Comparing Distance-based Vs. Time-based Exercise Prescriptions Of Walking And Running For Improvement Of Body Composition

Abstract

PURPOSE: Some research has suggested that walking for distance as opposed to walking for time may be a stronger predictor of overall amount of accumulated exercise or physical activity and thereby overall exercise energy expenditure (Williams, 2012). The primary purpose of this study was to compare walking/running for distance to walking/running for time as part of a 10-week exercise intervention. METHODS: Participants consisted of 15 overweight, but otherwise healthy participants. Body composition was estimated via DXA. The Time (TIME) intervention group walked and ran for self-reported exercise time completed per day, and accumulated per week. The Distance (DIST) intervention group walked and ran for self-reported exercise distance completed per day, and accumulated per week. A mixed-factor repeated-measures ANOVA (RM-ANOVA) was used to compare all dependent variables before and after exercise intervention for within-subjects and between-subjects differences. RESULTS: Significant interactions were shown for body mass loss between groups as well as trunk fat mass (TrFM) (p < 0.05). The DIST group lost an average of 4.0 kg of body mass (with 1.0 kg considered loss of TrFM) while the TIME group gained an average of 1.1 kg (with 0.7 kg considered gain of TrFM). Participants for each group reported similar adherence rates to their respective programs (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: To the best of the author’s knowledge, the present study is the first to directly compare a distance-based vs. a time-based exercise program for walking and running for improvement of risk factors of CVD. The results of this study would support the suggestion by Williams (2012) that a distance-based exercise prescription of walking or running should provide a clinician or researcher with a closer estimation of overall energy expenditure and resultant weight loss as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease.