Salem, Oregon's
Running & Walking Club Site
Home of
Willamette Valley Road Runners (WVRR)
www.WVRoadrunners.org.

Walking for Fitness by Eb Engelmann

The new Willamette Valley Road Runners Club, despite its rather prescriptive name, professes to be interested in and supportive of other running as well as walking endeavors. Among these are track, trail, and adventure running and race or fitness walking. Toward that end, let me make a few comments on behalf of walking.

While I am a runner, and I dearly love running, I am also a walker. And as I move through the years, I am walking more and running less. While walking is not limited to older participants, it clearly has advantages for that group. In that regard, a comprehensive 1993 national survey (the last I have seen) indicated that two-thirds of walkers were women, and their average age at that time was 46. For the men, it was 54. However, the age of participants was dropping precipitously, and the ranks of walkers were growing substantially. Also at that time, some 70 million Americans indicated they walked for exercise at least six times per year, and 14 million walked 100 days or more.

Walking may include race, power, fitness, and aerobic walking, as well as hiking, strolling, striding, sauntering, and still other descriptors for walking. (My only requirement is that you, the practitioner, think of yourself as walking. I don't quite include window-shopping as walking, for example.)

Whatever the speed or style, walking is actually quite different from running. It is typically slower. I started to say "much slower," but that is a matter of degree, talent, and expertise. Some very accomplished race walkers can do a mile well under seven minutes and a 10K under 46 minutes. Some runners do a ten-minute mile and a 70-minute 10K. However, running, when performed by skilled or talented practitioners, is significantly faster. And that, I am sure, is why I like it so much. One can cover so much more ground. Also, I have yet to experience one of those grand if rare endorphin highs while walking!

Walking is distinguished by always having one foot on the ground. If both feet should leave the ground at the same time, then you are running—period! Race walking, and indeed any "walking," is further distinguished by having the weight-bearing knee momentarily straighten as it passes under the axis of the body. It is difficult to walk without doing this. Running, on the other hand, normally does not do this.

Walking also has much less impact than running. Since the walker is always in contact with the ground, she is never airborne. Walkers land with 1 to 1-1/2 times their body weight per foot-strike, while runners land with 3-4 times their body weight. This has some significant physical ramifications, both in terms of work and in resultant impact to the body. There is, again, obviously much less impact in walking.

Walkers also strike the ground hardest on their heel, rather than upon their forefoot, as is typical of the majority of runners. A walker's foot is normally in contact with the ground longer, through a longer rotation and range of motion, and the forefoot of the trailing leg requires nearly twice the angle of flexion at push-off. This demands greater flexibility throughout the range of motion, especially at its end. That is why shoe manufacturers recommend walkers invest specifically in walking rather than running shoes.

Walking, then, typically involves much less overall stress to the body, and it results in far fewer injuries to bones, muscles, and connective tissues and structures than does running. I believe that is why it appeals so much to female and older participants. I can walk every day, even the day before a running race, with minimal fatigue and virtually no soreness, unless I am absolutely hammering my workout. On the other hand, I can now only run every-other day, and, depending upon the vigor and length of my run, I may still be sore and tired two days later. While I can make myself run more frequently, not only am I then sore and tired, I am also dreading it. An older body simply requires more recovery time from the stresses and impact of running.

However, walking may not be totally without hazard. If taken to new or extra levels, it may well produce blisters, and in perhaps in different places than in running. As explained above, a walker typically has a much harder heel strike, and the foot goes through a longer and more complete range of motion. Not surprisingly, then, in some major walks I have developed some fierce blisters on the heels and the balls of my feet, as well as upon or between the toes. This is where the impact of the foot-strike and the foot's rotation and push-off come to bear. And the antidote is specific training, proper shoes and fit, synthetic or wool socks—also with a good fit, and then, perhaps, some strategically placed tape or lubrication.

Finally, having discussed some of the ins and outs of walking, let me mention the reasons to walk. It has many of the same advantages of running—and then some! As already explained, it is low impact. It is easy and simple. Almost anyone can do it. It is (or should be) cheap. It can be private or social. It can be done almost anywhere and at any time. It can be done on numerous surfaces and on varied terrain and topography. It can be done in all kinds of weather, (and in that regard it is much easier to do in heat, where it also results in less dehydration than running). It can be done carrying quite a load, as in a pack. It is easily adaptable to various levels of fitness, health, and physical exertion. It can also be quite therapeutic for the inactive. Try it!