The researchers analyzed and compared the data of 15237 walkers and 322 15 runners.
The investigators tracked the respondents and recorded their initial weight, waist circumference, diet, weekly walking or running mileage, and the changes after 6 years.
Among the people who participated in the survey, almost all runners were thinner than walkers at first, and the situation did not change after the survey ended several years later. During this period, runners do better than walkers in maintaining their weight and waistline.
This difference is particularly obvious among respondents over 55 years old. Runners of this age don't run often and burn no more calories per week than older walkers. But their body mass index and waist circumference data are lower than those of pedestrians of the same age.
Running has a higher heart rate and consumes more calories per unit time than walking. It's true. However, according to some research by Berkeley and other institutions, if you consume the same energy, runners can better control their weight by walking for several hours every day for a week, and the energy consumption is the same as that of runners.
One of the possible reasons is the influence of running on appetite. The results of this study were published in the journal Obesity last year. During the investigation, 9 experienced female runners and 65,438+00 people who had walked in the sports physiology laboratory of Wyoming State University among women in love reported their situation twice. On the first day, this group of people exercised on the treadmill 1 hour, either running or walking. The next day, they all rested 1 hour. After each stage, the researchers will monitor their energy consumption and test the hormone levels related to appetite in the blood of volunteers.
After the two stages, volunteers stay in a room with a lot of food, and they can eat at will.
Those walkers are hungrier. They burn 50 calories more than they do on the treadmill.
On the other hand, those who run have smaller appetites and consume 200 fewer calories than they do.
As for those volunteers who sit quietly 1 hour and do nothing, they consume 300 calories more than they do after hunger.
After exercise, the level of a hormone called peptide yy in the runner's body increased obviously, which is a chemical substance that can resist appetite. However, the amount of this substance in pedestrians has not increased, so their appetite is still very strong.
So, if you want to eat less, run first.
However, if health is measured by other standards, new science shows that the value of walking will not be lower than that of running, and in some cases it will even be greater than it. A study published this month once again quoted data from the runner and walker health study. They found that compared with people who never exercise, runners and walkers have lower risk of senile cataract, which is another great benefit of exercise.
Compared with their peers who don't exercise, runners have much less risk of high blood pressure, cholesterol disease, diabetes and heart disease, but runners seem to perform better. For example, if they run 1 hour every day, the risk of heart disease will be reduced by 4.5%, while if pedestrians consume the same amount of energy every day, the risk of heart disease will be reduced by 9%.
Of course, few walkers consume as much energy as runners. If you want to consume the same energy as running, it will take you 1.5 times as long to walk, and the distance will be twice as long as running.
On the other hand, the health condition of runners is always worse than that of runners at the beginning, so they get more benefits from it.
Knot? Open:
Both are good things, which one to choose depends on your time and purpose. If you want to lose weight and time is precious, please choose running; If you want to be healthy and have more time, please choose walking.