weight loss and walking

babyface11.DeleteThis@hotmail.com wrote:
> However, what about the leisurely walking one might do after dinner?
> Even it its not moderate in intensity, it still provides benefits in
> calorie burning. Am I correct since my primary objective at this
> point is weight loss & not cardiovascaular? Can the leisurley pace
> be included as part of the 60 minuts?

First, you __should__ be interested in the cardio (and
holistic) benefits. Arguably, that will do more to extend
your quality of life than weight management -- except for
the mordibly obese.

Second, with respect to weight loss alone, it is all about
"calorie deficit": burning more calories than you consume.

In theory, everything you do burns calories. You burn more
calories watching TV than you burn sleeping. So yes, a
"leisure walk" will more burn calories than sitting around
doing nothing.

The emphasis on "moderate intensity" is two-fold. First,
the cardio and other holistic benefits. Second, the
increased calories burned per unit time.

The latter might be the key to answering your question.

If you are asking: "is a 20-min leisurely walk just as
good as a 20-min walk at moderate intensity?", the answer
is simply "no".

According to one online activity calculator, a 60-min
"stroll" might burn 140 calories (for a 150 lb person),
whereas walking at "moderate intensity" might burn 230
calories in 60 min.
 >> Stay informed about: weight loss and walking 

<babyface11.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113183809.172852.270610@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hello:
>
> I'm primarily interested in weight loss. The latest reports say that
> 60 minutes of moderate walking/exercise per day is sufficient. This 60
> minutes can be broken down into segments,i.e., taking the stairs,
> parking farther from the store, etc.
>
> However, what about the leisurely walking one might do after dinner?
> Even it its not moderate in intensity, it still provides benefits in
> calorie burning. Am I correct since my primary objective at this point
> is weight loss & not cardiovascaular? Can the leisurley pace be
> included as part of the 60 minuts?
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>

Leisurely activities are quite inefficent at burning calories...and, for
weight loss, burning calories is important. If you're just getting started
with exercise, and have been approved for it by a physician, you'll want to
up the intensity from "leisurely" to "brisk" or "moderate" when you can.
This has many health benefits, besides burning more calories. Eventually,
you may wish to find "vigorous" activities (e.g., running, swimming,
cycling) - these can burn a whole lot of calories (600-900 calories per
hour), but they are not easy, and may run the risk of injury if you're not
careful.

That said, burning calories through exercise will always be secondary to
diet control in a weight loss program. It's far too easy to subvert a good
exercise program with a few poor choices at the dinner table (I've heard so
many times, "I ride my bike 150 miles per week, but can't lose any
weight!"). Learn about portion sizes (hint: a portion of protein is about
the size of your palm), get rid of "empty" calories (sodas, beer, chips),
and identify your "problem foods" (the ones you can't control) and stay away
from them as much as possible. Try to find about 500 calories in your
current diet that you can do without each day....give that a month or two
and see how it affects your weight. Adjust as necessary.

By focusing on both the calories in, and the calories out, you'll eventually
achieve the "calorie deficit" mentioned in a previous post. When you do,
you'll start to lose weight. Even a modest calorie deficit, maintained over
time, can result in substantial weight loss. But, you've got to be patient,
and persistent. It won't happen overnight...a defiict of 500 calories per
day will result in about 1 lb of weight loss per week, and is considered a
very healthy goal.

Best of luck.

--
GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Your Weight and Health Diary
 >> Stay informed about: weight loss and walking