Walking can be damaging to your health

suzyb

The few times I've cycled over 20 miles my legs have felt fine afterwards, not a twinge of pain from them. Yesterday I do a bit of walking about (including climbing a few steps in St Pauls admittedly ) and my legs are killing me

No wonder there are so many cyclists in London.

rjsterry

Different muscles, and where you are using the same muscles, you are extending them differently. When walking, you tend to stretch out the muscles at the front of your hips, but when cycling, you are bent forward, and so these muscles tend to shorten.

Or so I read somewhere.

Oddjob62

There's also the fact that cycling is lower impact than walking.

The Chingford Skinhead

Oddjob62 wrote:

There's also the fact that cycling is lower impact than walking.

That's the key point for me. Plus it is much harder to freewheel when walking

lost_in_thought

Ugh, and walking is so slow! I hate walking.

Oddjob62

lost_in_thought wrote:

Ugh, and walking is so slow! I hate walking.

Same.... used to walk everywhere, but since i started cycling i find it hard walking... roads that you normally zip down in seconds seem to last for ever

chuckcork

Depends on the kind of walking. having done some hill walking e.g. the Coast 2 Coast route, walking up and down hills and on uneven paths through the lake District I found reasonably easy on the legs, even up to 15 miles or so in a day.

Walking a mere 6 miles on paved roads however on flat terrain I found to result in agony, affected me for days afterwards. No variation on the muscles used and a lot of impact on the lower legs.

So its not the walking its the kind of walking.

Aidy

lost_in_thought wrote:

Ugh, and walking is so slow! I hate walking.

Me too!

I'm just too impatient to walk places.

prj45

Don't like walking (too slow with no real option to speed up past the boring bits), hate hate hate running.

I see people out jogging and often feel like I should call them an ambulance, tongue lolling, sweat down to their bellies, limping, head rolling around; it can't be good for you.

rjsterry

You need to walk a bit faster . It's still quicker than the bus over short distances in central London. Granted urban walking is nothing special, but out in the countryside, it can get you places where even an MTB can't go.

On the health point, some serious walking (off road) is good cross training, and, as well as keeping the upper leg muscles well stretched out, being weight-bearing unlike cycling, it helps prevent osteoporosis. After all, we did evolve to walk rather than cycle (heresy, I know).

jimmypippa

rjsterry wrote:

You need to walk a bit faster . It's still quicker than the bus over short distances in central London. Granted urban walking is nothing special, but out in the countryside, it can get you places where even an MTB can't go.

On the health point, some serious walking (off road) is good cross training, and, as well as keeping the upper leg muscles well stretched out, being weight-bearing unlike cycling, it helps prevent osteoporosis. After all, we did evolve to walk rather than cycle (heresy, I know).

Indeed

Oddjob62 wrote:

There's also the fact that cycling is lower impact than walking.

That is also the problem isn't it, when you consider osteporosis.

lost_in_thought

Aidy wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Ugh, and walking is so slow! I hate walking.

Me too!

I'm just too impatient to walk places.

I'm just too important to walk places. Fetch me my sedan chair.



Onward, serfs!

Jay dubbleU

What you need is one of these
http://www.rickshawstore.com/?gclid=CLe ... 2AodCR6FDg

roger_merriman

meh i spent years walking the hills and then for work, so walking for me is easy though it's fair to say I amble at a fair pace, about 4 miles a hr.

you can also take routes you can't by bike etc, time and place and all that.

Oddjob62

jimmypippa wrote:

Oddjob62 wrote:

There's also the fact that cycling is lower impact than walking.

That is also the problem isn't it, when you consider osteporosis.

apparently so yes.

redvee

On the subject of walking pace, I got into an argument with an advisor at the Job Centre. She was in her 50s and claimed she could easily do 6mph walking :shock: I've always based times on 3.5-4mph.

roger_merriman

redvee wrote:

On the subject of walking pace, I got into an argument with an advisor at the Job Centre. She was in her 50s and claimed she could easily do 6mph walking :shock: I've always based times on 3.5-4mph.

that would be a speed walker.

I walk about 4 mph which is very much the higher end of the scale.

lost_in_thought

Well, it's interesting you say that.

When I was visiting the podiatrist post-achilles-injury, I spent a lot of time walking on a treadmill. 4mph was very much a stroll for me, while 6mph was 'brisk'. I didn't have to start jogging until around 7mph, but the high 6mph area was not a comfortable or sustainable walking speed.

Things like the tfl journey advice thingy base walking times on 3mph, I think.

Aidy

I reckon I can maintain a walking speed of 5mph if I'm trying.

I've been pondering marathons of late, when I worked out you didn't actually have to be running to beat a lot of people. I really can't be arsed with dealing with the impact pain of running.