NEW Walking Method 2x Better Than Running?! (Tested)

Running burns fat faster than walking. A 30 secondond workout can never compete with 40 minutes. And if you do too much cardio, then you're going to lose muscle. But are these actually true? In this video, I'm using the world's most accurate calorie and fat burn tracker and talking to the top sports scientists to bust the 10 biggest cardio myths. Starting with our first myth. Walking isn't hard enough to improve your fitness. To find out, my editor Andy is walking 30 minutes a day for the next 2

weeks. But first, we need his baseline. We're running two before and after tests to see if walking improves Andy's fitness. The first one is a V2 max test. You basically push your body as hard and as long as possible until you physically can't go anymore. >> Keep going, Andy. Keep going. Push. Push. Push. >> Many scientists consider this score to be one of the strongest predictors of how fit you are and even how long you'll live. Now, the highest scores ever

weeks. But first, we need his baseline. We're running two before and after tests to see if walking improves Andy's fitness. The first one is a V2 max test. You basically push your body as hard and as long as possible until you physically can't go anymore. >> Keep going, Andy. Keep going. Push. Push. Push. >> Many scientists consider this score to be one of the strongest predictors of how fit you are and even how long you'll live. Now, the highest scores ever

recorded, they come from elite cyclists, cross-country skiers, and Olympic level triathletes. Andy is not one of those people. He averages less than 3,000 steps a day, giving him a day one V2 max score of 34, which puts him below average for his age. But we also want to measure if his heart improves under normal, less intense conditions, which is why we're also running what's called a submaximal test. But Andy isn't our only guinea pig. I've recruited multiple

subjects with completely different body types and fitness levels to see whether or not these myths affect everyone the same way. So, while Andy's working on our first myth, we still have nine more myths to bust, including our next one. Does more sweat equal more fat burn? And to help me with this myth, we have Alicia, who's biking in a very cold gym right now. And using our metabolic cart, we're going to be able to track every calorie burned and also her fat burn.

And once her 10 minutes are up, she's going to take a break for her heart rate to return back to baseline while we turn up the heat. Then we're going to find out if she actually burns more calories and fat cycling for the same time at the same pace, only this time in a hot, high sweat environment. Do you think you're going to burn more calories in the hotter environment, dripping sweat? >> Yeah, I think so. because I'll be sweating a lot more for sure. >> And we're going to go exact same speed

with the same resistance. And I want you to maintain 37.

And now cycling in the warmer environment, Alicia is already breaking a sweat just after 6 minutes. But here is the surprising part. Fitter people, they actually start sweating sooner. Their bodies get better at cooling itself. It activates sweating earlier and in greater capacity. so you can sustain harder efforts without overheating. >> All right, keep the pace up. Keep the pace up. >> But all that extra sweat would only improve her fat loss if it's also causing her body to burn more calories.

>> 3 2 1 Keep going. >> After just 10 minutes of cycling in the heat, Alicia literally had sweat dripping on the floor. Was this harder? >> Yeah. >> Last time you said what, 7.5? What was the difficulty this time? >> Like a nine. >> Nine. Do you think uh you burned a lot more calories in this one? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, for sure. Definitely. Well, we are about to find out. Okay, so in the cool workout, Alicia burned 131 calories at an average heart rate of 150 beats per

minute. But in the heat, even though her heart rate was actually higher the whole time, she burned just 120 calories. How? Well, even though her heart was pumping harder to cool her body, the workout now felt much harder. And even though I tried my best to keep her on pace, I did notice her performance dipped more often, explaining the lower calorie burn. And when we also compared how much fat she burned in each workout, the percentages were quite similar. So all

minute. But in the heat, even though her heart rate was actually higher the whole time, she burned just 120 calories. How? Well, even though her heart was pumping harder to cool her body, the workout now felt much harder. And even though I tried my best to keep her on pace, I did notice her performance dipped more often, explaining the lower calorie burn. And when we also compared how much fat she burned in each workout, the percentages were quite similar. So all

that extra sweat was basically just for show. Later on, I'm going to use a mass to test how different workouts affect how much fat you burn. But first, can you eat back whatever calories you burn from exercise? You've probably seen the invites to a run club that ends with donuts, ice cream, or even beers. And the assumption most people make is that as long as you work out hard first, you can eat back the calories you just burned off. And to test this, I prepared

a table of snacks for Andy and Alicia. Now, what I want to do is I'm going to give you each a plate, and I want you to fill it up with however much food you think you just burned off. I like how they're just like so hesitant about what they're choosing though. >> I don't know either. >> Andy is making a good choice with the orange. I felt like he didn't want me to judge him, so he's trying to balance the plate nicely. People are really, really bad at estimating how many calories

they're consuming. They usually underestimate it by at least 20 to 50%. >> Do you like Doritos? >> I do like Doritos. That looks good to me. >> I think I'll take this. And the second thing is that people think they burn way more calories on their workouts than they actually do. Usually they guess two to three times more calorie burn from their workouts than they've actually burned. And it helps explain why even if you've added some exercise to your routine that you may not be seeing the

they're consuming. They usually underestimate it by at least 20 to 50%. >> Do you like Doritos? >> I do like Doritos. That looks good to me. >> I think I'll take this. And the second thing is that people think they burn way more calories on their workouts than they actually do. Usually they guess two to three times more calorie burn from their workouts than they've actually burned. And it helps explain why even if you've added some exercise to your routine that you may not be seeing the

results you want. And when I went back to analyze their plates using the Built with Science app meal scanner, their total calories added up to So your plate 535 calories. >> Oh god. your plate. 526 calories. >> Oh, wait. I didn't see there's another one. I thought it was just one. You tricked me. >> No, >> you're trying to hide it. Now, to be fair, Andy and Alicia had no idea how many calories they'd actually burned during their workouts. So, here is the real question. What would happen to

their weight if I had them eat back that exact amount of calories? Would their weight go up, down, or stay exactly the same? Now, you would think it would just balance out, but here's the problem. If you're dieting, then after cardio, your body tends to compensate by burning fewer calories for the rest of the day. It lowers something called NEAt. Things like fidgeting, walking around, and movements you probably aren't even aware of. This is one reason why research

consistently shows that when people try losing weight through cardio alone, they end up losing only 20 to 50% of what you'd predict based on the calorie burn from their workouts. So, if you burn 500 calories from cardio and then eat back 500 calories thinking you're breaking even, you're probably going to be disappointed and you're better off looking at cardio as a health benefit instead of an excuse to load up on food. But if you still like the idea of getting calorie data after every

workout, then how much can you actually trust the numbers from your wearables? Now, many people assume these devices are completely useless because they just estimate your calories based on your weight, age, and heart rate. But to test this claim, we're not only going to be collecting data with our Metabella cart, which has an accuracy rate above 98%, but we'll also be using a normal Apple Watch. So, at the end, we'll be able to compare our results from every workout

to find out just how reliable these wearable fitness trackers actually are. Now, go ahead and lock in your prediction now, and I'll even give you a hint. After measuring our first two exercises, we are currently sitting at a respectable 84% accuracy. But it's still early and we have six more myths left to test, including, do you actually need 10,000 steps a day to get the most health benefits? You see, our obsession with getting 10,000 steps per day actually dates back to the 1960s when a

Japanese step counter was released called the Mampo meter with Mampo translating to 10,000 steps. However, there was no actual science behind this number. The marketing team just thought it sounded catchy, and they were right. The 10,000 step slogan blew up until it eventually became synonymous with the benchmark for health. Now, when you look at the new research backing this claim up, at first glance, everything does actually check out. According to an analysis from earlier this year,

compared to people averaging less than 2,000 steps a day, getting 10,000 steps reduced all-c cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and even dementia. But here's where it gets really interesting. So, the people in these studies, they didn't actually need 10,000 steps to see these improvements. Most of the health benefits actually started to level off once people were hitting a daily average of just 7,000 steps, which for many people is a more realistic target. But

if you're thinking walking only gives you big benefits if you're older or just not very fit, I'm actually running our V2 max experiment with a second subject. My friend Brandon, who lifts weights and plays sports, but just doesn't walk much outside of that. So, while Andy is trying to improve on his V2 max score of 34, Brandon will be following the same walking protocol to see if it improves his above average score of 43. To help them do that, they're going to be doing

what just might be the most effective way to walk, the Japanese walking method. And start. This involves 3 minutes of brisk walking at a pace that's fast enough to get your heart rate up to 70% of its max. Then you follow it up with three minutes of normal walking to get your heart rate back down. And you repeat that for a total of 30 minutes. Researchers in Japan compared this walking protocol in one group to just walking over 8,000 steps a day in another group. After 6

months, the group who was assigned interval walking outperformed the 8,000 steps group in every single category, including an almost 10% jump in aerobic capacity. Now, in just two weeks, we'll be retesting Andy and Brandon to see if this interval walking actually improves their results. But in the meantime, these brisk walking sessions may be good for more than just conditioning. Many people claim exercising at this low intensity, also known as zone 2 training, is a sweet spot for fat loss.

>> It comes to your aerobic level of fitness, we have different zones, and your fat burning zone is zone two. >> If you have the goal of fat loss and you're not doing zone 2 training, then you need to be doing zone two. So, to test this myth, here's what I'm doing. Two 10-minute workouts. The first, a zone 2 incline walk at around 60% of my max heart rate to get my body in the fat burning zone. Then, I'm turning up the speed for a higher intensity run to find

out if my body actually will burn less fat. And the results, it might surprise you. You can clearly see that my body relies far more on fats when I'm doing the zone 2 incline walking compared to when I'm running. the actual fat percentage is when I was doing the incline walking 75% fat burn when I was doing the running 15% fat burn. So when they say zone two training is actually the best exercise for fat burn that's actually true. However, there is a big difference between fat burn and actual

fat loss. Let me explain. Your body is smart. If you burn more fats during your workout, your body compensates by relying more on carbs the rest of the day. Whereas if you burn more carbs, the opposite happens. So, while zone 2 is great for health and endurance, as it makes your body better at producing energy and recovering between workouts, when it comes to losing body fat, what matters most isn't the heart rate zone of your workout. It's how many total calories your body ends up burning,

fat loss. Let me explain. Your body is smart. If you burn more fats during your workout, your body compensates by relying more on carbs the rest of the day. Whereas if you burn more carbs, the opposite happens. So, while zone 2 is great for health and endurance, as it makes your body better at producing energy and recovering between workouts, when it comes to losing body fat, what matters most isn't the heart rate zone of your workout. It's how many total calories your body ends up burning,

which should make it quite obvious that running is way more effective for fat loss than walking. Right? To test this claim, I sent Dennis out with our calorie tracker and asked him to walk for a mile, take a break, and then run for a mile. Now, Dennis and I may have different definitions about the word run, but while his slow jog was still burning more calories per minute than his walking, when I tallied up the total results, I was not expecting both workouts to burn almost the exact same

amount of calories, around 150 each. But when I reviewed Dennis's footage, things started to make sense. So, I reverse engineered his pace based on how long each mile took him. His walk came out to 3.2 2 mph, which for a guy his height is actually a very brisk walk. Honestly, it would make him the perfect walking coach for Andy and Brandon. But his run was only 4.6 mph. And if you've ever tried walking faster and faster, you know there's a point where jogging actually

feels easier than continuing to walk. And that borderline is important because while yes, dentists still burn more calories per minute while jogging, the difference wasn't actually that big. And so to confirm this, I tested the same experiment with my wife Tonnie using a treadmill to control for speed. She burned 98 calories matching Dennis's walking speed, but when jogging at 6.2 mph, her calorie burn jumped up to 110, which is fairly consistent with most of

the research. Running typically burns 10 to 30% more calories compared to walking the same distance. Plus, you can expect an extra 10% from the afterburn, depending on how hard you push. But what both tests show is that while it does take longer, walking at a brisk pace is still a great calorie burner and for some people can be much easier to stick to or just start out with compared to more demanding cardio. It's one of the reasons why meta analysis comparing less

the research. Running typically burns 10 to 30% more calories compared to walking the same distance. Plus, you can expect an extra 10% from the afterburn, depending on how hard you push. But what both tests show is that while it does take longer, walking at a brisk pace is still a great calorie burner and for some people can be much easier to stick to or just start out with compared to more demanding cardio. It's one of the reasons why meta analysis comparing less

intense to more intense cardio found that they were both equally effective for fat loss. So the key is choosing what you'll actually be consistent with. But with busy schedules, maybe you don't even have 20 minutes a day to block off for walking or running. And if that's your situation, there is a way to get an even better benefit from your cardio in as little as 30 seconds. Now, I know that probably sounds too good to be true, as some people believe cardio has

to last 20 minutes or longer in order to have any benefit to your health. But a recent study challenges that idea. Researchers had two groups. One did the classic approach, 40 minutes of slow and steady cycling. The other did what's called exercise snacks, just a 30-se secondond allout burst running up a staircase, done three times throughout the day. Both groups did their workouts three times a week. After 6 weeks of this, the long cardio group didn't significantly improve their V2 max. But

the stair sprint group, who trained for just 90 seconds total each day, they improved their V2 max by 7%. And this isn't just some fluke. Study after study shows these short exercise snacks can improve nearly every marker of fitness. Now, depending on your fitness level, this could be 30 second sprints using stairs or the stairmaster, 20 bodyweight squats, 15 burpees, a minute of fast jogging. The key is pushing hard enough to spike your heart rate and doing this

multiple times to break long periods of sitting. Now, to be clear, longer, slower sessions are still extremely beneficial for your health in other ways. But if you're tight on time, this is a powerful workaround. But with just two myths left before Andy and Brandon's retest, it's time to bust our next myth. Is cardio the best exercise for fat loss? So to find out, I first tracked my calorie burn during my main form of exercise, strength training. A full lower body workout that's easily my

toughest workout of the week, complete with barbell squats, hip thrust, hack squats, and hamstring curls. After 1 hour of heavy lifting, my total calorie burn added up to just 370 calories. For comparison, it took just 25 minutes of moderate intensity on the assault bike to match that same number. Now, you might be surprised, but that's because lifting weights involves short bursts of effort followed by rest periods where your heart rate drops back down. Whereas on the assault bike, I'm giving

consistent effort, which keeps my heart rate high the entire time. Which helps explain why a meta analysis from earlier this year found that those who stuck to cardio for 10 weeks or more lost more total weight and slightly more fat compared to subjects who were only strength training. But here's where it gets complicated. If you're relying on cardio alone for fat loss, only 50 to 75% of the weight you lose typically comes from fat as your body taps into muscle to use for energy. and muscle

loss has been shown to be correlated with higher hunger and a higher likelihood you'll eventually regain any fat that you do lose. Strength training, it fixes that by giving your body a reason to hold on to muscle so that almost all the weight you lose comes from fat. And in some cases, you could even get a similar result to my brother-in-law Dayton who followed his workouts and diet plan made by my Built with Science Plus app and lost 19 lbs but also gained 6.8 8 lb of lean mass in

the process, which means he actually lost 26 lb of pure fat in just 150 days. Now, if he had instead relied on cardio alone, while he may have lost a similar amount of weight, without the muscle gain, his transformation would have looked completely different. So, no, cardio alone isn't the best exercise for fat loss. It strengthens your heart and it does burn more calories, but you need to pair it with strength training for the best long-term results. But what

would have happened if I doubled or even tripled how much cardio Dayton was doing? Would all that extra cardio lead to muscle loss even if he was still strength training? To help me answer that question, I brought in an expert. >> Touchdown gives the Texans the lead. I would say that, you know, our guys are on their feet um in terms of practice, 6 to 8 hours a week, somewhere between 6 to 7 miles um of distance covered in a practice week. >> That's Dr. Mark Lewis, the director of

applied sports science for the Houston Texans, where he's working daily with athletes who do more cardio than any gym bro you'll ever meet, yet still manage to be incredibly jacked. I've seen 650 lb squatters like with a a good full range of motion squat, 400 plus bench presses. I've seen 350 lb incline press. What's crazy is that in most of those situations, we actually didn't let them go to what their true max was just for safety reasons. >> Now, I know NFL players are a bit of an

outlier compared to most lifters. Plus, they have a team of specialists helping them manage nutrition and recovery. So, what would happen to an average lifter who ramps up his cardio to four to five sessions per week? >> I don't think is anything that's going to move you in an opposite direction. In fact, I think it would put you in a better place from a a muscular development standpoint. I think it would help your work capacity in the gym. It would help your body composition. It

would help you recover between your strength training bouts. Ultimately, it's going to help you put on strength, help you gain lean muscle mass. In fact, one group of researchers were so convinced certain cardio methods could help gain rather than hurt it that they took subjects who were already fit and had them perform 45 minutes of single leg cycling followed by both legs completing the same strength workout. The results, the cycling leg grew almost twice as much with a lot of that growth

coming from type one endurance fibers which may respond better to low resistance high rep work. But the researchers also think that the cardio itself improve the muscle's blood flow and nutrient delivery, which might explain why the claws of many professional cyclists are absolutely massive. Now, there is a point where doing too much cardio can actually cause muscle loss, but there's two key things you can do to prevent that. >> Try to have strength training first,

then do the aerobic. If you can separate them, I think that's ideal. And I would say separate them by um around 6 hours in a perfect world. So, if you do a really long run, that's like 90 minutes, 2 hours, you got to have protein after that, but you also got to make sure you you got a good intake of of carbohydrates as well, probably somewhere between 1.5 g to 2 g of carbohydrates per kilogram of body mass. And general rule of thumb, most people that worry about this stuff don't really

need to worry about it because they're so far beneath a threshold of having to balance these things strategically for it to actually manage or matter. So, with no reason to fear cardio impacting your gains, it's time to retest Andy and Brandon to see if their two weeks of walking made any improvements to their fitness. I never felt such an like bad condition as now before I started doing workout. And I hope today my results will be better and uh I'll get to a better point. Yeah. And

we'll be starting out with their submax test first followed by their V2 max. So, while they're completing test one, I did have a chance to add up the remaining data from our Apple Watch test. And let's just say the results were not what I was expecting. The data we got was all over the map with different exercises where the Apple Watch would under report, others where it would over report, and a few workouts where it actually seemed like the data was bang on, adding up to an average accuracy

coming in at 79%. Which is honestly a little bit higher than I was expecting. So, I'm not going to say that it's completely useless, but given the range of estimates that we did get, I don't think you should rely on it for anything more serious than just having interesting rough data. And that is why for Brandon and Andy's final test, we're relying on the most reliable equipment available for testing. >> How you feel now? >> Scared. >> All right. 3 2 1 go.

On his first test, Andy was only able to make it 9 minutes and 36 seconds before he had to tap out. This time, when we hit the 9-minute mark, he was still going strong. >> You've got it. Over 9 minutes gone now. 10 minutes. Well done. >> Good job. 1020. Andy ran almost a full minute longer than he did in his first test. But how much did that actually improve his score? >> 34.9. So, a modest improvement. >> A little bit. a little bit. Now, while that may not sound like much, that's a

3.5% increase. And for context, V2 max usually declines by about 1% per year after your mid20s. So, if Andy chose to do nothing, then by age 65, his score could go down to as low as 22, which means he struggled with simple things like going up the stairs or getting groceries. But in just 2 weeks of walking, he didn't just slow that decline, he actually pushed it in the opposite direction. And when we looked at the data from his submaximal test, the changes were even clearer. At the

3.5% increase. And for context, V2 max usually declines by about 1% per year after your mid20s. So, if Andy chose to do nothing, then by age 65, his score could go down to as low as 22, which means he struggled with simple things like going up the stairs or getting groceries. But in just 2 weeks of walking, he didn't just slow that decline, he actually pushed it in the opposite direction. And when we looked at the data from his submaximal test, the changes were even clearer. At the

exact same brisk walking pace as last time, Andy's heart rate was now lower. It recovered faster. His breathing was more efficient, and he was relying more on fat and less on carbs for fuel. So, in other words, his heart and his muscles got better at doing the same work with less stress. And he could feel the difference, too. Overall feeling of my body, like I feel better just in general. more healthier. And that's exactly why he's decided not to stop there. Andy

wants to take this to the next level. So, I've decided to start personally coaching him through a calisthenics program to see just how fit we can get him using only his body weight. Subscribe to the channel to make sure you don't miss his transformation and comment go Andy below to show your support. Now, Brandon, on the other hand, his results actually look quite different. He's quite fit. And while his already above average V2 max score actually managed to increase by one

point, his submaximal test didn't show the same health improvements as Andy, suggesting that the bump in his max score was likely just from familiarity with the test. But his walking protocol wasn't quite enough to drive actual improvements to his fitness, at least not within the 2 weeks. And that actually reinforces the biggest takeaway from this video. Exercise can work in almost any form as long as it's challenging enough for you. It doesn't have to be all out or timeconuming. Just

moving most days, even if it's just walking already makes a difference. And occasionally adding something more challenging, helps keep push your fitness forward. But there's no magic exercise or perfect intensity. The best exercise is the one that you can stick to long term. And that is exactly the approach we take with our Built with Science Plus app. It takes care of your strength training, your diet, and your cardio for you. Nothing extreme, just a clear plan that adjusts as you go. It's

even taken my brother-in-law Dayton from this, a similar starting point as Andy, all the way to this in just 150 days. So, if you're not sure where to begin, you can scan the QR code here or check out builtwithscience.com to try it free for 2 weeks. Cuz the longer you wait to take care of your health, the harder it is to get back. And if you like this video, then you're going to love this one here where we tested all kinds of cardio exercises and compared them based

on calorie and fat burn. So, give that a watch and I'll see you next