Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Is walking actually beneficial for weight loss?

185 replies

ygrittesnow5 · 09/09/2026 14:19

I hate exercising and rarely have time for the gym (although I could weight train at home I suppose). But I am and have been making a conscious effort to walk more for the last few months. With the school run, a lunchtime walk and an evening dog walk along with general pottering throughout the day, I am averaging at least 10,000 steps a day more usually more.

But will this actually do anything for weight loss? I know diet is the key factor by miles but I hope all this extra walking might help somewhere.

OP posts:
imanastronaut · 10/09/2026 15:36

Walking is brilliant. I lost over ten stone with my main form of exercise being walking.

catsarethefuture · 10/09/2026 15:32

Fast800goingforit · 10/09/2026 14:33

I suspect only athletes do. If you build muscle, you will burn more calories even when resting.

If you do lots of cardio exercise you will feel hungry so what you eat becomes key. Eating more lean protein is good for filling you up because it takes longer for the body to process without being as calorie dense as foods with lots of sugar and/or fat.

Edited

I mean I’m no athlete, but working out is
my favourite pastime. And I do have to watch what I eat, but only to make sure I eat enough.

IckyIck · 10/09/2026 15:19

It will a little but not noticeably unless you put a lot of effort into it.
I could go for a gentle jog round the park and that wouldn't do much either.
Especially if I had a banana before I went and a cake when I came back.

HiZev · 10/09/2026 15:11

IckyIck · 10/09/2026 15:06

@HiZev , that's a silly statement. You can swim leisurely just like you can go for a gentle stroll.

Edited

But your statement was absolute - you said swimming won't tone you up or burn calories.

IckyIck · 10/09/2026 15:06

@HiZev , that's a silly statement. You can swim leisurely just like you can go for a gentle stroll.

HiZev · 10/09/2026 15:00

IckyIck · 10/09/2026 14:43

Are athletes attempting to lose weight?
Exercise like cardio and weights will help you to tone up and to burn more calories, and IME make you hungry for the right sort of food.

Walking and swimming won't and they tend to make you hungry, and more inclined to reach for high energy treats.

If swimming isn't cardio to you you're doing it wrong

IckyIck · 10/09/2026 14:43

Are athletes attempting to lose weight?
Exercise like cardio and weights will help you to tone up and to burn more calories, and IME make you hungry for the right sort of food.

Walking and swimming won't and they tend to make you hungry, and more inclined to reach for high energy treats.

Fast800goingforit · 10/09/2026 14:33

catsarethefuture · 09/09/2026 16:09

People who say that exercising doesn’t help with weight loss just don’t exercise enough or hard enough

I suspect only athletes do. If you build muscle, you will burn more calories even when resting.

If you do lots of cardio exercise you will feel hungry so what you eat becomes key. Eating more lean protein is good for filling you up because it takes longer for the body to process without being as calorie dense as foods with lots of sugar and/or fat.

Harrysmummy246 · 10/09/2026 10:32

user5783940 · 09/09/2026 16:48

A weighted vest can do the same (if you're wanting that).

I used to run distances and had to stop for a while due to an injury. When I was rehabbing, I started walking with a weighted vest. I liked it so much, I run less now and do more of that.

I am back to full rowing training so it's less important now but thanks

And it would have to be a hell of a vest to emulate carrying toddler DS

runnerducky · 10/09/2026 09:57

HiZev · 10/09/2026 09:41

Yeah I run and my 10k pb is 1 hour 8 minutes. I'm hoping to get it under an hour this year and that's quite a stretch goal for me (v short old lady 😄 ).

Under an hour is a big milestone for any runner, especially us of the older female persuasion! Good luck!

Macinae · 10/09/2026 09:57

I lost 3 stone through diet and just walking. It was predominantly down to diet which I completely overhauled, but moving more will help with weight loss even if it is just walking.

ErrolTheDragon · 10/09/2026 09:54

Even when I was much younger, 4mph was a fast walk for me (i do only have short legs). I measure in kilometres nowadays - for 5km in a bit under an hour I’ve got to be breaking into trots!😂

HeyThereDelila · 10/09/2026 09:51

Yes, I must walk two miles a day pushing DD in the pram and doing the school/shops run and I’m really thin. Mind you, I don’t eat huge amounts as busy with said children…

HiZev · 10/09/2026 09:41

runnerducky · 10/09/2026 09:36

A one-hour 6 mile is like a 5:55 min/km pace or something. You’d have to speed walk like in the Olympics or run to get that! Unless just over an hour means more like 1hr 30-45 (which would still be very fast walking).

I do a 58-min 10k and finished solidly upper third of the results in the last race I did, so walking a 60-min one would be really impressive!

Yeah I run and my 10k pb is 1 hour 8 minutes. I'm hoping to get it under an hour this year and that's quite a stretch goal for me (v short old lady 😄 ).

runnerducky · 10/09/2026 09:36

A one-hour 6 mile is like a 5:55 min/km pace or something. You’d have to speed walk like in the Olympics or run to get that! Unless just over an hour means more like 1hr 30-45 (which would still be very fast walking).

I do a 58-min 10k and finished solidly upper third of the results in the last race I did, so walking a 60-min one would be really impressive!

HiZev · 10/09/2026 09:33

I set out to walk 6 miles 3 times a week as fast as I could. I got it down to just over an hour in the end. I lost 3 stone in about 8 months.

Were you not tempted to break into a run at this speed? A 60 minute 10k is a decent running time for a woman. Were you doing that wobbly race walking thing? I guess walking at speed is still lower impact than running.

Ireallywantadoughnut36 · 10/09/2026 08:26

Walking is good, but you have to do quite a lot to make any difference for weight loss and i find exercise makes me feel hungry so sometimes it impacts the wrong way - i wouldnt rely on it. It's mainly diet in order to achieve a calorie deficit just down to the maths. As an example, you need to walk 5 miles (roughly) for 500 calories burnt. 500 calories is not a lot to eat though (its half a tub of Ben and Jerry's or two mars bars or 2 slices of egg on toast). Then you need a 3500 calorie deficit to burn 1 single pound (on average of course).
Don't stop though, it will help, but you can't really out walk a bad diet. If you get home, have a chocolate bar and then eat pudding after dinner then that's your 5 mile walking completely negated (as an example obviously depending on the foods you choose).
If you eat in a calorie deficit each day and then walk 5 miles daily it'll mean you should lose weight.
It's also great for mental health, for cardio (if you ensure you're out of breath), for keeping your muscles working. There's more to health than weight loss and exercise definitely is always beneficial even if it's not massively reducing your weight.

Awkwardisfunny · 09/09/2026 22:11

AnswerIsNo · 09/09/2026 18:02

If you mean the research Exercise won’t help you lose much fat. Changing this will | BBC Science Focus Magazine by Herman Pontzer, I'd say he's in a narrow field researcher of hunter-gatherer and subsistence farmers, which is an atypical comparator cohort.

Either he, or the article writer, has tied themselves in knots, while contradicting themselves around the basic concepts of BMR and activity energy expenditure (TDEE) and provide no workings to back up the findings.

"But a major new study challenges that long-standing belief. Collating data on more than 4,200 people across 34 different countries, researchers found that people who exercise more don’t burn more calories than those who sit around all day.

In fact, the research found that, matched pound-for-pound, a hunter-gatherer from Tanzania’s Hadza community burns about the same number of calories each day as a typical US office worker – even though the Hadza are more active in a single day than most Americans are in an entire week".

The article claims the similarities are due to adaptation to reach homeostasis (nope) and the article ascribes the majority of calorie burn to BMR - this last part is correct. Basal Metabolic rate is largely mass dependent, with an age factor, or if you're splitting hairs, a more accurate BMR is based on lean mass

The larger people (with a higher BMR) are moving less, but eat the same as the smaller people (with a lower BMR), moving more

What's the key thing missing?

The explanatory power of the differing activity levels between the two groups as cause for similar calorific demands (which I am sceptical of).

If the office workers consistently ate at/around BMR, they would people feel bit more sluggish, but no noticeable weight loss and because the activity factor is low and their body would go into scavenger mode. If they ate at BMR - 500 cals for extended periods, bad things would start to happen, namely muscle wasting and hormonal disruption.

If the Hadza ate at their BMR and not as the report claims - the same calories as the office worker, but still walked however many miles per day, occasionally sprinted after their tea, this higher activity factor beyond their BMR (aka exercise) would result in a net deficit on TDEE and therefore weight loss.

The TDEE and associated activity levels as drivers of successful weight loss is reiterated here, which contains numbers to back up their conclusion

"The high levels of PAEE and TDEE observed in individuals maintaining a substantial weight loss (−26.2±9.8 kg maintained for 9.0±10.2 years) suggest that this group relies on high levels of energy expended in physical activity to remain in energy balance (and avoid weight regain) at a reduced body weight."

The other factor is that most people over-estimate how many cals a workout burns and I don't count sitting on machines doing leg raises or lat pull downs as exercise, although muscles will burn more calories at rest than fat.

Edited

Just read the science focus link and part of the NLM link (too tired for that one!).

The NLM link does say that you can maintain weight loss by maintaining your reduced diet (essentially) -

To prevent weight regain, a permanent behavior change that leads to either a lower energy intake (EI) and/or a higher level of physical activity (PA) must occur to compensate for the reduction in TDEE total daily energy expenditure].

Regarding the science focus link -

It seems standard. More research is always needed. It seems obvious what they're saying too. If you're bigger, you use more energy and if smaller then less (but accounting for body composition too).

The explanation for this under "The Calorie Equation" seems logical to me and I can see sense in the argument for homeostasis. Doesn't mass equal energy or something?? What was it that had you sceptical? (I will check if you already replied).

Anyway, I found it interesting that our kidneys apparently use 10% of our energy when only 1% of our weight. That's fascinating.

Awkwardisfunny · 09/09/2026 21:43

AnswerIsNo · 09/09/2026 18:02

If you mean the research Exercise won’t help you lose much fat. Changing this will | BBC Science Focus Magazine by Herman Pontzer, I'd say he's in a narrow field researcher of hunter-gatherer and subsistence farmers, which is an atypical comparator cohort.

Either he, or the article writer, has tied themselves in knots, while contradicting themselves around the basic concepts of BMR and activity energy expenditure (TDEE) and provide no workings to back up the findings.

"But a major new study challenges that long-standing belief. Collating data on more than 4,200 people across 34 different countries, researchers found that people who exercise more don’t burn more calories than those who sit around all day.

In fact, the research found that, matched pound-for-pound, a hunter-gatherer from Tanzania’s Hadza community burns about the same number of calories each day as a typical US office worker – even though the Hadza are more active in a single day than most Americans are in an entire week".

The article claims the similarities are due to adaptation to reach homeostasis (nope) and the article ascribes the majority of calorie burn to BMR - this last part is correct. Basal Metabolic rate is largely mass dependent, with an age factor, or if you're splitting hairs, a more accurate BMR is based on lean mass

The larger people (with a higher BMR) are moving less, but eat the same as the smaller people (with a lower BMR), moving more

What's the key thing missing?

The explanatory power of the differing activity levels between the two groups as cause for similar calorific demands (which I am sceptical of).

If the office workers consistently ate at/around BMR, they would people feel bit more sluggish, but no noticeable weight loss and because the activity factor is low and their body would go into scavenger mode. If they ate at BMR - 500 cals for extended periods, bad things would start to happen, namely muscle wasting and hormonal disruption.

If the Hadza ate at their BMR and not as the report claims - the same calories as the office worker, but still walked however many miles per day, occasionally sprinted after their tea, this higher activity factor beyond their BMR (aka exercise) would result in a net deficit on TDEE and therefore weight loss.

The TDEE and associated activity levels as drivers of successful weight loss is reiterated here, which contains numbers to back up their conclusion

"The high levels of PAEE and TDEE observed in individuals maintaining a substantial weight loss (−26.2±9.8 kg maintained for 9.0±10.2 years) suggest that this group relies on high levels of energy expended in physical activity to remain in energy balance (and avoid weight regain) at a reduced body weight."

The other factor is that most people over-estimate how many cals a workout burns and I don't count sitting on machines doing leg raises or lat pull downs as exercise, although muscles will burn more calories at rest than fat.

Edited

Thank you for this - I will read up on that once time permits (genuinely, as I am very interested) - mostly, I don't compare myself to hunter / gatherers. I also go by experience: it has never once mattered how much extra 'exercise' I did. You're right about the gym as well: it just isn't enough. Maybe if I were training for the olympics.. 12 hours a day, every day.. but that is never what people mean by 'exercise'. And those hunter / gatherers don't have the convenient and sedentary lifestyles that we have access to. So the self-sabotage I heard about (e.g. choosing the escalator the next day, instead of the stairs; i.e. our brains finding ways to sabotage / rebalance our energy needs), feels only relevant to us. Could be wrong. There will be other ways to reduce energy expenditure in other cultures.

So, I don't know why comparing ourselves to people not in our environment is relevant (as you highlight: an "atypical comparator cohort"). But I will read up on it. In the meantime, reducing my portion sizes and eliminating dairy, bread and junk food / ultra-processed food, is the one and only thing that ever helped me lose weight and maintain that loss.

I'll come back once read that info if able to comment still.

The explanatory power of the differing activity levels between the two groups as cause for similar calorific demands (which I am sceptical of).

Why are you sceptical? I didn't understand a lot of the two paragraphs after that, but I might once I read your links.

Passthegin99 · 09/09/2026 20:14

Walking definitely helps me with my weight without question. I have worked from home for the last 8 years so no commute. Got a dog a year ago so now I walk daily... hey presto half a stone lost (now 9 stone for context). You do need to walk with purpose though.

HappiestSleeping · 09/09/2026 20:11

ygrittesnow5 · 09/09/2026 14:27

Oh yeah I know I have to tackle my diet if I’m serious about weight loss but the walking at the moment is accessible to me and quite enjoyable.

I lost several stone walking. It is important to think about the physics of it though (mass x velocity) so it is necessary to walk quickly. A slow amble won't really burn sufficient calories. Also, 10,000 steps isn't really enough.

I set out to walk 6 miles 3 times a week as fast as I could. I got it down to just over an hour in the end. I lost 3 stone in about 8 months.

Then I got a dog, and started working with dogs. My average daily step count over 7 days is 21k (11 miles). I didn't worry about weight, more about dimensions, and have been able to keep it down since.

Diet helps of course, but overall if you burn more calories than you consume, you will lose weight. It helps a good deal to be ingesting the right type of calories.

butternut123 · 09/09/2026 20:02

Yes. Follow good vibes with Mrs J on insta, she’s lost loads of weight with walking and looks great

CandiedPrincess · 09/09/2026 20:02

I find walking is great for keeping the joints moving, it's great for altering your body shape by toning, it's great for mental health. It does little for weight loss.

To burn about 1800 calories in a day overall - well I only do that when I hit around 18,000 steps which the majority of us are not doing on a daily basis. If you're also on a calorie-restricted diet it will help but without that, it's not going to help you lose weight.

BurntBroccoli · 09/09/2026 19:55

Walking doesn’t burn that many calories unless you are doing a very fast one.

It does however give your legs a very nice well toned shape.

dannyufcfan · 09/09/2026 19:28

Not really. Weight loss is almost all about diet.

Exercise will help a small amount and is good for general health and fitness.