[Xylakant]

Why does it need to do something to your body? Wouldn't it be good enough if it does something beneficial to your mind?

Apart from that, go for a stiff 2 hour walk and then come back and tell me that it didn't do anything to your body. It's certainly not extreme sports, but it's still exercise, at least for your legs and your whole motion apparatus.

[elcapitan]

It probably does nothing for people who are otherwise working out, jogging etc. There it doesn't create a new stressor for their system to get better. But for people who otherwise mostly sit and drive in cars, even that little bit of walking will create steep improvements to their body.

[amelius]

> Why does it need to do something to your body? Wouldn't it be good enough if it does something beneficial to your mind?

Well, why not ride a bicycle, and let both your mind AND your body benefit?

> Apart from that, go for a stiff 2 hour walk and then come back and tell me that it didn't do anything to your body.

I've tried this. I walked 1.5 hours a day, 5 times a week for about a year. Didn't lose a gram of body weight, while having a normal diet with limited refined sugars (I don't like sweet tastes). Switched to cycling (30 minutes a day), and feel much more in control now.

[vidarh]

> Well, why not ride a bicycle, and let both your mind AND your body benefit?

I can walk in the city and be relaxed; cycling in the city stresses me (I live in London). There are large parks nearby where I can walk without traffic and where I at least in the mornings could easily go 20-30 minutes without seeing either a person or a car, but where cycling isn't an option. If I could cycle along somewhere with no traffic I might very well feel differently, but walking and cycling are very different activities, and I suspect a lot of the differences in opinion have to do with whether or not cycling is viable as a relaxing activity near where people live.

> I've tried this. I walked 1.5 hours a day, 5 times a week for about a year. Didn't lose a gram of body weight, while having a normal diet with limited refined sugars (I don't like sweet tastes). Switched to cycling (30 minutes a day), and feel much more in control now.

If you walked 1.5 hours a day without losing a gram of body weight, you compensated by eating more or moving less the rest of the day. If cycling works better for you with the purpose of losing weight, then great. But that certainly does not mean walking did nothing to your body.

In any case, if your purpose was exercise, it's trivial to make walking hard: Walk with a weight vest (5kg-10kg will do wonders), or walk faster, or both.

[dingaling]

> Well, why not ride a bicycle, and let both your mind AND your body benefit?

If your mind is not on the road when you're cycling in a city then you're doing it wrong, unfortunatley.

Doors of parked cars opening, buses pulling out without indicating, drivers egressing from side-roads without checking, truck drivers underestimating their position when passing... Taking your mind off reading the road ahead even for a minute is an invitation to an accident.

Whereas on an early morning run or walk on the pavement / sidewalk / trail one's mind can wander and explore.

[pizza234]

> Well, why not ride a bicycle, and let both your mind AND your body benefit?

If one gives a purpose (in the form of training/wellness) to a walk whose foundation is being purposeless, he's defeating the point.

The different is, more abstractly, about the cultures of producing 24/7, versus allowing oneself "not to produce".

[chippy]

>> Why does it need to do something to your body? Wouldn't it be good enough if it does something beneficial to your mind?

> Well, why not ride a bicycle, and let both your mind AND your body benefit?

Does that make walking a problem, compared to cycling?