Skip to content
Link copied to clipboard

Slow and steady wins in the long run

Want to burn calories without any injuries? Skip the run and take a walk.

iStockphoto

INQUIRING MINDS have often asked me: What's better, Kimberly, walking or running?

If I have to make a choice between the two, hands down, I'm going with walking.

Both are great cardiovascular exercises that improve energy, mood and sleep, and help with weight loss. And both decrease risks of diseases like heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure.

You'll definitely burn more calories running, and an important new study out of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California shows that dedicated runners stay slimmer over the years than dedicated walkers, especially in middle age.

But running also places more stress on your feet, ankles, hips, joints and back. I have to wonder: Are the extra calories burned worth it? Do we exercise just to stay thin?

I know many runners - both amateur and elite athletes - and at some point each and every one of them has ended up with one or more of the following: runners' knee, shin splints, a stress fracture, Achilles tendinitis, hamstring strains, plantar fasciitis (a painful inflammation of the foot) or the stinging knee pain known as ITBS, for iliotibial band syndrome.

And these are individuals with runners' physiques. You know the type: sinewy and lean, no more than 100 pounds soaking wet.

Walking, on the other hand, is low impact by design, and easier on your joints than running.

In my opinion, it's just plain good for everyone, regardless of whether you're young or old, a beginner or a die-hard - and even if you're carrying some extra pounds.

And data from the Berkeley lab's National Runners and Walkers Health Study also show that walkers reduce their risk of heart disease somewhat more than runners do.

Unless you love to run and live for that runner's high, I have to ask: Why knock yourself out, or worse, end up in rehab?

If you want to burn more calories walking, walk longer.