Prevention's Complete Book of Walking: Everything You Need to Know to Walk Your Way to Better Health

First Chapter

Chapter 16

What's the Speed for Slimming Down?

A few years back, long slow distance--LSD for short--was all the rage for weight loss. Why? Because a few studies suggested that walking at a comfortable, moderate pace helps the body preferentially burn fat. For weight-conscious walkers, the mantra became "Slow down!" Going too fast uses up carbohydrates but not fat stores.

At first, the advice seemed to defy logic. After all, most of us were convinced that exercising hard must get rid of more fat by burning more calories. But perhaps because this new fitness philosophy meant that we didn't have to sweat to slim down, it went over big.

The fact is, as long as you use up more calories through physical activity than you take in from food, you'll lose fat and weight in the long run. Whether that physical activity is slow or fast doesn't really matter. At any speed, calories burned are calories burned.

Faster Is Better . . . Sometimes

Of course, not everyone loses weight at the same rate. You probably know people who shed pounds like a duck's feathers shed water. They were inactive for years, yet ever since they started exercising, the fat has just melted away.

Other people--and maybe you're one of them--have worked out religiously for years. Even though they're in better shape and they feel great, the number on the scale has hardly budged. Obviously, these folks need to do something differently if they want to slim down. But does that mean they need to slow down?

Calories Go, Fast or Slow

The chart below, adapted from Sports Nutrition for the '90s by Jacqueline Berning, R.D., and Suzanne Nelson Steen, R.D., compares the number of calories burned by an average 150-pound person while walking at various speeds. As you can see, the faster you go, the more calories you use per minute. But if you figure out the number of calories burned per mile, there's not that much difference between walking slow and walking fast.

For example, a 20-minute-per-mile pace burns 4.1 calories per minute, or 82 calories per mile (20 x 4.1 = 82). By comparison, a 12-minute-per-mile pace burns 8.2 calories per minute, or 98.4 calories per mile (12 x 8.2 = 98.4). That's just 16 calories more--and you can easily make up for that by walking an extra 1/4 mile at the slower pace.

So if you're walking to lose weight, remember that you don't need to push yourself at top speed. Going slower but farther--long slow distance--can produce the same results.

Speed Minutes Calories Burned
(mph) per Mile per Minute
1.0 60.0 2.3
2.0 30.0 3.2
2.3 26.0 3.5
3.0 20.0 4.1
3.2 18.5 4.7
3.5 17.1 5.1
4.0 15.0 6.4
4.5 13.2 7.1
5.0 12.0 8.2

Well, at least one study seems to challenge the long slow distance theory. Researchers at West Virginia University in Morgantown recruited two groups of volunteers--one to work out at a high intensity, the other at a moderate intensity. Both groups exercised for the same amount of time and the same number of days every week. Neither was asked to follow any specific dietary guidelines.

Over the 11 weeks of the study, the high-intensity exercisers reduced their body fat and improved their cardiovascular conditioning, while the moderate-intensity exercisers showed no changes. Interestingly, the high-intensity exercisers reported that they automatically began eating less saturated fat and more carbohydrates. Apparently, their bodies naturally craved carbs for quick energy.

Does this mean that you should work out at a high intensity--that's 80 to 90 percent of your maximum heart rate--if you want to lose weight? (To find your maximum heart rate, subtract your age from 220.) "There do seem to be some advantages to working at high intensities," notes Randall W. Byrne, Ed.D., who led the study. "But there's no advantage if you hate walking fast and stop exercising altogether. Besides, for some people, such as those with heart disease, diabetes, or asthma, high-intensity exercise may not be safe."

One other point worth making: This study lasted just 11 weeks, a relatively short time in which to bring about weight loss through physical activity alone. In a longer trial, both groups may have shed pounds without altering their eating habits.

In Step with

DickBarr

He Had to Slow Down to Slim Down

Prevention Walking Club veteran Dick "The Bear" Barr spent years trying to walk off some extra weight. But no matter how many miles he logged, he couldn't seem to slim down. Then he changed his attitude toward exercise--and he easily dropped 75 pounds in 18 months.

A resident of Edmonton in Alberta, Canada, Dick never got a driver's license. He relied on his feet to take him where he wanted to go. Yet even though he walked everywhere, he was carrying 260 pounds on his 6-foot-1 frame when he joined the Prevention Walking Club in 1986.

Back then, Dick found motivation in the club's patches, which were handed out for logging a certain number of miles. "I walked 8 to 10 miles a day, going to and from work--and I'd go out again after work," he recalls. "I rushed to get my miles in." And at Prevention Walker's Rallies, he always found his way to the front of the pack, so he could compete for first place with the fast walkers.

Unfortunately, Dick didn't realize that his high-gear approach to walking--and the hearty appetite that it produced--was undermining his efforts to slim down. In fact, over the next 10 years, his weight crept up to 284 pounds.

That's when he set out to do things a little differently. "I decided that my rushed way of walking was for the birds," he says. "I kept on walking, but I focused more on being healthy, as opposed to racking up miles. I threw out my bathroom scale because I didn't want the frustration of looking at the numbers every day. And I reread all my Prevention magazines and Walking Club newsletters for motivation."

Dick also began paying more attention to his eating habits. He ate only when he felt hungry, snacking on fruit in the middle of the day to tide him over until dinnertime. He slowed the pace of his meals so that he'd recognize when he was full and not stuff himself.

Dick's plan worked like a charm, as the pounds finally started melting away. "I was so surprised by how fast I lost weight that I went to my doctor just to make sure everything was okay," he says. "He told me that I was in great shape--and to keep walking!"

Dick remains an avid walker, only now he goes at a more leisurely pace. "I'm much more relaxed about it," he says. "And when I'm in a group, I've learned to love being at the back of the pack."

Making a Case for Moderate Pace

While brisk walking and long slow distance may have the same calorie- and fat-burning capacity over the long run, LSD has other advantages that may make it a better choice for you. For example, maybe you feel that sweaty, heart-pounding workouts should be reserved for Olympians and professional athletes. Or perhaps your physical condition makes brisk walking difficult, if not impossible. Or maybe you're the sort of person who would rather walk 5 miles at a moderate pace than racewalk around the block.

All of these are perfectly legitimate reasons to opt for long slow distance. Just remember that the slower your pace, the farther you need to go to burn the same number of calories that you would at a fast pace--hence the phrase "long slow distance." Makes perfect sense, right?

Over the years, I've met many fitness experts who swear by long slow distance. Among them is Rob Sweetgall, who has written a number of books on walking. He also created the Walking Wellness school curriculum, which helps teachers develop lesson plans that encourage kids to learn about their bodies and explore the world through walking.

Sweetgall became an expert on walking by . . . well, walking. In fact, he has trekked across the country seven times, including an 11,208-mile excursion that took him to all 50 states and lasted an entire year.

With almost two decades of walking experience to back him up, Sweetgall maintains that a moderate pace is the best pace for anyone at any age. "I'm convinced that the human body is a 3 ; ;1/2-mile-per-hour walking machine," he says. "Even slowing down from 4 miles per hour to 3 ; ;1/2 is better for most people. I've walked across America at both speeds, and I had much less soreness at the slower pace. Personally, I'd rather enjoy walking and not get sore."

Sweetgall believes that the purpose of walking is to keep yourself healthy and functional, so you can enjoy life to the fullest. You don't need to go fast to experience those benefits. "Of the thousands of people who attend my workshops, those who have the most aches and pains are almost always pushing themselves, trying to go a few gears higher," he says. "Don't get me wrong--I myself engage in intense exercise from time to time. But I can reach my target heart rate at just 2 miles per hour by Exerstriding (walking with poles) up a steep hill or climbing a ridge near my home in snowshoes."

What about walking for weight loss? Sweetgall still thinks distance is more important than speed. The more distance you cover, he reasons, the more calories you're going to burn. "If you increase from a 17-minute mile to a 15-minute mile, you may use 9 percent more calories per mile. If you double your distance, you use 100 percent more calories. That's why I tell people to walk at their most comfortable pace and to stop worrying about whether they're going fast enough."

Ultimately, whether you choose brisk walking or long slow distance depends on your fitness level and your personal preferences. Do what feels right for you. And if your goal is to lose weight, know that you don't need to speedwalk to see results. Slow and steady sheds pounds, too.