[HN Gopher] Walking is good for health but walking faster is eve...
___________________________________________________________________
Walking is good for health but walking faster is even better, study
finds
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 140 points
Date : 2022-09-15 13:28 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| Due to the way your body extracts energy from fat and glycogen,
| your brisk walk should (for most people) keep your heart rate
| around 120bpm for a sustained period of around an hour.
|
| This way you'll condition better mitochondria development,
| oxidise fat for energy and avoid producing damaging metabolic by-
| products.
| frans wrote:
| Is their an equivalent benefit from cycling? Anybody knows?
| thicknavyrain wrote:
| On average, yes, substantially, even _when_ you account for
| possible risks from accidents and potential pollution exposure:
|
| https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.0901747
| nradov wrote:
| Cycling certainly has health benefits, but the general
| recommendation is to combine it with other forms of aerobic and
| resistance training rather than making it your sole form of
| exercise. Cycling only works a limited set of muscles, and
| doesn't generate the impacts or strains necessary to maintain
| high bone mineral density.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I read somewhere that you gotta bike twice as long as jogging
| to get the same benefit.
|
| Also, stationary bikes are about half as effective as road
| biking. It seems that the necessity to maintain balance
| improves the results.
|
| The same with weight machines. Lifting with barbells is more
| effective, and dumbbells even more so. This is because these
| require your muscle stabilizers to be engaged, while the
| machine stabilizes the weight for you.
|
| Weight machines are an expensive waste of time.
| nradov wrote:
| That really depends on what type of benefits you're
| targeting. Do you want to get stronger? Increase aerobic
| fitness? Lose weight? Win a race?
|
| Running and cycling (or most any other endurance sport)
| produce similar benefits for your energy systems as long as
| you hit the same heart rate zones. Most casual athletes
| find that for a given level of perceived exertion, running
| causes a slightly higher heart rate due to engaging more
| different muscles. But cycling is lower impact, so it's
| easier to sustain a target level for longer training
| sessions. Thus for general long-term health and fitness
| purposes it's better to cross train a mix of different
| sports.
|
| Stationary bikes are as effective as road bikes for pure
| exercise purposes. It's just a matter of hitting the right
| power output and heart rate. Some pro triathletes now do
| the majority of their bike training indoors for safety and
| convenience. It's difficult to follow a structured workout
| on a road bike while navigating, dodging cars, and stopping
| at intersections. But with modern smart bike trainers it's
| easy to hit the exact target at each step and optimize
| physiological benefits. Some Zwift Academy participants
| have even scored pro cycling team contacts based on
| stationary bike workouts.
|
| https://www.velonews.com/news/riders-get-pro-contracts-
| with-...
|
| You can buy roller trainers or rocker plates if you want to
| work on balance but it makes little difference in the
| training benefits.
| Fricken wrote:
| Because I commute by bicycle it's a non-expendable part of
| my day, that's the main benefit. There's no slacking off;
| rain or shine I bike.
| jerlam wrote:
| Most assuredly - the article is only comparing "walking" to "no
| walking", not any other activity. Any exercise is better than
| no exercise, and harder forms of exercise are better (up to a
| point which casual people won't reach). These results shouldn't
| be surprising.
|
| Given that cycling usually involves higher heart rates, a
| larger range of resistance, a larger range of joint movement,
| more balancing skills, and increased attention requirements,
| for the same period of time I would expect cycling to be
| better. And in most American cities, you can actually cycle
| from your home to another destination, whereas walking will
| not. Of course, cycling involves greater costs and danger.
| lgxz wrote:
| So running is better than walking?
| eckza wrote:
| Not so fast there, pal.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| Brisk walking is it. I can see how that works out the body and
| could be put into practice in the day to day life. Running is
| great if you can do it correctly and have the time to put into
| it. The way I see walking is the minimum needed for us to
| function and can be applied daily even for the busy. I guess
| this is saying that brisk walking may be even more favorable
| for the body...
| Spivak wrote:
| Yes but it's a balance because running is high impact so if you
| overdo it you risk injury. Ideally you should be getting some
| exercise every day but you can't run every day without injuring
| yourself, it just doesn't work. The recovery days aren't
| optional if you want to not permanently damage your knees.
| goatcode wrote:
| Walking is good. Walking faster is better. Walking even
| slightly faster? Slightly better. Running? Running is right
| out. However, walking EVEN faster than slightly faster? Guess
| what: even better.
| hackeraccount wrote:
| I run but luckily for me my running is probably on pace with a
| lot of people's fast walking.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| That depends of your weight and testosteron level because the
| body fights the inflammation by producing cortisol.
| johnchristopher wrote:
| No, walking faster is better than walking.
| Tomte wrote:
| Not for me, since I cannot decouple my breathing from my
| running.
|
| I always fall into a two-steps-breathe-in/two-steps-breathe-out
| rhythm. It comes out to be a very unnatural and uncomfortable
| breathing sequence.
|
| (Also I cannot decouple music beats from my steps, so listening
| to music is out, as well)
| justusthane wrote:
| That's interesting. I've read that one of the reasons that
| bipeds are more efficient runners than quadrupeds is because
| our breathing is decoupled from our stride. Quadrupeds' lungs
| are anchored within their chest cavity at the top and bottom,
| so as they stretch and contract their bodies, they are forced
| to inhale and exhale correspondingly with each stride. It
| sounds like you don't enjoy the same benefit as the rest of
| us bipeds.
|
| That being said, when I do try to maintain a regular
| breathing pattern when running, I usually also do two-in,
| two-out. Feels pretty good to me.
| johnchristopher wrote:
| Haha, I had no problem breathing out of sync with my stride
| but God did I sync my steps with pavement patterns :D.
| h4waii wrote:
| Hm, I wonder if there is a term for this. I too like to try
| and keep in a pattern, and it never works out and often feels
| very unnatural when speeding up or slowing down a run.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Only if you can keep on doing it until you are old. A lot of
| people wear out their hips and knees before they can reap the
| benefits. Light exercise in the form of walking rather than
| running is a bit more sustainable and something you can keep on
| doing as long as you stay healthy. Cycling is similarly
| beneficial.
| pookha wrote:
| This is wrong. Running actually builds up the knees. Only
| walking is a good way to break down your knees as you get
| older. My father was trained from a young age to fear
| running. He had shot knees by his mid forties. I've been
| running since I was a teenager. No issues (I'm in my 40s).
|
| https://www.oxfordortho.sg/articles/why-running-is-
| actually-...
| comfypotato wrote:
| Running with proper form _might_ help your knees (and it
| provably doesn 't hurt them). The actual science your
| source is drawing from will tell you that it's not
| conclusive that running improves knee health [1]. Running
| with poor form will definitely damage them. Walking
| (2.5mph, briskly) will not hurt your knees and is
| considered overall one of the best exercises you can do
| [2]. Walking and running (with proper form) both will
| improve knee pain.
|
| 1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18550323/ 2. https://hea
| lth.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Acti...
| runamok wrote:
| Thank you for this. Running competitively definitely beats
| up your tendons and what not but after 30 years of running
| 70 (then) to 20 (now) up have had like 5 days my knees were
| achey. I will say not everyone has ideal biomechanics and
| our sedentary lifestyles also impact injuries while
| running.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| They say the effects are due to increased heart rate and blood
| flow. Perhaps a sedentary lifestyle can be offset by popping a
| Viagra every day.
| edwnj wrote:
| also sky is blue, study finds..
| baxtr wrote:
| I started walking briskly recently. I just love it. I will find
| any excuse to get outside and walk. I walk to work, I walk to
| shop. This way, I am walking between 15-20k steps on any day. It
| sounds crazy, but it's actually easily achievable if you start
| thinking about ways to tie it in your daily activities.
| macintux wrote:
| "Easily achievable" depends significantly on where you live
| (and of course your health).
|
| Sidewalks might as well be illegal in most parts of my home
| city, given how many areas are completely devoid of them.
| pleas4nt0ne wrote:
| dataexporter wrote:
| As more people start wanting to walk, there will be more
| sidewalks. Start demanding for it and you will get it.
| baxtr wrote:
| Fair enough. I guess I should have left "easily" out.
| eimrine wrote:
| Thank you god I'm not an American.
| jltsiren wrote:
| 15-20k steps/day sounds a lot if your day job doesn't involve
| walking around. Before the pandemic, my typical day was 10-15k
| steps. But now that I'm working from home, it takes some effort
| to reach 10k, because I have fewer reasons to leave home.
| lynguist wrote:
| The same with me. I plummeted from 9k a day to 5.5k a day and
| it has taken a toll on my mood.
| greggeter wrote:
| keepquestioning wrote:
| It will screw up your knees
| comfypotato wrote:
| This is very false. The truth is quite the opposite. Walking is
| associated with reduced knee pain. Walking (2.5mph, briskly)
| and Yoga are considered golden exercises.
| https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Acti...
| imartin2k wrote:
| To me this is a bit sad, as walking fast is for me associated
| with being stressed and in a rush. Walking slowly allows me to be
| fully mindful, to feel my body, and to experience the world
| around me without being lost in thought. It took a bit training
| but can be very pleasant. I haven't managed to achieve these
| things when walking fast.
| Delk wrote:
| I generally feel the same. (I usually ride my bike at the
| higher end of my comfortable speed range, though, and do other
| moderate-intensity exercise.)
|
| It's worth remembering that whatever physical activity _you_
| feel best doing might be the best for you. We aren 't just
| physical robots. Mental well-being is also part of health, and
| it affects your physical health to some degree as well. Not to
| mention that we're a lot likely to do things we find
| pleasurable, and physical activity that you do is healthier
| than activity you don't do.
|
| It's best to bear in mind that quantitative research doesn't
| take into account those subjective differences. It's probably
| not a good idea to singularly optimize for what's
| _statistically_ shown by evidence. It 's not like we're all
| data points on a neatly fitting curve.
| comfypotato wrote:
| They aren't mutually exclusive in your life! I walk fast on the
| treadmill in the morning and take my time strolling through the
| public garden next door. This is valuable insight for people
| trying to use walking as a golden ticket to good cardiovascular
| health.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| This is like being sad to hear that lentils are healthy but
| broccoli is even healthier, but you only like lentils.
|
| Just do healthy stuff that works for you and don't worry about
| something you don't want to do being slightly healthier.
| RHSman2 wrote:
| ltbarcly3 wrote:
| Wait until these scientist find out about running.
| jasonpeacock wrote:
| Walking quickly (at a speed that you want to start jogging, but
| you don't) is less efficient for same distance than actually
| running..which is better for your health.
|
| To get the same benefits from running, you need to run
| faster/farther than walking. Just like when you switch biking,
| the same 3mi loop doesn't do any good and you need to start
| doing 10-15mi loops instead.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Another nice thing about walking is that you can multitask to
| make it more stimulating, for longer. Imagine if you only
| went on HN and social media and Youtube while you were
| walking the local park.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| I guess you could run your errands running but I guess brisk
| walking could be easier to incorporate for most in their
| routine, especially for non runners. Besides, running with the
| wrong form could do more damage than walking.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| That depends of your weight and testosteron level because the
| body fights the inflammation by producing cortisol.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| You keep copying and pasting the same thing on comment after
| comment (down to the typos) and never back it up with a
| source.
| DesiLurker wrote:
| running is hard on joints, esp for heavier folks.
| yupper32 wrote:
| Running is actually good for your joints. You'll have a hard
| time finding studies saying otherwise.
|
| Running is certainly usually harder for heavier folks, but
| being bad for your joints is not the reason.
| kyriakos wrote:
| Depends on age. If you are under 40 running can be
| beneficial for joints. Especially if you start running at
| later age then it could cause problems.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| > _Running is actually good for your joints._
|
| Running a reasonable amount (contextually defined), with
| good form, in appropriate footwear, ideally not on hard
| surfaces (i.e. concrete) can be good for your joints.
| yupper32 wrote:
| Just about anything done with poor form or in excess is
| going to cause issues. Not sure it's a useful point.
| francisofascii wrote:
| If you very gradually ease into it. Add mileage slowly, it
| will not be. That is why you see plenty of larger heavier
| folks running marathons.
| dxxvi wrote:
| And even a very slow jogging is better than a fast walk.
| vixen99 wrote:
| And swimmers have lower mortality rates than walkers and
| runners.
|
| "After adjustment for age, body-mass index, smoking status,
| alcohol intake, and family history of cardiovascular disease,
| swimmers had 53%, 50%, and 49% lower all-cause mortality risks
| than did men who were sedentary, walkers, or runners,
| respectively (p < 0.05 for each)."
|
| https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ijare/vol2/iss3/3/
| jerlam wrote:
| As a runner and cyclist, in terms of difficulty swimming is
| in another dimension. It requires all four limbs to act in
| coordination with breathing, it has higher temperature
| stresses, and if you get tired you drown. The average
| swimming duration of a triathlon is less than a fourth of the
| others.
| slothtrop wrote:
| has this been reproduced? This one echoes the same but also
| mentions racquet sports and aerobics -
| https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/10/812.short
|
| edit: more, this one favors volleyball and stretching -
| https://globalsportmatters.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2022/02/sh...
| jimbokun wrote:
| Maybe all of those fall under the category of moderate to
| high aerobic training?
| p1mrx wrote:
| Hopefully "all-cause mortality" includes drowning.
| Delk wrote:
| If we're talking about swimming in pools, the risk of
| drowning is probably a rounding error.
| duckmysick wrote:
| I'm surprised there's such a small difference between
| sedentary and walkers/runners.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| That depends of your weight and testosteron level because the
| body fights the inflammation by producing cortisol.
| beertoagunfight wrote:
| mattwest wrote:
| Well it does take a clever person to design a solid experiment,
| properly controlling variables to prove causality, and analyze
| data in a way to prove or disprove a hypothesis. You could say
| the same thing about most research, yet it's a necessary thing.
| Madmallard wrote:
| Applying strong scientific principle and a lot of time and
| effort to an obvious conclusion to everyone? Not clever.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Obvious conclusions like "heavier objects fall faster"?
| joelfried wrote:
| Except they don't - heavier objects fall at the same rate
| (G - 9.8m/s^2) as lighter ones. You can experiment with
| this yourself - try rolling a ping pong ball and baseball
| down the same incline. You'll see they hit the bottom at
| the same speed (wind resistance is a thing, hence the
| incline, and you'll get more accurate results indoors).
|
| Don't feel bad though - Aristotle got this wrong and it
| took until Galileo to get it right.
|
| Don't take my word for it though, here's a Scientific
| American article about it from 2013:
| https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bring-science-
| hom...
| loa_in_ wrote:
| I'm pretty certain that was the GP's point as well, just
| expressed in a sarcastic tone. The experiment is famous
| for baffling physics students.
| Tomte wrote:
| I'm living two minutes away from a green belt in my town. It's a
| round course with partly paved paths, pretty much exactly 5km
| long, used by runners and walkers.
|
| Since I've been working from home I've made it a point to head
| out mid-workday and go for a walk. One hour. Surrounded by trees.
| It's fantastic.
|
| Whenever I'm getting annoyed or cranky, it's time to go. Most of
| our development tools are shit. I get lots of opportunities...
|
| When I started doing that I could reliably measure my blood
| pressure going down by 10 to 15 mmHg. Lasting the rest of the
| day.
|
| Now I've lost quite a bit of weight (mostly by eating less, not
| much by walking, I think), and I cannot see such a reliable drop
| in blood pressure anymore (it's now regularly lower). I still
| feel better whenever I've been out.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I used to have that rule solidly followed but life got in the
| way. I still walk but not at the best times (social pressure).
|
| Have you had endorphin kick yet ?
| Tomte wrote:
| Not in the sense like people describe runner's high, no.
|
| It's relaxing for me, not exciting.
| agumonkey wrote:
| hmm I wasn't thinking of excitement, but more like joyful
| contemplation all of a sudden
| derekp7 wrote:
| Don't discount that walk in losing weight. I hear a lot about
| weight loss being mostly diet, and you can't outrun a
| cheeseburger, etc. But in reality, if you are around borderline
| eating 2000 calories per day, and if that walk burns an
| additional 300 calories, well 12 walks will cause a pound of
| weight loss. Plus, if you have free time to take a walk, that
| means you aren't using that time to snack either.
| codyb wrote:
| I've not been enjoying the back to the office aspect of
| things... but it always feels better after a wonderful ride
| through Midtown rush hour traffic. Just being out there moving
| the body is always wonderful.
| hirundo wrote:
| For better exercise, speed up or slow down:
|
| https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20866689/why-crawling...
| antisthenes wrote:
| Slow movement is strength and flexibility, fast moving is
| cardio.
|
| Do both and you've covered your bases. Makes sense.
| browningstreet wrote:
| Some of the hardest additions I've made to my gym workouts
| include crawling and jumping. Jumping / bounding, especially if
| you haven't done much of it before, is quite taxing.
|
| I prefer bodybuilding lifts over crossfit style movements, but
| I realized that dynamic movements would be a worthy addition,
| at least to my warmups or finishers.
|
| It came to light in a particularly undignified way: I took my
| kid to a mega-trampoline place and realized: 1) I can't jump
| for long, 2) jumps down from height are especially unsettling
| now that I'm no longer in my youth.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| Another way to take jumping to the next level of you have
| barbells is to do power cleans.
| pdmfz wrote:
| What shoes do people here like for walking a lot?
| zeku wrote:
| Any athletic shoes that fit properly. Nike, New Balance,
| Adidas, Puma all have options.
| lantry wrote:
| flip flops (not cheap styrofoam ones with hard plastic loops,
| but a decent 20$ pair with cloth loops)
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| A vote here for "On" running shoes, they also do hiking and
| walking shoes[1]
|
| [1] https://on-running.com/
| nijaru wrote:
| I have a pair of Hoka shoes for walking and a pair of Salomon
| shoes for hiking. Both are great.
| icpmacdo wrote:
| New Balance 880, on my 4th pair in 5-6 years and they are the
| best
| ouid wrote:
| Is 1.5 years of life considered durable for how you use them?
| That seems kind of short to me, but I don't really know.
| okaram wrote:
| It heavily depends on usage and weight. 10K steps is 1.5 to
| 2 hours of walking.
|
| I'm quite overweight, and my tennis shoes last me ~6 months
| in good shape.
| stevesimmons wrote:
| I run a lot and keep three generations of shoes:
|
| * Used for running when new, usually for a year.
|
| * In their 2nd year, for walking, gym and casual use.
|
| * In their 3rd year, for gardening, house maintenance and
| stuff like walks in muddy places.
| runamok wrote:
| As a lifelong runner it's best to do it by mileage not age.
| Replace them somewhere between 300 and 600 miles (your
| weight, leg length, form, surface, etc. all influence
| this). I will add that over time historically the midsole
| foam usually degrades so age is a factor too. I'd probably
| suggest tossing them after 1.5 years or so or at least
| having a fairly fresh pair to compare them to. The above
| mostly applies to running but should be relevant for
| walking too.
| icpmacdo wrote:
| Yes exactly, I sometimes push them a bit longer then your
| upper bound as well to save money but you can really tell
| the difference once you get a new pair.
|
| My current pair is far overdue! Anyone here have
| experience with the Gore-Tex 880's, are they good?
| giantg2 wrote:
| Most athletic shoes have a short life like that. The trend
| tends to wear off. Even if it doesn't, you generally loose
| grip as the compound ages. Also, the insole and other
| cushioning stuff tends to break down and loose it's ability
| to absorb shock, which can lead to joint and back pain.
| kyriakos wrote:
| If you walk 10km+ per day I'd say 1.5 year is too long to
| keep them. It also depends on the kind of surfaces you walk
| on.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Barefoot sock-shoes are my favorite
| jibbers wrote:
| Thrift store tennis shoes.
| sophacles wrote:
| The same shoes I use for almost everything: flip flops. I do 5+
| miles a day in them and have for years.
|
| Nothing fancy, just whatever is cheap and catches my eye - I
| usually go through 2 pairs a year.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| I also walk in flip flops. I'd go barefoot if I could.
| shaftoe444 wrote:
| Dr Martens.
| bassrattle wrote:
| Any Adidas shoes with Boost
| pdmfz wrote:
| I love ultraboosts but they wear out in <1 year for me
| rr888 wrote:
| Everyone is recommending different brands but it really depends
| on your feet, posture and gait - there is no one brand or model
| that fits everyone. And of course walking surface and climate
| will impact as well. Dont buy online, go to a good store, ask
| for advice and try a bunch on.
| kyriakos wrote:
| It's important to get new shoes regularly. I found out the hard
| way that both my knees and back are affected by the shoes I
| use. As shoes age they lose their cushioning which means more
| vibrations are absorbed by your skeleton leading to pain or
| uncomfortable feeling in the joints.
| Fricken wrote:
| Walking on pavement is particularly hard on joints, as every
| footfall places exactly the same stresses on your legs. It's
| better to walk on broken ground, which distributes the stress
| and helps to develop stability through a broader range of
| motion.
| j3th9n wrote:
| Vans Old Skool.
| Tomte wrote:
| Whatever you have that doesn't hurt simply from putting them
| on.
|
| If you're walking recreationally (maybe less than 10km in one
| go) shoes are mostly irrelevant. No, you shouldn't use
| Wellington boots, I guess.
| n8cpdx wrote:
| It really depends on your weight. If you are overweight and
| not used to walking, comfortable shoes and socks make a big
| difference.
|
| Nike makes some good walking shoes that skew wider, but
| definitely read the reviews first to confirm, since they
| change between model years/revisions. For a while Downshifter
| was my go to, recently the Revolution 6 has been a good
| replacement.
| otikik wrote:
| It also depends on your feet. My case: I am a (heavy)
| supinator. If I had to buy a pair of shoes for
| walking/jogging a long distance I would look for supinator
| shoes. These tend to have more support on the internal arc
| of the feet.
|
| However I got pediatric inserts designed by a foot doctor.
| What he didn't tell me was that for those kinds of inserts
| it is better to wear a wide shoe which accommodates the
| inserts, but "neutral". I still was wearing my supinator
| shoes. So it will not "overcompensate". This advice was
| from a specialist running shoe shop. When I tried the
| neutral one he offered me on one feet, and the old
| "overcompensating" shoe I had, I noticed the lack of
| stability immediately.
|
| I have a friend whose problem is that their feet sweat more
| than usual. In their case the solution was shoes with extra
| ventilation around the soles.
| andrewf wrote:
| I've been travelling recently which pushed my daily step
| count up from ~5k to ~20k for two weeks. I packed 3 pairs
| of shoes but pretty quickly decided to stick with the
| Revolution 6.
|
| Also: soles wear out! If you walk/run more, you need to
| replace your shoes more often.
| LanceH wrote:
| Broken in combat boots are some of the most comfortable
| things I've ever worn, and great for walking.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| But before they're broken in, they can cause serious issues
| on longer walks. Metatarsal fractures are no joke.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Salomon rugged running shoes (trail run/triathlon type)
| bookofjoe wrote:
| Mephisto. A pair I bought in 1983 (factory rebuilt c. 2005) are
| my favorites.
| eimrine wrote:
| Take the litest ones, but not take running shoes if you are not
| going to run.
| findthewords wrote:
| Brooks, they don't have excessive cushioning (which is bad)
| like my indoor Nike shoes.
| autokad wrote:
| I walk a lot, and I walk briskly, but my diet is ... not great.
| When they take my bp at the doctors they are always like 'wow
| your BP is so good'. and I'm like really? are you sure? I guess
| the walking and doing so briskly helps a lot.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| There are genetic factors too.
|
| Some people smoke, drink, eat junk food and never exercise and
| have excellent blood pressure and never get fat. Others can't
| keep in shape without tremendous efforts. Equality is for human
| rights, but nature doesn't care.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| I am very fit, 20k steps/day, lift daily, eat the DASH diet,
| but have high BP if I eat salt, low if I don't. My girlfriend
| isn't quite as healthy, loves salt ,but has super low BP no
| matter what she eats. Genetics are far more powerful than I
| realized. Sometimes nothing else seems to matter.
| njarboe wrote:
| Maybe with your genetics a higher BP is fine. Health studies
| are often/usually wrong and BP has high variance. Not sure
| how you could know though.
| ahurmazda wrote:
| Reminds me of zone 2 training [1]
|
| My target (aka zone 2) is around 140 bpm which I can achieve by
| walking fairly briskly -- I can still hold a telephone
| conversation and breath through my nose.
|
| I have tried running in the past but I kept injuring this or the
| other (not at all athletic). Doing "slow" 10k+ steps per day
| total did not help with my weight either. But just doing these
| 1-hr zone-2 sessions (3-4x per week) made all the difference. Ofc
| ymmv!
|
| [1] https://www.artofmanliness.com/health-
| fitness/fitness/zone-2...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-15 23:02 UTC)