Not if you stretch beforehand and wear proper trainers. Besides, fact of the matter is, walking isn't vigorous enough to really get your heart going.
Running and walking are both fantastic exercises and both are going to be great for our health," says Dr Lynch.
But which is better?
So first up, the test has shown that we all need to find our own exercise level, but what else has it told us about running versus walking?
Lets start with weight loss:
That boils down to who burns more calories. "The food we eat is energy in and how we exercise, how we burn energy, is energy out, so the balance between energy in and energy out is whether we increase or decrease weight," explains Dr Lynch. By running, Brooke was burning energy at twice the rate of Andrew walking — 10 calories a minute to his five.
So in terms of weight loss, running wins hands down. In general, you have to walk nearly an hour, to get a similar weight-loss benefit to a half hour run.
Walker or runner, you'll get most benefit if you aim for thirty to sixty minutes a day. It doesn't have to be all at once — three or four fifteen minute blocks through the day is just as good.
Now there's one last area in this argument, where walking has the clear edge: injury.
"There's going to be much less injury associated with a low impact exercise such as walking, and that's why we can advocate walking for a lot of people, especially if they're overweight or have a cardiovascular condition, they're still going to get a lot of benefits from a brisk walk," says Dr Lynch.
The impact of running on your joints can be more than three times your body weight, every step is triple the impact of walking. You have to train your body to get used to the jarring. Ultimately that's the message, for walking or running — find your level, then build up slowly and the benefits will come, in weight loss and general health.
http://health.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=148126
