8/29/2008 12:33pm, #41
However doesn't one need to maintain a certain level of activity for a sustained period of time for "fat burning" to occur?
8/29/2008 12:58pm, #42
And to think my stupid ass has been running miles, training MA for hours, and lifting weights for no reason at all.
Y'know, all those chunky folks who walk around my neighborhood all day never breaking a sweat, they've got it right.
Thank you for enlightening me.
Now get the hell out of here."This is why we are here. Because the Martial Arts for too long have been cloaked in an unnecessary level of secrecy bordering on mysticism, and its in these shadows that the cockroaches love to hide. -Phrost"
Originally Posted by Squerlli
8/29/2008 1:31pm, #43
All right... in point form:
-Toby doesn't like weights: undetermined/irrelevant. He might just be trolling.
-Ben Franklin lived to 93: false. Wikipedia says 84.
-Ben Franklin praised walking: undetermined. No source provided, and I couldn't find one. See below as well.
-Ben Franklin was a futurist, founding father, and academic: irrelevant. Ben was a bright guy, but he died in 1790. Berthold (testosterone) wasn't even born until 1803, and Langerhans (insulin) didn't discover the islets named after him until 1869.
And now, onto the question of walking vs. weightlifting:
-We are made to walk: disingenuous. We've been made to run for a long time (see "Running paced human evolution").
-Walking repairs and grows neural connections: undetermined/probably false. Toby would have to demonstrate that walking not only helps the brain in the way he's described, he'd have to demonstrate that weightlifting does not. Extraordinary claim, burden's on him. A more accurate statement would be that physical exercise (including walking) helps the brain.
-Walking burns fat: disingenuous. Physical activity consumes energy, and energy deficits lead to fat loss. Remember, Toby has to demonstrate that walking burns fat and weightlifting does not, which is false.
For information about exercise intensity as related to endurance, metabolism, and subcutaneous fat levels, refer to this thread and the studies mentioned therein. Credit goes to Bang! for the studies. Most of the research that we've found indicates that high intensity exercise causes greater fat loss even when the total volume is less.
For further information about resistance training in particular, refer to Bompa et al's Serious Strength Training. There's a chapter on using resistance training to burn fat that I found quite persuasive.
-Dog stuff: partial credit. Yes, most dogs enjoy going for walks. They also enjoy going for runs, playing catch, and licking their own genitals. The advantage here for walking is that if you want to spend time with your dog, you probably can't do it in the gym.
-Meeting interesting people on walks: false. You can meet interesting people on walks, but aside from one guy wearing a hospital gown and an IV tube stuck in his arm who asked me for a smoke one night, I never have. On the contrary, I've met quite a few interesting people at the gym.
-Preening women: backwards. Eye candy is a pro, not a con. Also, most hot chicks don't walk for exercise - they jog or run.
-Away from weirdos: backwards. The above (re: hospital escapee) is a true story.
-Walking is inexpensive: true. Gyms are nowhere near as expensive as Toby makes them out to be in subsequent posts, but all you need for walking is footwear and somewhere to go. And no, you don't need to stick to the taxpayer-paved street.
-Walking for crappling: backwards. Someone wasn't paying enough attention to all the ninjers warning him about pavement, broken glass, lava, etc. in th3 str33ts.
-Walking for running: irrelevant. We're talking about walking, not running.
So the winners are anyone who picked out walking as being cheap, with honourable mentions for dogs and an A for effort for the fat-burning crowd.
8/29/2008 1:35pm, #44
Dished out some varrots - Totemicist, I just did twenty push-ups in my cubicle. Consider yourself rewarded.
8/29/2008 2:45pm, #45
Walking, or the type I do is not cheap. When you walk the Offas Dyke is 10 days with full pack, you need very good boots, lightweight tent, good bag, good wet gear, lightweight pots cooker plates etc.. For example my hiking boots alone are £150... So no, walking is not cheap.
8/29/2008 2:46pm, #46
I'm going to be a pedant and say that if you need "hiking boots" (and a tent, bag, etc.), it'd be more accurate to describe what you're doing as "hiking" rather than "walking".
The word 'hiking' is understood in all English-speaking countries, but there are differences in usage. In some places, off-trail hiking is called 'cross-country hiking', 'bushwhacking', or 'bushbashing'. In the United Kingdom, hiking is a slightly old-fashioned word, with a flavor more of heartiness and exercise than of enjoying the outdoors; the activity described here would be called hillwalking or simply 'walking'. Australians use the term 'bushwalking' for both on- and off-trail hiking. New Zealanders use 'tramping' (particularly for overnight and longer trips), 'walking' or 'bushwalking'. Hiking in the mountainous regions of India and Nepal and in the highlands of East Africa is sometimes called 'trekking'. Overnight hiking is called 'backpacking' in some parts of the world. Hiking a long-distance trail from end to end is referred to as 'thru-hiking' in some places.
Last edited by TheRuss; 8/29/2008 3:30pm at .
8/29/2008 3:53pm, #47
Heh. To me when you go walking, your going for a 15 mile jaunt across some nice countryside, getting to work of taking the dog out is a short stroll ;) Then again we've used hiking and walking as pretty much the same thing in my family for years.
8/29/2008 3:54pm, #48
Yeah, I think it's a linguistic thing.
8/29/2008 6:05pm, #49
TheRuss, you made this thread suck worse than Toby did.
8/29/2008 6:07pm, #50Originally Posted by Lily
*cries like a little girl*