2.8 mph, not a power walk at like 3.8 or 4 mph.)

so if this new study dealt with people who were already a healthy weight, it makes sense they didn't do their heart much good unless they got their heartrate up. we all already knew that. of course, that doesn't mean there isn't a psychological benefit to starting at a low level of exercise, so that once a person is in the habit of exercising regularly, they can bring up the intensity, etc. etc.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-20-2003
Wed, 04-16-2003 - 10:57am
I think both articles were referencing the same study about British men, but they came to different conclusions? All these studies and conclusions are very confusing, esp to people who haven't worked out. I hope it doesn't make people just give up in frustration--an hour a day or 3-4 times a week for 20 minutes or moderate vs. strenuous, etc.