What would walking 5km everyday (on-top of normal lifting routine) do to your body composition in 1 year without any change to your diet.
Let's say 300 calories is burned walking 5km.
Would you literally get 300x365 = 109500 calories burned? that's a bit of 30 pounds in bodyfat no?
I guess it wont be 109500 calories in total, since your bodyweight would be coming down overtime which means you'd be burning less calories to walk the 5km. So let's say it's anywhere from probably 90,000 to 110,000 calories, give or take.
Is what I am saying make sense or have I misunderstood how fatloss works.
>>36919411
Penis in your bum
Tldr but not doing cardio is a meme brah.
>>36919411
well you did some stephen hawking math - if that doesn't give you enough of an answer just do it. it would obviously be a good thing, you expend some extra energy get your pipes moving - helps with recovery. your question is basically how much of a good thing is this. dunno how much but it's good - go for it.
>>36919415
Mate if you don't fucking answer me seriously and respond with at least 200 words with at least 1 reference I am going to literally call up moot and get you suspended from reddit indefinitely.
>>36919411
yes you could walk for hours everyday
or you could just eat less
>>36919411
Running 5kms burns around 300. Stop deluding yourself.
>>36919411
Might help calves, that's about it besides burning extra calories
Walking is pointless dude. Gotta get your heart up to at least around 60% of max to see any noticeable weight loss.
>>36919714
Walking and running 5km burns the same calories. You just do it a lot faster with running.
Calories burned = distance.
>>36919774
>>36919774
Walking 100m burns the same calories as sprinting 100m
Same distance, same energy used. Right?
Calories are energy. It takes more energy to go fast you imbecile.
>>36919793
I'm not wrong. Do you even understand how calories burning from cardio works?
It's not time, it's not intensity, it's all about distance.
Intensity is calories you burn AFTER having done the cardio, which isn't as much as you think it is. It's a few extra %.
The whole running/HIIT thing is a new fad, bodybuilders for the last 100 years have literally just done brisk walking for their cardio to get leaner than your fucking ball sack, nothing changed about that, it's still the best form of cardio.
Best form of cardio for recovery = Walking
Best form of cardio for heart = Walking
Best form of cardio for fat loss = Walking
Walking is literally the best form of cardio, even more so for people who lift, all other forms of cardio just fuck up your recovery and lifting potential.
>>36919822
>Walking 100m burns the same calories as sprinting 100m
Yes, it does. The only difference is time.
100m spring in 10 seconds burns the same calories as walking 100m in 100 seconds. You're still moving X weight Y distance.
Again.....Calories burned is literally all about total distance traveled, HOW you travel the distance has very little effect on total caloric burn. The only difference is time SPENT.
Running 5km in 20minutes = 300 calories
Walking 5km in 60 minutes = 300 calories
Same distance, same calories, 1 took less time. You can run 15km in 60 minutes and burn 900 calories, or you can walk 15km in 180 minutes and burn 900 calories.
Distance = calories burned.
I can't believe I am needing to explain this on a fitness board in 2016. Are you people really that fucking new?
>>36919839
your dumb.
"Running required more energy (P < 0.01) for 1600 m than walking (treadmill: running 481 +/- 20.0 kJ, walking 340 +/- 14 kJ; track: running 480 +/- 23 kJ, walking 334 +/- 14 kJ) on both the track and treadmill"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150
"EE during exercise was 372.54 ± 78.16 kilojoules for the walk and 471.03 ± 100.67 kilojoules for the run. Total EE including excess postexercise EE was 463.34 ± 80.38 kilojoules and 664.00 ± 149.66 kilojoules for the walk and run, respectively."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446673
>>36919881
78 kilojoules vs 100 kilojoules....that's literally a 4 calorie difference.
>>36919873
> what is air resistance
>>36919839
Yeah not all of us are NEETs who can fucking walk 1.5 hours a day when you can do HIIT cycling for fucking 15 minutes for the same effect (even better for cardiovascular system) without fucking our joints
>>36919873
Are you retarded or something?
>>36919873
You are so fucking retarded my friend. This has to be bait... You can't honestly believe that sprinting 100m in 10 seconds requires the same amount of energy as walking 100m at grandma speed.
Is your brain even taking into consideration the different muscles being used in sprinting vs walking slowly? Do you realize one of these requires large amounts of power output while the other doesn't?
Do you think doing 10 100m sprints each day would burn the same amount of calories as walking 1000m per day slowly? Please confirm that this is what you think so that we can safely assume this is bait.
>>36919873
do one and the other and then tell me which was more tiring.
>>36919962
This.
Do you also mean that rolling on your side for 100 meters burns same calories as sprinting 100 meters?
>>36919985
Not him. But unless you are rolling downhill I'd say rolling sideways for 100m would probably burn quite a lot of calories. Would be exhausting trying to continually roll for that length.
>>36919948
You're right about the time, not everyone has time to walk an hour a day.
But saying HIIT is good for your heart? LOL.
Walking is literally the healthiest form of exercise. Running and jogging is horrible for your joints and HIIT can be extremely dangerous for a lot of the population.
Here's how I'd rate cardio
>HIIT cardio
-Effectiveness = 5/5 stars (A+)
-Time = 5/5 stars (A+)
-Recovery = 1/5 stars (D)
-Risk/Danger = 0/5 stars (F)
>Total: 11/20
>Running/Jogging
-Effectiveness = 5/5 stars (A)
-Tme = 4/5 stars (B+)
-Recovery = 2/5 stars (-C)
-Risk/Danger = 2/5 (-C)
>Total: 13/20
>Walking
-Effectiveness = 4/5 (B+)
-Time = 1/5 (D)
-Recovery 5/5 (A+)
-Risk/Danger 5/5 (A+)
>Total: 15/20
>>36919924
>>36919954
>>36919962
>>36919975
kek at people who are wrong calling someone else retarted with such certainty.
I'm not >>36919873 but what he says is true. Look at it in terms of work done. You move your body 5km in space. Why should speed matter? The total energy spent will be the same. It might vary slightly due to technique but that's not the point.
The reason you feel tired running it is because you have to produce the energy to run the 5km in less time so your body has to work harder to provide that (as opposed to providing the same energy over a long period of time)
Did no one here do physics?
>>36920032
I see where you're coming from man, but cycling/swimming or some other low impact cardio can be used for HIIT and they aren't dangerous at all. Also I don't know what you mean about recovery? I can recover fine from 15-20 mins hit 3 times a week along with weight training (though for older people it might be harder)
>>36919670
5km takes bout 1 hour a day. I walj 2,5 to school every day and the same back. Have cut some fat from that alone. Usually walk before breakfast
>>36920048
i don't understand biomechanics but i know very basic physics: the post
>>36920032
Are u fuckin serious, HIIT is the best form of "cardio" to your heart. It makes your heart stronger which lowers your BP and resting heart rate. Even doctors recommend exhausting your heart atleast once a week. Regular LISS cardio does jackshit to your heart.
>>36920048
The human body isn't part of an extremely dumbed down physics equation for 12 year olds though.
This logic assumes that the only difference is speed traveled. It fails to take into account the differences in traveling technique and the laws of momentum and resistance.
Did you just discover the big bang theory on TV and physics at the same time?
>walked 200km over the course of 1 month
>didnt burn any calories in 200km because i walked it
/fit/ logic
>>36920096
My grandparents are in their 90s and walk for 2 hours a day at a snails pace since they retired 35 years ago. Still in good health and lean.
Genetics, or has their 2 hours a day walking done something good for their health? :>
>>36920133
One of my grandparents died at 63.
She liked eating chocolate.
Genetics, or did chocolate kill her?
>>36920150
You wouldn't happen to be american in a southern state?
>>36920133
I have experience from doing LISS and HIIT because i used to have high BP and resting rate. LISS didnt really lower either that much but after doing HIIT consistently for 4weeks my resting rate went down from 70 to 58. Only in 4 weeks.
>>36920181
How does one do HIIT without it fucking up your lower body lifts?
I started doing HIIT 2-3 times a week and I had massive troubles on my lower body days in the gym.
I want to do HIIT again but I need to figure out some way to do it without it interfering with my lifting.
>>36920207
Well that depends on your program. And do like Elliptical, i dont think its too taxing. I used to do 5min warmup, then 1min HIIT following 2min slower pace and did total 4 of these. But i would imagine you try to do them days before you have legday and max twice a week.
>>36920238
HIIT on an elliptical? how? Im a manlet and I feel like im gona fall off the elliptical if i try going fast on it.
The HIIT I was doing was sprinting on a grass field.
>>36920267
You just go fast :D you will look like a fucking retard but its pretty good.
>>36919985
Driving in your car 20 miles burns a lot of calories. Want massive calorie burn? HIIT on the interstate.
>>36920168
Nope straya m8
>>36919411
Yes, walking 5km a day would lead to 300 kcals burned in a day.
If you don't change your diet at all, and you're eating 500 kcals a day over maintenance, then you'd still gain weight because of the 200 kcal surplus. If you're eating right at maintenance, then the 300 kcal deficit would lead to the loss of a pound of fat after about 12 days.
>>36920079
If you're walking to school every day anyway, then great (but why not buy a bicycle? You'd save yourself at least an hour a day). But if you're wanting to recomp your body, then the best way to do that is to fix your diet first, and then adjust your exercising to fit your goals second.
>>36919962
walk on the treadmill for 5 miles, run on the treadmill for 5 miles. it will be the same amount of calories. also how about looking it up retard... i hope you are baiting
>>36919948
>>36919839
>>36920032
I think we can all agree that rowing is superior to walking and sprinting in every way.
>low impact
>full body
>fun because you can daydream about being a Viking warrior while you row
>>36920048
It takes more force to get your body moving faster though, so F in W=F*D is actually larger while distance stays the same.
>>36920434
>fun because you can daydream about being a Viking warrior while you row
kys retard manchildren
>>36920048
>what is aerobic and anaerobic exercise
>what is lactic acid
Its you who doesn't know how science works. Everyone with a basic understanding of biochemistry knows that the way your body breaks down glucose changes depending on how hard your muscles have to work
>>36919774
Yeah, totally. Driving the 100km distance in 2nd gear around 5000rpm and driving the same distance in 4th gear at 2000rpm consumes the same amount of fuel.
>>36920434
>not daydreaming about being a Byzantine rower preparing to remove kebab
>>36920542
They were also Vikings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians
>>36920508
Technically, you are wrong. Your body will always breakdown glucose in the exact same way, in the exact same 10 step pathway (glycolysis) that ends in pyruvate. It only changes after that. So you're wrong
>>36920702
Either you are actually too retarded to google anaerobic respiration or you are just being a smartass. What I wrote is 100% applicable to the post I replied to. The anaerobic breakdown is far less efficient than the Kreb's cycle.
Regular walking is very good for you but it's shit cardio. You have to be retarded to believe it burns the same energy as running. It's still much better than running but for other reasons
