4 ms·

Walking barely counts as being active. It takes almost no effort and 99.999% of the time does not increase heart rate which is the important part of exercise.

Walking barely counts as being active. It takes almost no effort and 99.999% of the time does not increase heart rate which is the important part of exercise. If walking is considered being active, we have vastly lowered the bar. I know literal 70 year old people who could out-run 20 year old kids because they made the choice to stay active and healthy in old age

lkbm 5y ago
I'm pretty fit, and walking absolutely increases my heart rate. Even a casual stroll will raise it noticeable, and my normal medium-fast pace can easily bring it to 100+ bpm. (My resting heart rate is generally around 55-60 bpm.)
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  You are insanely overestimating your fitness when 100 bpm is considered high when its in the range of an average resting heart rate
  - lkbm 5y ago
    I didn't say it's high. I said it's an increase over 55-60. The claim was that walking doesn't increase ones heart rate, which is, assuming we can agree that 100 > 60, is demonstrably false. As for my estimate of my fitness, I think just the fact that my resting heart rate is below 60 might suggest something to that end.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    > in the range of an average resting heart rate Nope. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr041.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr041.pdf Even for someone who's 60+ and in poor shape it's unlikely to be that high, so getting it up to 100 would be an improvement and have positive health effects. 100bpm doesn't even count as zone 1 for me, but even so a half hour or more of walking at a pace sufficient to sustain that is clearly better than remaining stationary.
notacoward 5y ago
> Walking barely counts as being active ... does not increase heart rate Every physiologist who has ever taken quantitative measurements of these things would disagree. Walking is definitely better than remaining stationary, with significant measured benefits from even modest time per day, and GP is right that those of us who can do more should resist the temptation to gatekeep (usually done in this case as a low-key kind of bragging).

lkbm 5y ago

I'm pretty fit, and walking absolutely increases my heart rate. Even a casual stroll will raise it noticeable, and my normal medium-fast pace can easily bring it to 100+ bpm. (My resting heart rate is generally around 55-60 bpm.)

NikolaeVarius 5y ago
You are insanely overestimating your fitness when 100 bpm is considered high when its in the range of an average resting heart rate
- lkbm 5y ago
  I didn't say it's high. I said it's an increase over 55-60. The claim was that walking doesn't increase ones heart rate, which is, assuming we can agree that 100 > 60, is demonstrably false. As for my estimate of my fitness, I think just the fact that my resting heart rate is below 60 might suggest something to that end.
- notacoward 5y ago
  > in the range of an average resting heart rate Nope. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr041.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr041.pdf Even for someone who's 60+ and in poor shape it's unlikely to be that high, so getting it up to 100 would be an improvement and have positive health effects. 100bpm doesn't even count as zone 1 for me, but even so a half hour or more of walking at a pace sufficient to sustain that is clearly better than remaining stationary.

notacoward 5y ago

> Walking barely counts as being active ... does not increase heart rate Every physiologist who has ever taken quantitative measurements of these things would disagree. Walking is definitely better than remaining stationary, with significant measured benefits from even modest time per day, and GP is right that those of us who can do more should resist the temptation to gatekeep (usually done in this case as a low-key kind of bragging).