I once tried to burn 3,000+ calories per day using just walking. I had heart issues and couldn't do intense workouts, so I set a goal of 20,000 steps a day.
To hit that consistently, I ended up walking 4–5 hours daily. It worked — I was burning massive energy — but it was hugely time-consuming. When I later recovered, I realized the same burn could be done in 40 minutes of gym effort.
Walking is absolutely underrated, especially for recovery and mental clarity. But in raw efficiency... it’s humbling how long it takes to match even moderate training.
> I once tried to burn 3,000+ calories per day using just walking.
You'll generally burn about ~2k cals per day just being alive. An intense workout for an hour can burn maybe 500 on top of this. I think your math might be off somewhere if you walked a lot and figured that you spent a whole 1k.
Fat dudes burn significantly more than ~2k per day just being alive, or at least I did when I was younger. I lost significant weight on a 2300 calorie/day diet. So maybe the OP was 2500 for "being alive" and 500 for the workout?
Yeah, I too thought this number was unrealistic. I run, and I know that it takes about 60 calories per km (I run 10 km usually). To burn 3000 I'd have to... run more than a marathon (50 km, marathon is 42 km). Running marathon every day is... I won't say impossible, but is highly impractical (and actually impossible for most people who can run marathon). For an average runner, it takes 4-5 hours. So, I think that to burn 3k calories by walking one would need to walk way, way longer than 5 hours a day. Not sure even if it's possible to squeeze that much walking in a day.
> Anaerobic exercise in the form of high-intensity interval training was also found in one study to result in greater loss of subcutaneous fat, even though the subjects expended fewer than half as many calories during exercise.
Walking essentially does nothing to your EPOC levels. A one rep maximum deadlift can elevate it substantially for hours. 10 seconds of suffering can trigger responses that hours of walking cannot.
EPOC only accounts for something like 60 additional calories burned in the next 24 hours...unless there is something unexplained going on, it's _greatly_ overblown how significant this actually is
...but it sounds sciencey and sexy so it's often repeated.
You will not burn 3000 kcal in 40 minutes of gym effort. Even burning 1000kcal in an hour requires serious fitness and burning 1200 is elite athlete level max effort for a full hour.
Calories burnt by walking, assuming flat surface are decently approximated by (distance_in_km x weight) formula so it is possible to burn a lot in 4-5 hours of walking but quite unlikely to hit 3000 unless you're very fit.
Going by my fitness tracker, a 1-hour 900kcal gym session is absolutely intense. On the few times I've hit that mark, I'm laid out on the ground and probably need to take it easy the next day.
More realistically, I hit 600-700kcal per session.
I've burnt over 1000kcal in an hour cycling and I'm over 50 and not super-fit. A few hills can make all the difference as it's difficult to be lazy whilst grinding your way up-hill.
As endurance hunters our bodies are tuned for efficient use of energy during low/medium paced exercise. Walking is awesome, and I try to get out there and do an hour a day, but I agree - you get much better results from the gym because our bodies aren’t specifically tuned for those types of workouts. Lifting weights also has a lot of tangible benefits for both men and women in the short and long term.
To get some idea of how efficient we can be look at studies of the Hadza, a tribe of hunter-gatherers in Tanzania, described here [1]. The men spend the day walking around hunting, or if they can't find game climbing trees to get honey, yet burn about the same amount of calories as sedentary men in western industrialized societies. The women spend all day moving around foraging and the results are similar.
One of those being not being an otherwise healthy middle aged person constantly complaining about their back, general body pain, etc. I see people in their 70s even at the gym who look and seemingly feel great because they’ve been doing some resistance training their whole adult lives. Better than some software devs I know who never move and are in their 30s.
Presumably by 3000 you mean 1000 over the ~2000 from your basal rate? 1000kcal per day from walking alone is about 3-4 hours of walking per day depending on weight.
Dangerous, inefficient, and time-consuming compared to moderate exercise and eating less. Caloric restriction is, by far, more effective than exercise for net deficit. Thunderf00t did a video on this. https://youtube.com/watch?v=mTABw0EyIWY
Another thing about walking is - while everyone's different, long walks really increased my appetite. While walking 4 miles daily (with some hills) was great in many ways, I slowly gained 20+ pounds over 2 years. Running didn't have same effect on me.
4-5 hours for 20k steps? Because of your heart issues?
I just checked my current stats. I have 15k steps recently from walking to and from my job. And that’s not counting the steps at the gym. I take off my watch since it’s often a hindrance during work outs.
I have a recorded 'hike' (on very steep logging roads) of 7 hours with a total expenditure of 1800 cal active/2500 cal total with an elevation gain of 3000' (the decent was way harder).
Tell me how to burn 3000 calories in 40 minutes and I will be in perfect shape. It's a struggle to burn 400 in 30 minutes (hiit training, very challenging)
> I don't really think it's a good physical exercise
The problem is that most people don't do anything physical at all and walking is one of the easiest way to get started. Any type of activity is beneficial, you need to move for your lymphatic system to work properly and walking is perfect for that, your feet/lower legs basically are lymph pumps: https://www.mdpi.com/2813-3307/2/2/4
I wish more folks knew about/would take up rucking. Yes, I look a bit odd as a small woman in my neighborhood wearing a giant weighted backpack, but it's a great workout.
I once trained for a mountain hike by walking up down the stairs in our 14 floor apartment building with 25kg backpack. I had no idea it has a name! I also walked 15km to work a few times, but I admit it affected my productivity...
rucking seems like it would be bad for one's back and knees? How much weight do you use? It seems like one of those things that's military inspired, except I don't have the VA to look after me if I wear out my hard goods.
"This can't be good for your body" is a bullshit excuse most of the time, I have 1 in a million chance to pulling a muscle while deadlifting, but someone who sits all day and don't exercise has 1 in 1 chance of slowly rotting away day by day, pick your poison. Unless you morbidly obese I don't think a 10kg backpack will be the straw that breaks the camel's back
Most people got it backwards, your knees and back don't hurt because you overused them, they hurt because they're grossly underused.
If you have good form (e.g. standing upright, shoulders back) you really shouldn't have issues. it's good for your posture and bone density if you ruck correctly. You really don't want to exceed more than 1/3 of your body weight, but if you are just starting out I recommend starting with a 10 to 20lb pack.
My understanding is that most of the "bad for your knees" is actually when you don't soften the landing by bending your knees or ankle and your legs/knees get a jolt, not just the weight involved.
+1 for rucking. It's as easy as walking and you can progressively increase the weights if you want more effort - I need a better backpack for my weights!
"Walking is the suggested workout over running for... those with knee, ankle and back problems... walking... creates less stress on joints and reduces pain."
I've seen many people around me with knee replacements, and I do not want that for myself.
I walk two miles per day. I would not run for this reason.
Studies increasingly show that running is not bad for your knees and runners in fact have some of the strongest healthiest knees around. User proper form, replace your shoes regularly, don’t train for the olympics, and running will be just fine for your joints.
> Studies have shown that recreational runners have a knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) prevalence that is three times lower than that of sedentary non-runners. Competitive runners showed an even more impressive four-fold reduction in knee and hip OA prevalence. These results are due to the fact that regular running strengthens the muscles around the knee joint and supports overall joint health. Running also plays a vital role in maintaining healthy cartilage and bone density, which are crucial for knee function.
Is it your contention that if an obese, not-runner who views walking as a form of exercise were to start running, the immediate effect would not be knee injury, but actually strengthened knees, on the evidence of a study comparing recreational runners to people who are obese and don't move at all?
> I've seen many people around me with knee replacements
Caused by running too much ?
Every sport is detrimental at _very high_ level but I think you have a faaaat margin before running becomes an issue, most people are much closer to "undertraining" than "overtraining"
If you learn to run without heel striking (I don't even know how people can run like that but I see it all the time, no wonder it hurts your knees) and don't run on hard surfaces you can run a marathon a week and I doubt you'd ever develop any issues
“Adding an incline is a great way to increase the challenge for your cardiovascular system and get the same kind of benefits that you can get from jogging or running without the same amount of wear and tear on your knees,” says Tyler Spraul, a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist and the Head Trainer at Exercise.com.
It depends on your weight and current fitness levels, for sedentary and morbidly obese folks walking can be a zone 3-4 workout, as it's more like rucking.
Of course this depends on your current level of fitness. Even modest walking pace on level terrain can bring you up to ~70% of your max HR if you're out of shape.
Fun story, I once walked about 11 hours because of my stupidity, and at the end my heart wouldn't stop racing even after I passed out in a bed. I woke up a few times with my heart still racing, and that whole day and night I wasn't sure I was going to make it. Don't repeat my mistake. Don't walk too much.
I have ridden a bike for 24 hours+ several times and have not experienced anything like that. Mild post exertional resting HR increase is normal (going from 50 to 65, say) but I think you had a different issue.
Definitely, healthy people should be able to hike 8+ hours a day for days in a row with minimal difficulties. Walking shouldn't raise your heart rate that much unless you're walking uphill, a healthy heart should be able to come back under 100bpm fairly quickly too
That doesn't seem like a normal response to 11 hours of walking? I've done close to that on hikes and was basically fine (tired, but fine). I'm not unfit, but also not especially fit.
FWIW, walking 30 minutes a day is hugely beneficial. Even when I wasn't eating as healthy, my 30 minute walk would keep me maintained and healthy. I would just walk and BS with a friend for 30 minutes.
Walking is a low calorie burn which is sometimes more beneficial when you're out of shape. One theory is that your body doesn't go into fight-or-flight. Running might be too stressful, which might cause an excess cortisol response, which can increase fat storage (especially belly fat), suppress recovery, cause muscle breakdown, so overdoing running when out of shape can backfire metabolically. Not because it's ineffective, but because the body is overwhelmed by the perceived "emergency."
Anecdata, simply walking more was the magic solution for me.
Readit News
To hit that consistently, I ended up walking 4–5 hours daily. It worked — I was burning massive energy — but it was hugely time-consuming. When I later recovered, I realized the same burn could be done in 40 minutes of gym effort.
Walking is absolutely underrated, especially for recovery and mental clarity. But in raw efficiency... it’s humbling how long it takes to match even moderate training.
You'll generally burn about ~2k cals per day just being alive. An intense workout for an hour can burn maybe 500 on top of this. I think your math might be off somewhere if you walked a lot and figured that you spent a whole 1k.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_post-exercise_oxygen_co...
> Anaerobic exercise in the form of high-intensity interval training was also found in one study to result in greater loss of subcutaneous fat, even though the subjects expended fewer than half as many calories during exercise.
Walking essentially does nothing to your EPOC levels. A one rep maximum deadlift can elevate it substantially for hours. 10 seconds of suffering can trigger responses that hours of walking cannot.
...but it sounds sciencey and sexy so it's often repeated.
Calories burnt by walking, assuming flat surface are decently approximated by (distance_in_km x weight) formula so it is possible to burn a lot in 4-5 hours of walking but quite unlikely to hit 3000 unless you're very fit.
More realistically, I hit 600-700kcal per session.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_paradox
There's no evidence for this.
But everyone should walk a little bit if only for the mental health benefits.
Bipedal walking on mostly flat ground can only be matched by kangaroos' hopping in terms of energy efficiency.
I just checked my current stats. I have 15k steps recently from walking to and from my job. And that’s not counting the steps at the gym. I take off my watch since it’s often a hindrance during work outs.
Are you walking for work?
The problem is that most people don't do anything physical at all and walking is one of the easiest way to get started. Any type of activity is beneficial, you need to move for your lymphatic system to work properly and walking is perfect for that, your feet/lower legs basically are lymph pumps: https://www.mdpi.com/2813-3307/2/2/4
"This can't be good for your body" is a bullshit excuse most of the time, I have 1 in a million chance to pulling a muscle while deadlifting, but someone who sits all day and don't exercise has 1 in 1 chance of slowly rotting away day by day, pick your poison. Unless you morbidly obese I don't think a 10kg backpack will be the straw that breaks the camel's back
Most people got it backwards, your knees and back don't hurt because you overused them, they hurt because they're grossly underused.
If you want to really invest, there is the GoRuck brand. https://www.goruck.com/
I've seen many people around me with knee replacements, and I do not want that for myself.
I walk two miles per day. I would not run for this reason.
Studies increasingly show that running is not bad for your knees and runners in fact have some of the strongest healthiest knees around. User proper form, replace your shoes regularly, don’t train for the olympics, and running will be just fine for your joints.
> Studies have shown that recreational runners have a knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) prevalence that is three times lower than that of sedentary non-runners. Competitive runners showed an even more impressive four-fold reduction in knee and hip OA prevalence. These results are due to the fact that regular running strengthens the muscles around the knee joint and supports overall joint health. Running also plays a vital role in maintaining healthy cartilage and bone density, which are crucial for knee function.
https://longevity.stanford.edu/lifestyle/2023/08/29/is-runni...
Caused by running too much ?
Every sport is detrimental at _very high_ level but I think you have a faaaat margin before running becomes an issue, most people are much closer to "undertraining" than "overtraining"
If you learn to run without heel striking (I don't even know how people can run like that but I see it all the time, no wonder it hurts your knees) and don't run on hard surfaces you can run a marathon a week and I doubt you'd ever develop any issues
https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/will-continuing-to...
“Adding an incline is a great way to increase the challenge for your cardiovascular system and get the same kind of benefits that you can get from jogging or running without the same amount of wear and tear on your knees,” says Tyler Spraul, a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist and the Head Trainer at Exercise.com.
There was even a period of history where extreme volumes of walking were used in marathon training.
88 hours of walking.
Walking is a low calorie burn which is sometimes more beneficial when you're out of shape. One theory is that your body doesn't go into fight-or-flight. Running might be too stressful, which might cause an excess cortisol response, which can increase fat storage (especially belly fat), suppress recovery, cause muscle breakdown, so overdoing running when out of shape can backfire metabolically. Not because it's ineffective, but because the body is overwhelmed by the perceived "emergency."
Anecdata, simply walking more was the magic solution for me.