October 23rd, 2024

Walking in short bursts consume 20-60% more energy than walking continuously

A study from the University of Milan found that walking in short bursts increases energy expenditure by 20% to 60% compared to continuous walking, suggesting varied exercise intensity enhances efficiency.

Read original articleLink Icon
CuriositySkepticismInterest
Walking in short bursts consume 20-60% more energy than walking continuously

A study conducted by pathophysiologists at the University of Milan has revealed that walking in short bursts can lead to a significant increase in energy expenditure, consuming 20% to 60% more energy compared to walking continuously over the same distance. The research, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, involved 10 volunteers who walked on a treadmill or climbed stairs for varying durations while their oxygen intake was monitored to assess energy consumption. The findings suggest that the body's energy demands are higher during start-and-stop activities due to the energy required to initiate movement and reach a steady pace. This phenomenon is likened to a car using more fuel when accelerating from a stop. The researchers recommend that individuals looking to enhance their exercise routines should incorporate multiple short bursts of activity rather than maintaining a steady pace for longer periods.

- Short bursts of walking can increase energy expenditure by 20% to 60%.

- The study involved monitoring oxygen intake of volunteers during various activities.

- Energy consumption is higher during start-and-stop exercises compared to steady activities.

- The findings suggest a potential strategy for improving exercise efficiency.

- The research emphasizes the importance of varying exercise intensity for better energy use.

AI: What people are saying
The comments on the article about short bursts of walking reveal several key insights and themes.
  • Many commenters relate the findings to existing exercise methodologies like HIIT and Tabata, suggesting a familiarity with the principles of interval training.
  • There is a discussion about the physiological mechanisms behind energy expenditure during short bursts versus continuous exercise, with some emphasizing the role of anaerobic versus aerobic systems.
  • Some users express personal experiences with exercise, noting how they feel more energized during steady activities compared to stop-and-go situations.
  • Questions arise regarding the study's methodology, particularly the small sample size and the need for more comprehensive data.
  • Several commenters seek clarification on practical applications, such as optimal burst durations and how to incorporate this approach into regular exercise routines.
Link Icon 15 comments
By @rojeee - 6 months
I'm not an exercise physiologist but I have an interest in it. The article states that more energy is used when the body is gearing up for an activity and I'm guessing this is because if you exercise for only up to a few minutes at a time with sufficient rest in between intervals then you'll end up mostly using the phosphocreatine and anaerobic glycolosis systems which are less efficient than aerobic glycolosis or aerobic lipoylsis. It's why when you start running without a sufficient warm up, you're always a bit out of breath even when running at sub maximal efforts and later on in the same run, even when running faster, your breathing can be super relaxed. The aerobic system takes a while to "spin up". In other words, you start with poor running economy... using more calories to run the same speed but as your aerobic system spins up, your running economy increases and you use less calories to run the same speed.

It's my understanding that by doing the type of exercise mentioned in the article - short bursts - you'll get positive physiological adaptations to your anearobic capacity but it won't have much impact on your aerobic capcity, which I would argue is the more important system to train for everyday operations of the human body!

By @scp3125 - 6 months
This is because maintaining inertia is efficient, despite the stress on the system. This is the reason High Intensity Interval Training and High Intensity Resistance Training work at all, because you're making a conscious effort in your exercise methodology to eliminate momentum and acceleration from the movements, which increases the work done within the context of your body, reducing the exerted energy lost to mechanical inefficiency of repeated movements.

You don't even need to stop moving while walking to see this effect in action. Just try walking so slow that you've eliminated almost all the momentum from the motion of walking. Just try it for a minute straight and see how it feels. (Forewarning: It's going to look ridiculous, like you're walking in slow motion.)

By @FrancoisBosun - 6 months
I hate shopping, because it’s start and stop all the time. I get tired after only 30m.

Then, I’ll walk home from the office (1h) and will have lots of energy to actually DO something.

The title resonated with me very strongly.

By @yetihehe - 6 months
The article doesn't say what is the best burst duration. From paper:

> Our findings show that the time-averaged oxygen uptake and metabolic cost are greater for shorter than longer bouts: 30-s bouts consume 20–60% more oxygen than steady-state extrapolations.

> After each bout, V̇O2 was measured during the recovery for 7 min while participants were sitting on the same chair

So, each participant (there was 10 participants) done a trial of bouts, each bout randomly 10-240s plus 7min rest.

By @rippeltippel - 6 months
Anything new here? Isn't it the same principle underlying Tabata/HIIT training methods?
By @maroonblazer - 6 months
Do I take this to mean that instead of running 5K at a relatively steady pace, I should instead break it up into several walk-short burst run-walk cycles?
By @alberth - 6 months
Interval Training

Makes sense ... short walking bursts is a mild form of 'interval training', which has been shown to have major benefits over constant/prolong exercise.

By @wruza - 6 months
Two questions: had these bursts same W(=FS) over time or proportionally less due to stops? Iow, slow-fast vs normal or slow-normal vs normal?

Did they measure energy consumption for replacing short-term resources like creatine phosphate, glucose, etc? Instant oxygen consumption probably doesn’t paint the whole picture. Blood tests obviously required?

By @tcfhgj - 6 months
May it also be explainable by the additionally needed acceleration of the body mass?
By @darkwater - 6 months
> To find out, they recruited 10 volunteers.

I mean, It doesn't look like such a complicated study, no? Why didn't they check, IDK, with at least 100 people? With 10, which is 5 per sex, it's almost impossible to not just be anectdata.

By @worstspotgain - 6 months
Cue John Cleese
By @nsbk - 6 months
Can someone please tell the Fremen?