15,000 steps a day is a lot. And, time consuming. I came close but didn't hit it. Close enough to learn what I wanted. I don't need months of a regimen to know if something's effective. I think low intensity ambulation is pretty lame. I still felt an increase in hunger during these long stepping days. I doubt it's sustainable either. It's a ton of walking.
I'd rather do some cardio and a healthy bunch of resistance. The latter's always been a better feel for me and is what I'll settle with. It's still tricky to fit the gym in, but, it's what I'll try for instead of spending my time on the low end of cardio.
At least my dog will be happy. She was getting exhausted taking an extra 4 walks each night.
Frequent reader(s) of DavesBeer know I start way more studies than I finish. It's a blog after all, journalism without the facts and all that.
Ever since I entered the deep dark realm of shitty things your body does to you just because you're lucky enough to live past 40, I've been interested in exercise that I can do the rest of my life. Yoga is a good one. Walking is even better. I still do a fair bit of resistance training too.
The other day, I read a neat piece in the NYTimes summarizing some recent studies of exercise and weight loss. Anytime I hear low intensity ambulation in the context of weight loss, my palms get sweaty and my heart races. Read the piece, it's interesting. The bullet? High intensity exercise is good, but increases appetite while a lower intensity exercise seems to burn calories without increasing appetite. To that end, I'm shooting for my own low intensity study. 100K steps in a week.
My casual/lazy day with a pedometer gives me about 5,000 steps. If I park far away, take stairs, walk the dog, etc, I can get 10,000 steps a day without too much effort. But 15,000 steps? That's a bit of work. I'm starting today and I'll end next Monday night. The goal is 15K/day, but, more importantly, shooting for an exercise/activity level I can sustain. Should be interesting.