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?

182 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:
AbsintheMakesTheHeartGrowFonder · 09/09/2026 17:36

If it helps to push you into a calorie deficit, then yes, it's beneficial for weight loss.

If you're still eating more calories than you're expending, including your walks, then it won't help you lose weight - but will be fairly good for improving cardiovascular fitness if you walk at a decent pace, and if you ever wanted to take up running, it's easier if, when you start, you're already easily capable of a brisk 5K walk.

You need to work out your TDEE - there are loads of calculators online - and select either light or moderate exercise (if walking is your only exercise, I'd be inclined to select 'light' when you enter your height, weight and age. That will tell you how many calories you burn, roughly, per day. If you want to lose weight, you will need to consume less than that most days. It really is that simple. But it does mean being incredibly diligent about logging everything you eat, weighing and measuring quantities etc, including everything like teas and coffees and the splash of oil in your stir-fry and the bites you nibble while you're cooking and the amount of butter you spread on your bread etc.

HappySummerFun · 09/09/2026 17:59

I find walking excellent for weight loss when combined with caffeine. It's not the walking itself, I don't think, although that is helpful, it's a combination of (i) the time it takes, which is time spent not eating, and (ii) the dopamine hit I get from being outside and exercising. I try to go for a 30 minute walk every morning before getting the kids ready for school, and then build as much walking as I can into my day and into weekends (time spent out of the house walking or exercising is time not spent in the house snacking).

The caffeine comes in to suppress hunger later when I'm sat at my computer working (I mostly wfh). I have a cup of coffee as soon as I sit down to start working as that's when boredom kicks in and I need an energy boost. Then an early high protein lunch, usually something like scrambled eggs on toast and sliced apple. Then more coffee. I usually try to fit a couple more 15 minute walks into my work day, and then walk to collect the kids from after school club. I do usually have a treat at some point during the day, a brownie or piece of cake or something, again with more coffee. Then usual family dinner.

swimlyn · 09/09/2026 18:01

I found that I had to keep up a decent speed for a walk. That was difficult, especially if accompanied by a slower person. Additionally, where I live the walks are rarely smooth.

A few years back I bought a treadmill which allows me to be very regulated about the exercise. It’s aerobic exercise which is always good for you.

No good for the dog though…

AnswerIsNo · 09/09/2026 18:02

Awkwardisfunny · 09/09/2026 14:39

Latest research shows (proper) exercise has very little impact on weight loss (if any, long-term). So never mind walking, the gym won't help either.

It's all about food. There are no shortcuts, sadly(!) - just have to find healthy foods and meals you genuinely like and eat those instead of whatever you're currently eating. Try starting by just cutting down first. So people who eat pizzas, could just have one slice less than normal. Then a week or so later, 2 slices fewer. I used to eat 2 or 3 bowls of cereal in one sitting.. now it's one. Or two if hungry..!

Reducing portion sizes is massively helpful.

Walking and any form of movement is important for physical health, of course, just not weight loss.

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.

Exercise won’t help you lose much fat. Changing this will | BBC Science Focus Magazine

Groundbreaking research is rewriting the science of how we use energy – and why effort alone won’t shift the scales

https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/the-biggest-hidden-rule-of-weight-loss

TwinklyAmberSloth · 09/09/2026 18:10

@ygrittesnow5 absolutely 100% it helps.

My dad does a brisk walk every day. He lost a LOT of weight from walking and found it easy to add to his routine. His weight has now plateaued at a sensible weight and he has kept the walking up for years now! He can't do strenuous exercise due to heart problems.

Also, try and walk faster for the duration of the walk as your speed has big impact on the energy you burn! e.g. if you double your speed you more than double the energy you burn.

NeedAnyHelpWithThatPaperBag · 09/09/2026 18:16

Moving more helps with digestion at the very least, so is definitely a good thing.

2thumbs · 09/09/2026 18:31

There’s a quote that I like about weight loss:-

Diet is Batman and exercise is Robin. Diet does 95 percent of the work and deserves all the attention.

Exercise is still healthy and important — just not equally important. It has many benefits, but weight loss is not among them.

Mumofoneandone · 09/09/2026 19:10

Walking was the main way I used to keep fit. You do need to break a bit of a sweat though!
Then slowly make adjustments to your food/diet to really improve your health!

backformoreofthesame · 09/09/2026 19:21

if I walk up hills all day I tend to eat less than I burn
if I walk up hills all day for a week I lose weight
10,000 steps round town? Nothing

Ritaskitchen · 09/09/2026 19:22

Yes. But fundamentally it’s about calories as well.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 09:41

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 😄 ).

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…

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!😂

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.