If it were true, sauntering gently along would be better than walking quickly. But studies have shown almost no weight-loss effect for people who just walk calmly along, compared to those who walk to music (and therefore walk more quickly - probably also covering more ground in the allotted time). I don't have the citations to know whether they just tested same-time or same-time and/or same-distance comparisons. I think this is wishful thinking, as walking slowly doesn't provide any of the benefits of aerobic exercise like raising your heart rate.
If you walk for half an hour, and walk twice as fast, you will have moved your legs twice as often, so burnt more calories. Martha Krieg in Michigan > > From: [email protected] > Date: 2009/02/18 Wed PM 02:49:40 EST > To: [email protected] > Subject: [lace-chat] Is this true? > > I read this on a blog, but it seems too good to be true > > "The faster you walk, the more momentum you have to carry you forward. The > slower you walk, the more your own body is responsible for the force that > carries your weight forward. > So, walk slower....or jog to burn more calories." > > What do you all think? Is it just wishful thinking? > Jacquie > > To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] containing the line: > unsubscribe lace-chat [email protected]. For help, write to > [email protected]. > To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] containing the line: unsubscribe lace-chat [email protected]. For help, write to [email protected].
