‘Romance’ is the last word anyone would associate with exercise, but it’s hard to deny running has a certain romantic appeal.
Perhaps it’s the the power of using your own two legs to get from A to B, and fast. Perhaps it’s the head-clearing powers of the wind whipping through your hair as you run along the coastline. Perhaps it’s the excuse to wear fancy leggings.
Whatever it is, there’s something about running that transforms ordinary people into evangelicals. However, appealing as it might seem, running seems like an unreachable dream for many of us. Enter: walking.
A good brisk walk is surely just as effective as a run, we reason as runners smugly dart around us on the footpath. Plus, it won’t mess up my knees.
So, is there a winner in this footpath war? Is running inherently “better” for you than walking, or is walking the underrated dark horse?
As you’ve probably guessed, there’s no simple answer to that question. According to Exercise and Sports Science Australia’s Industry Development Officer, Alex Lawrence, it’s dependent on a number of factors — most of which come down to the individual.
Watch: A bodyweight circuit you can do at home. (Post continues after video.)
“You have the public health standpoint where something is better than nothing. If you’re likely to walk but not run then for that person walking would be ‘better’ and vice versa,” Lawrence explains.
“From an exercise prescription standpoint, I would highlight that everyone is different, with unique considerations and needs, and with that in mind the ‘better’ modality will depend on the individual and their goals.”
In terms of fitness, calorie burn and energy expenditure, most of us would assume running comes out on top. This is the case, but walking doesn’t come off too badly, either.
“In terms of energy expenditure, exercising at lower intensities (walking) results in a higher percentage of fat metabolism,” Lawrence explains.
“However, when you exercise at moderate-high intensity (running), even though the percentage of fat metabolised is lower, because you are expending significantly more energy in total, the overall fat metabolised is higher.”
Yes, you'll burn more calories through running. (iStock)
To put that more simply, Lawrence gives the following example.
"If someone was to walk for 30 minutes burning 100 calories, and if 70 per cent of those calories came from fat, they would have burned 70 calories from fat," he says.
"Alternatively, if that person was to run for 30 minutes, burning a total of 300 calories, 30 per cent from fat, that individual would burn 90 calories from fat. So, in this case the exercise that is higher in intensity wins out."
As for general health benefits, there's evidence that both walking and running can help prevent illness and prolong a person's life. (Post continues after gallery.)
The most beautiful running tracks in Australia
However, it appears running delivers these benefits more efficiently. For instance, a 2014 study concluded that five minutes of running per day provides the same benefits as 15 minutes of walking, in terms of reducing mortality.
The injury risk of running vs. walking is another significant consideration. In this instance, it's walkers who have permission to feel smug.
"Running, as opposed to walking, requires a higher level of technical proficiency and places a lot more demand on the body, as such, the risk of injury is higher," Lawrence explains.
That said, the higher impact of running has big beneficial for your bone health, so don't rule it out. "We reach peak bone mass at about 25 years old, so it is really important that we expose our bones to high impact exercise in our youth," Lawrence says.
Image: Lena Dunham is a recent convert to running. (Instagram)
Ultimately, the modality that's "best" for a certain individual comes down to their physical capabilities and their reasons for wanting to exercise. The first question Lawrence asks a client when recommending a fitness regimen is "Why?"
"From there, it is a matter of performing a comprehensive assessment of their medical history, physical capabilities and exercise history, as well as a comprehensive physical assessment to check for sub-optimal biomechanics and movement patterns," he explains.
"An example of an individual that I would recommend walking over running could be someone living with a severe case of osteoporosis [or] someone that maybe at increased risk of falling. This maybe a result of neuro-physical consideration or side effects of prescription medications."
What do you prefer - walking or running?
Featured image: iStock
Top Comments
I would suggest either is better than nothing. For myself it's walking, as I'm not anywhere near fit enough to even attempt running. However, if a person is fit enough to go running, good for them.