What is "brisk" / "moderate" walking? An answer!

[Eddy Edson]

I found the answer! (finally).

Do you get annoyed by guidance which says things like: "At least 30 min per day of moderate exercise" and then answers the obvious question with something like "moderate = brisk walking" and then lapses into uselessness by answering to the next obvious question with guff like "vigorous enough that you can't sing but can still talk"?

I do.

But then I came across this: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/52/12/776

And it gives a clear answer: "moderate" / "brisk" walking is >= 100 steps per minute for just about everybody. So about 4.5 km per hour.

And "vigorous" walking is >= 130 steps per minute, about 6 km per hour.

Yay!

 

[Neens]

And if you can keep count, you're not walking fast enough! 😉

 

[SueEK]

I count when I’m walking. It is just over 1200 steps to walk around the block, uphill on the way and downhill on the way back. I get bored walking, I know the block off by heart so count. I do it briskly but sometimes lose count. I take 10 minutes so looks like the equation is correct!!

 

[chaoticcar]

if you are counting and timing can you sing or talk
Carol

 

[SueEK]

if you are counting and timing can you sing or talk
Carol

I may get arrested if I was singing or talking to myself walking round the streets haha 😉😉

 

[Tee G]

@Eddy Edson - Good to know, thanks for posting.

 

[ColinUK]

I found the answer! (finally).

Do you get annoyed by guidance which says things like: "At least 30 min per day of moderate exercise" and then answers the obvious question with something like "moderate = brisk walking" and then lapses into uselessness by answering to the next obvious question with guff like "vigorous enough that you can't sing but can still talk"?

I do.

But then I came across this: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/52/12/776

And it gives a clear answer: "moderate" / "brisk" walking is >= 100 steps per minute for just about everybody. So about 4.5 km per hour.

And "vigorous" walking is >= 130 steps per minute, about 6 km per hour.

Yay!

So my current pace on the treadmill is about 1km/11 minutes.
I’m doing Zombie C25K.
it feels like it’s a brisk pace but it is manageable as I don’t want to injure myself!

 

[Eddy Edson]

So my current pace on the treadmill is about 1km/11 minutes.
I’m doing Zombie C25K.
it feels like it’s a brisk pace but it is manageable as I don’t want to injure myself!

So probly about 120 paces per minute = "brisk" but not quite "vigorous", according to that.

I do 110 over avg of 9km+ per day, which I think is OK for me with my gammy leg.

On another note, some small studies suggest that arterial plaque starts to regress at around 2400 cal per week exercise, which is a bit less than I do & a good reason for keeping with the program. Effects are small though.

 

[AndBreathe]

I found the answer! (finally).

Do you get annoyed by guidance which says things like: "At least 30 min per day of moderate exercise" and then answers the obvious question with something like "moderate = brisk walking" and then lapses into uselessness by answering to the next obvious question with guff like "vigorous enough that you can't sing but can still talk"?

I do.

But then I came across this: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/52/12/776

And it gives a clear answer: "moderate" / "brisk" walking is >= 100 steps per minute for just about everybody. So about 4.5 km per hour.

And "vigorous" walking is >= 130 steps per minute, about 6 km per hour.

Yay!

Whilst nice to know there are accepted definitions, I think brisk for an 18 year old or an 80 year old would differ, for the same physiological impact, surely? For some who has been very sedentary for the last 10 years, walking more than around the black at their fastest pace could be very brisk for them , but not for others.

Of course, I think what's I'm suggesting is, for me it's not just about pace, it's about the impact of whatever the pace might be.

 

[Eddy Edson]

Whilst nice to know there are accepted definitions, I think brisk for an 18 year old or an 80 year old would differ, for the same physiological impact, surely? For some who has been very sedentary for the last 10 years, walking more than around the black at their fastest pace could be very brisk for them , but not for others.

Of course, I think what's I'm suggesting is, for me it's not just about pace, it's about the impact of whatever the pace might be.

I think the point was to work out how many steps per minute corresponds to the standard definition of "moderate activity". That definition is in terms of a common objective metric of how much energy a person expends, known as a "MET", which stands for "metabolic something something" 🙂

The interesting conclusion they come to is that the number of steps is pretty independent of age, sex etc etc.

Of course, it'll be harder for a sedentary, frail person to achieve "moderate activity" by this definition, but according to this study, the number of steps per minute wouldn't be different.

 

[AndBreathe]

I think the point was to work out how many steps per minute corresponds to the standard definition of "moderate activity". That definition is in terms of a common objective metric of how much energy a person expends, known as a "MET", which stands for "metabolic something something" 🙂

The interesting conclusion they come to is that the number of steps is pretty independent of age, sex etc etc.

Of course, it'll be harder for a sedentary, frail person to achieve "moderate activity" by this definition, but according to this study, the number of steps per minute wouldn't be different.

Yes. I completely understand that, but when discussing exercise it's a meaningless metric.

Telling a middle aged, full-time desk driver who is a gamer in their spare time to pop out and do 100 steps per minute for 30 minutes could be hard, if not risky, whereas as a Beat Bobby to do the same could be a very different proposition.

It's a bit like saying as a 160cm, and (currently too light) 46.5kg woman of middle age, I should be eating 2000 calories to maintain weight. I would disappear on that! I need way more than that, Andrew in the heat, like now, i really need to be concentrating on keeping my food uptake well up.

If one size fitted all, life would be simpler.

 

[Eddy Edson]

Yes. I completely understand that, but when discussing exercise it's a meaningless metric.

Telling a middle aged, full-time desk driver who is a gamer in their spare time to pop out and do 100 steps per minute for 30 minutes could be hard, if not risky, whereas as a Beat Bobby to do the same could be a very different proposition.

It's a bit like saying as a 160cm, and (currently too light) 46.5kg woman of middle age, I should be eating 2000 calories to maintain weight. I would disappear on that! I need way more than that, Andrew in the heat, like now, i really need to be concentrating on keeping my food uptake well up.

If one size fitted all, life would be simpler.

It's certainly not a meaningless metric. Guidance like "30 min a day moderate exercise" is based on multiple extensive studies of what level of exercise produces significant CV and other health improvements across diverse population groups. It's a different question to what level of exercise is realistic for any particular individual at any time, and it always comes attached to recommendations to work up to this kind of level over time, noting that any exercise is better than none; and that people should work with their HCP's before making radical changes to their exercise regime.

 

[Andy HB]

A beat Bobby only walks quickly because his next cuppa is getting cold!

(brother used to be a PC but is retired now)

 

[AndBreathe]

It's certainly not a meaningless metric. Guidance like "30 min a day moderate exercise" is based on multiple extensive studies of what level of exercise produces significant CV and other health improvements across diverse population groups. It's a different question to what level of exercise is realistic for any particular individual at any time, and it always comes attached to recommendations to work up to this kind of level over time, noting that any exercise is better than none; and that people should work with their HCP's before making radical changes to their exercise regime.

We'll have to agree to differ in that one. Medics are supposed to offer personalised dietary advice for T2, but how many are given a sheet that's faded from photocopying by the thousands?

I no longer have my,early days paperwork, but I bet exercise would have been similarly described in one big blanketing swoop.

 

[Eddy Edson]

We'll have to agree to differ in that one. Medics are supposed to offer personalised dietary advice for T2, but how many are given a sheet that's faded from photocopying by the thousands?

I no longer have my,early days paperwork, but I bet exercise would have been similarly described in one big blanketing swoop.

Fair point. I was thinking in terms of guidance from expert groups etc, not how that gets delivered at point of care. Too many HCP's seem to just run hand out the leaflet without doing the individual consultation piece.

Thinking back to my DX of PAD/claudication in March 2018, my GP and the vascular specialist both said just: (a) give up smoking (b) get BG under control. If you only gave two pieces of advice, these were the right ones, I reckon, but there should have been more about walking. I had to find that out for myself, really.

 

[NotWorriedAtAll]

I am only four feet ten and a bit in height. So my paces are smaller. I think about two miles an hour is moderate for me and three to four miles an hour is brisk.

 

[Andy HB]

I always understood that a brisk walk was one which raised a little perspiration and which made your heart pump a little faster. On that basis I worked out that a brisk walk around my local lake (helpfully around 1km) takes 10 minutes for me. It also takes around 10 minutes to get to the lake (again, helpfully around 1km). So, a nice 1hr walk should take me to the lake, four times around and back again.

But that puts me in your vigorous bracket, @Eddy Edson. But it only feels brisk for me because I have quite a long stride usually. 🙂

 

[Eddy Edson]

I always understood that a brisk walk was one which raised a little perspiration and which made your heart pump a little faster. On that basis I worked out that a brisk walk around my local lake (helpfully around 1km) takes 10 minutes for me. It also takes around 10 minutes to get to the lake (again, helpfully around 1km). So, a nice 1hr walk should take me to the lake, four times around and back again.

But that puts me in your vigorous bracket, @Eddy Edson. But it only feels brisk for me because I have quite a long stride usually. 🙂

Envy! 6 km per hr is my aspiration but my leg will need to de-gammify quite a lot before I can get it much over 5.