walking vs. walking in place

**Cyndie32** · 12-07-2011 11:51 AM

Good afternoon people. i was wondering is anyone has any information on the difference fitness and calorie wise between walking with arms moving vs. walking in place with arms moving? i have tried looking it up with no luck. has anyone researched this before? i just don't want to be recording walking in place as walking if there is a calorie difference. fitness wise is one better for you than another? any info would be greatly appreciated

**KMonte85** · 12-07-2011 12:24 PM

I'm not sure about the caloric difference, but I would think that fitness wise, walking in a forward motion (moving) is better than walking in place (stationary). The physics change a bit when you're propelling your body forward, which in my mind would require exerting more energy.

I think especially for anyone walking outside, the incline of the path changes, the elements (wind in your face, for example) can be more challenging, and therefore you will get more out of moving than staying stationary. And if your body is exerting more energy, you're also in turn going to be burning more calories.

This is just purely my opinion though, as I don't know of any actual studies that have been done on this.

**Cyndie32** · 12-07-2011 12:55 PM

that is kinda what i was thinking because with walking you actually have to propell yourself forward. i have been walking in place watching tv. that is my new rule. if i am going to watch tv, i have to be moving. i figure it offers more benefits that just sitting. just wondering how to record the calories.

i use my pedomiter but thats for walking, not walking in place.

**KMonte85** · 12-07-2011 01:02 PM

Do you use calorie count? Not that it is an exact science, but I would classify this activity closer to "household walking," 139 calories per hour or so, than to walking in general. That might be give or take depending on how fast you're walking in place, how much you're moving your arms, and if you have anything (weights?) on your body to increase the resistance/exertion.

**Cyndie32** · 12-07-2011 01:35 PM

no weights or anything yet but yes i do use calorie count. and that's how i was recording it! great minds think alike!!!!! i figure i can't go wrong underestimating it right? my pedomiter says that i am walking between 2.75 and 3 mph (but again, the pedometer thinks i have forward momentum) and i do swing my arms. sometimes quite frantically! lol it's quite a site.

**KMonte85** · 12-07-2011 01:46 PM

Definitely great minds teehee! I totally agree with you - it is more exercise than just sitting on your behind, but it isn't so much exercise that you want to over-report it on your activity log, so definitely better to underestimate!

I can only imagine what you look like marching in place, waving your arms around while watching TV. I get a mental picture of the WACKY WAVING INFLATABLE ARM FLAILING TUBE MEN from Family Guy! LOL

**Cyndie32** · 12-07-2011 01:55 PM

omg that is so funny! that is probably what i look like. my dog thinks i am absolutely nuts! he can't understand why he cant go on the walk with me! lol. thanks kmonte. as always "You Rock!"

**HookedOnFitness** · 01-18-2012 06:38 AM

You will probably notice that it's actually "easier" by walking forward instead of in place. When I used to use a treadmill, I used to get very bored with the feeling of doing all this work and getting no where! Getting outdoors and walking, talking, seeing, even singing will have better benefits mentally with will translate to physically too in my opinion...

**snooks** · 01-18-2012 01:55 PM

The other day when I couldn't get out and I had "done" the elliptical I did some walking in place and to make it a bit more energetic I not only swung my arms like fury but lifted my knees waist high! Now that burns some calories! And to add to it I did intervals of going flat tack for a while and then slowing down again. I reckon that particular walk had more calorie burn than a regular walk outside!!

**Tim** · 02-19-2012 12:28 PM

ANY time there is more muscle involvement, there is more calorie expenditure, if that is what you're after. Engaging more muscle into any effort at all requires energy...calories used...to accomplish.

One of the latest new "fads," but isn't a fad at all, is to walk barefoot on sand/dirt/grass/ground to derive the benefits of the electron flow from the earth to help neutralize free radicals...the research and results in this area are showing this to be potentially profound.

Having insulated our bodies from the earth via rubber soles all these years, we're doing ourselves a disservice...so a more aggressive walk, incorporating the arms perhaps even with some light ankle and wrist weights, and on the ground, is unquestionably only going to serve to benefit a reasonably healthy person with more caloric expenditure, certainly as compared to not......Tim