Why is walking so shit for calorie burning.
>>36627708
Because you hobble along with one foot always on the ground supporting your weight through one leg then the other.
because you were walking at a rate slower than that of most pre-pubescent children.
>>36627708
Because the human body is built for moving on two legs, conserving as much energy as possible?
Walking is only good if your fat as hell or IFBB huge, because at that weight you burn tons of calories.
Naturals and Normal weight people should at the very least be jogging, or running. Walking isn't isn't efficient when your not really really heavy,
>>36627732
I had my dog with me. She stops to sniff a lot, hence why the pace is so slow.
>>36627765
Meant for >>36627731
>Why is my low effort exercise so shit for calorie burning.
>>36627732
this
walking is how we move while conserving as much energy as possible, obviously it's not going to burn many calories
Because it would be stupid if it did burn loads of calories.
Humans are designed for walking and the odd bit of sprinting.
So is walking pointless for a natty trying to cut?
Id rather just eat 200 less calories than waste 40min walking lol
>>36627844
Jog for 20 mins instead
Get some heart gains
because if youre not fat you can run that distance in around ten minutes and then do something more fun
>>36627732
>>36627782
>>36627786
We have been walking for millions of years, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.
>>36627754
>jogging
no-one should ever jog, it's the worst kind of movement. Running in such a way you utilise the elastic nature of the tendons requires a somewhat rapid cadence (180+ steps a minute at minimum), and that's regardless of the speed at which you move (you increase or decrease stride length to alter speed).
>>36627708
how did you burn that much by walking that slow ?
>>36627708
Tip #1: modern stepcounters/fitbit/apps/whatever are shit at counting calories. You prolly have burned the 50% of what is reported
Tip #2 Only a fool would consider walking the dog a physical, fat-burning exercise. Sure, better than sit on your ass the whole day, but still.
>>36627708
walking/running is all about total distance. You will burn just about the same calories walking 26 miles as you would running a marathon.
>>36627708
>4,000 steps burns 130 calories
So fugging inefficient
But it's easy light cardio
>>36629694
We've also been running for millions of years tho
Why haven't we become super efficient at that
>>36630971
not even close to true, unless you're so out of shape that walking puts you at peak heart rate too
>>36631016
are you talking about sprinting or long-distance running? I think you could argue humans sprint more so than distance run (in evolutionary terms).
also, if you look at hunter-gatherer societies they typically walk 10 miles a day but they don't typically run much (not that I've read about anyway).
>>36631016
You mean like the tribe in Africa that run their prey to exhaustion?
>>36629694
>Running in such a way you utilise the elastic nature of the tendons requires a somewhat rapid cadence (180+ steps a minute at minimum), and that's regardless of the speed at which you move (you increase or decrease stride length to alter speed).
Come again? I couldn't understand it.
>>36631016
>2 million years
>significant evolution
>>36631092
cadence is how often your foot hits the ground when you run, 180 steps a minute is the minimum recommended according to some study that's been done.
that isn't the same as measuring speed since the stride angle (how widely you open your legs when you run) affects how quickly you cover distance. You could have a rapid cadence but a tiny stride angle and you'd be shuffling along with really rapid short steps.
the tendons absorb the shock from the impact of your legs on the ground, so a shockwave travels up your legs and runs into your tendons which absorb it in the same way a huge elastic band would absorb the energy of someone running into it. Once that force stops pushing the elastic band returns that energy and fires the person back the way they came.
so similarly when you run the shock hits your legs and into your tendons and if your cadence is right it will shoot back out again into the ground when you hit the ground with your next step - which means a return of 50% free energy added to that step with no extra muscular output.
That's what I got from this video, anyway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSIDRHUWlVo
jogging as I understand it is necessarily a slow cadence so it seems like if this is right it raises injury risk. I noticed that applying his advice in this video reduced how much impact seemed to be hitting my legs when I ran, although I also applied his advice about making sure your foot hits the ground underneath your centre of mass.
>>36627754
>Walking isn't isn't efficient
Literally the opposite, lad
>>36631016
You mean sprinting?
We're built for walking and sprinting. We're good at both.
>>36631016
We are literally the best at running on earth. It burns more because it's literally more work. And while we're not the best at sprinting, we're still not bad
>>36631285
if you're talking about distance running ability that's an accident of the way we sweat, our ability in distance is not a sign of adaptation to running on the whole.
that must be what you mean since we aren't the fastest sprinters.
>>36631341
Our ability to run farther than anything is absolutely the result of our adaptation to run
>>36631386
it looks more like an accidental side-effect of the way we dissipate heat, which I'm not convinced evolved because it helps us run long distances, I think (not 100% sure) it evolved to compensate for lacking the insulating effect of hair and it accidentally happened to be a more effective mechanism when it comes to distance running.
>>36627844
Yes its useless. Walking/jogging for weight loss is mom science.
>>36631034
heart rate isn't directly linked to energy usage
>>36631430
All adaptations are accidents which survive by natural selection.
>>36631506
right, I'm saying our ability to run excessive distances is a side-effect of our hair-loss - not a sign of long-term selective adaptation to running in general.
High abilities in an area doesn't necessarily mean adaptation to that as an evolutionary niche, sometimes it's just a coincidence.
>>36631553
Their is no such thing as selective adaptation. Not until human agriculture anyway
>>36631564
in the sense of natural selection.
>>36631595
Natural selection isn't targeted. If an adaptation does something, that effect doesn't "not count" just because there's another effect
The same reason I always tell people to fuck off when they claim that walking is exercise.
It's not exercise, it's a basic human function. People who can't do a single push up, pull up, or sit up can walk. Not being able to walk is a serious disability, and we don't tell people to exercise by seeing things either.
>>36631655
I'm saying high ability isn't necessarily a sign of long-term adaptation to a niche. You can accidentally surpass all animals in distance running ability without any selective pressure around running, which is what it looks like to me.
If you want to say humans are efficient at running you need more than our long distance running ability to say that - if I'm right and it's only an accident of our sweat mechanism. Long-term selective adaptation to running might be expected to produce many adaptations in terms of musculature, cardio-vascular system etc. whereas having a sweat mechanism which coincidentally happens to make you the most effective distance runner doesn't entail that any of those other things will be highly adapted.
>>36627708
Walk up a mountain faggot
CMON
>>36631736
>Running is not an exercise, it's a basic human function. People who can't do a single push up, pull up or sit up can run. Not being able to run is a serious disability, and we don't tell people to exercise by seeing things either.
>>36631808
YOU NEED TO ACQUIRE SOME ELEVATION TO ACHIEVE GLUTE STRIATION CMON
>>36631790
Well it's not just sweat. Whrn other animals try to run as far as we can, they don't usually overheat, their hearts fail. Humans have hunted this way for many thousands of years at least, and still do
You walked like 2 miles. What the fuck do you expect
>>36632000
I'm not so sure, I remember it being an overheating issue and I wouldn't be surprised if when an animal overheats what they die of is heart failure so they aren't mutually exclusive.
>humans are persistence hunters
I expect you'd be hard-pressed to find more than a small handful of tribes out of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) who use persistence hunting methods and from what I was reading some of the famous cases hardly use it at all, it's more of a money-maker because of tourism for them from what I was reading.
If you look at the way humans hunt most of the time what I expect you'll find (I haven't researched it myself) is that it's stalking then assailing with projectiles, not this persistence exhaustion stuff. It's unnecessary, why spend the whole day stalking and scaring an animal off then stalking it again when you can hunt the way everyone else does (find it and throw something sharp into it). It isn't like projectiles are ineffective.
>>36632098
Untill recent millenia the bow didn't exist, and even then were never great individually. Throwing spears are only effective at close distances, usually only achievable after an animal was tired
>>36631790
Are you retarded? Humans are the most efficient at running. You don'f even understand evolution.
You cant say that sweating is some different thing, when it only became widespread because it literally helped us run long distances and conserve energy
= efficiency. So that and our bipedal movement make us the most efficient at conserving energy when walking/running. Humans only started walking on two feet to
more easily cover distances on the savannah and better visibility on the ground = adaption.
>>36632098
>(I haven't researched it myself)
Why are you arguing when you don't know anything about this.
>>36632693
because everything I have seen (which as I said isn't a thorough study it's just bits and pieces of documentaries etc.) shows humans using the method of hunting I'm talking about not persistence hunting which I have read is hardly used by anyone - one or two tribes at the most and one of them supposedly does it more for the tourist appeal than for themselves.
The fact I don't know every detail 100% doesn't mean I can't see that saying "humans are persistence hunters" is questionable, seeing as almost no humans rely on it now. I can see some experts think it was important in evolution so I doubt I'm going to convince anyone, and maybe that's true but you can't infer it from our endurance abilities since they're only a side-effect of hairlessness.
>>36632651
>Humans are the most efficient at running.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100212092304.htm
>The study concludes: "Relative to other mammals, humans are economical walkers but not economical runners. Given the great distances hunter-gatherers travel, it is not surprising that humans retained a foot posture, inherited from our more arboreal [tree-dwelling] great ape ancestors, that facilitates economical walking."
>You can't say that sweating is some different thing
It is a different thing, it's an adaptation to hairlessness. That's why it became widespread, the running thing is a side-effect.
It also isn't about energy conservation it's about not overheating. I understand it makes us more successful at running long distances but that doesn't translate to efficiency at running, only that our max distance is higher.
>tfw hobbit and have to walk 5+ miles per day, on top of running and lifting 3 times a week, just so I dont have to cut on a poverty 1300 cals
>>36627708
>Why is walking so shit for calorie burning.
Because humans evolved to be efficient at it.
