# Is a runner's heart healthier than a walker's heart? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 11, 2012, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-runners-heart-healthier-than-a-walkers-heart/609107 "2012-01-11T00:29:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ecoaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/85e7bf/32.png) [@ecoaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ecoaster)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-runners-heart-healthier-than-a-walkers-heart/609107/1 "2012-01-11T00:29:17Z")
Assume two people in their 30s who live identical lives… The runner runs 20-30 miles a week. The walker walks 30 miles a week at a decent clip (these miles are in addition to distance covered doing daily activities). Assuming that all factors are equal (same weight, same diet, etc.), is the runner’s heart “healthier”? Why or why not? What makes a heart healthy? Would a cardiologist notice any differences between the hearts? Would there be a different life expectancy between these two people? ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-runners-heart-healthier-than-a-walkers-heart/609107/2 "2012-01-11T02:12:34Z")
The runner’s heart is more adapted to…running. The runner probably has a higher aerobic capacity ([VO2 max](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max)). The runner may be considered more athletic, but I don’t think that necessarily makes the runner’s heart _healthier_. That is, the walker’s heart may function just as well for just as many years under everyday demands, and may be no more likely to develop heart disease. I would guess a cardiologist would notice a difference. I do weight training and cardio exercise and every time I get a physical my doctor or the nurse remarks on my pulse and blood pressure and asks if I exercise a lot. Life expectancy is really just a guess on my part; that sort of thing really requires studies for a definitive answer. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-runners-heart-healthier-than-a-walkers-heart/609107/3 "2012-01-11T02:33:48Z")
FWIW, [the official guidance](http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/guidelines/chapter4.aspx) on the subject. > [@](#): > > All adults should avoid inactivity. Some physical activity is better than none, and adults who participate in any amount of physical activity gain some health benefits. > > For substantial health benefits, adults should do at least 150 minutes (2 hours and 30 minutes) a week of moderate-intensity, or 75 minutes (1 hour and 15 minutes) a week of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity. Aerobic activity should be performed in episodes of at least 10 minutes, and preferably, it should be spread throughout the week. > > For additional and more extensive health benefits, adults should increase their aerobic physical activity to 300 minutes (5 hours) a week of moderate-intensity, or 150 minutes a week of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity. Additional health benefits are gained by engaging in physical activity beyond this amount. > > Adults should also do muscle-strengthening activities that are moderate or high intensity and involve all major muscle groups on 2 or more days a week, as these activities provide additional health benefits. Figure [brisk walking pace](http://walking.about.com/od/workouts/a/Brisk-Walking.htm) is 3 miles an hour, so that is 10 hours of brisk walking a week. Moderate intensity. Runs let’s make at 6 mph, so we get 5 hours of running a week. Vigorous intensity. Basically the guideline gives vigorous a two for one factor in time, so this would be a wash by that. But the running would give the same benefit in half the time. ---
**Author:** ![AndyLee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/898d66/32.png) [@AndyLee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndyLee)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-runners-heart-healthier-than-a-walkers-heart/609107/4 "2012-01-11T17:20:04Z")
As was explained to me, a heart is a muscle and the exercise it gets doesn’t matter. It’s getting it up to your theoretical maximum that counts. How you achieve that, via running, swimming or walking is mute. I imagine a runner or a swimmer(who is swimimg as in Michael Phelps and not just floats) would probably be doing aerobic exercise that will allow him to get close to and achieve his maximum benefit. Though there’s no reason a walker couldn’t do it as well ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-runners-heart-healthier-than-a-walkers-heart/609107/5 "2012-01-11T17:38:32Z")
So, to be clear, the walker is doing as much work as the runner, if they travel the same distance (the runner may get a 5-10% bump in work done if they are not an efficient runner, i.e. if they bounce up and down a lot). So calories consumed is roughly the same (I know you didn’t ask that, but I’ll bet it was in the back of someone’s mind). But aerobic benefit is very different. For the walker, they need to be walking fast enough to be breathing hard to get any aerobic benefit. Strolling or walking the dog is not, probably, going to give much aerobic benefit, nor will it do a lot to strengthen the heart muscle. I think the chief benefit for the heart, as muscle, is that an aerobically conditioned heart beats fewer times per minute/day/year, and is more efficient. It doesn’t have to work as hard for regular daily life as a lax heart, it will generally last longer, and it will be more likely able to withstand stress. Again, if the walker is pushing himself, going fast or up hills etc. then he may be getting good aerobic conditioning. I, for one, hate running; when I work out on a treadmill I have it ramped up to 18 or 21 degrees and do that for 30-40 minutes at a stretch, at 3 mph or better. I believe that this is giving me an aerobic benefit. Roddy ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-runners-heart-healthier-than-a-walkers-heart/609107/6 "2012-01-11T19:40:01Z")
One suspects that the trauma of running(the aerobic up and down bouncing) may make running less safe than simple low impactwalking. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-runners-heart-healthier-than-a-walkers-heart/609107/7 "2012-01-11T22:17:22Z")
Many runners have an “athlete’s heart.” My resting pulse rate when I was doing marathons regularly, and running over 60 miles a week, was around 40. My heart was enlarged. I went through numerous (and unnecessary) tests, including a thallium stress test and echocardiograms. The last time I had an echocardiogram (about 10 years ago), I was notified that I had to undergo another one. After the second one, I was in my treating physician’s office (not the cardiologist who did the echocardiograms), and before he came in, I took a look at my medical records hanging on the door. The cardiologist noted that my left ventricle moved very slowly but there was no shunting. He wanted another view from below. I was never told what that echocardiogram showed, but heard no further about it. My tp also told me before the echos were taken that I have partial left bundle branch block (my EKG was diagnostic of that) and would eventually need a pacemaker. I asked him if that could be an artifact of an athlete’s heart. He said No. The following year’s EKG showed no evidence of a left bundle branch block. I asked him about that, and he just shook his head. Anyway, strenuous exercise, or at least a lot of running, does produce heart changes that light exercise (such as walking) does not. Probably for the better. An athlete’s enlarged heart is not the same as diseased cardiomegaly. The heart muscles are bigger in both, but an athlete has the blood vessels, with probably increased capillaries and arteries, and his ejection fraction is normal. At least, this is my guess. Perhaps DSeid can help with analysis in this respect. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2012, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-runners-heart-healthier-than-a-walkers-heart/609107/8 "2012-01-13T04:56:58Z")
Checks pulse rate, 48, damn, high for me. 🙂 The issue you raise in an important one in pediatrics right now because some are promoting screening all high school athletes with EKGs. [Problem is](http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/abstract/57/11/1291) that a huge number of kids are identified as having abnormalities requiring further testing and kept out based on athletic trained hearts - false positives - for a very low true positive rate: in fact it probably saves no lives at all at a cost of forcing many to go through extensive testing, exclusion from sports, and cost. Your guess is [right on the money](http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/40/10/1856). The ejection fraction is the same as normal. The athletic heart however fills more fully between beats (higher end diastolic volume) therefore the same ejection fraction is a fraction of a larger amount, resulting in a greater stroke volume. Hence fewer beats per minute pump the same amount of blood. Athlete’s heart and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) should be distinguishable [by echocardiogram](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18853091) but doing such requires a skillful echocardiographer. In reality few are that skillful. > [@](#): > > The athlete’s heart shows an eccentric biventricular hypertrophy with wall thicknesses under 15 mm and a moderately dilated left ventricle (LVEDD up to 58 mm). HCM is commonly characterized by asymmetric left ventricular hypertrophy with a reduced LV-diameter. In up to 70% of cases left ventricular outflow tract obstruction is evident during stress echocardiography. Systolic function is normal in highly trained athletes and the majority of HCM patients as well. There are important differences regarding diastolic filling patterns. Physiological hypertrophy is consistent with a normal diastolic function with even increased early diastolic filling. In case of HCM diastolic dysfunction (mostly relaxation disturbances) occurs in the majority of patients and is therefore inconsistent with an athlete’s heart. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2012, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-runners-heart-healthier-than-a-walkers-heart/609107/9 "2012-01-13T05:20:26Z")
> [@barbitu8](#): > > Many runners have an “athlete’s heart.” My resting pulse rate when I was doing marathons regularly, and running over 60 miles a week, was around 40. Ten or so years ago, when I was very sedentary (and overweight), my resting pulse was about 100. Two years ago, when I was walking regularly, and had lost some weight, my resting pulse was around 80. Now that I’m a runner (about 10-15 miles most weeks, ran a bunch of 5K and 10K races last year), my resting pulse is down to 60. I’m amazed at the change. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2012, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-runners-heart-healthier-than-a-walkers-heart/609107/10 "2012-01-13T11:21:58Z")
Thanks very much for your research and info, DSeid. Further, your first link refers to incomplete right bundle branch block in athlete’s heart is reassuring. Mine may have shown that, and not left bundle branch. My doctor said an increased interval was diagnostic of that (he could’ve said right) but I don’t recall which interval it was, but IIRC he said when it reached “19” it was diagnostic. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2012, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-runners-heart-healthier-than-a-walkers-heart/609107/11 "2012-01-13T14:32:23Z")
> [@AndyLee](#): > > How you achieve that, via running, swimming or walking is mute. Moot. Sorry - pet peeve. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-runners-heart-healthier-than-a-walkers-heart/609107/12 "2012-01-15T03:16:09Z")
None of the responses answered the life expectancy question. I can’t answer that either, but I will report a conversation I had with my doctor last week. I asked how it was possible that I was still alive 47 years after a heart attack. He gave three answers. First, I gave up smoking. Second, I walk a lot (at least 20 miles a week). Third I have been taking statins since about 2000. He told me that very few of his mostly old patients (he is not taking new ones and hasn’t for at least 15 years) are dying of heart attack or strokes now. His smokers mostly died years ago and cancer is what he is losing patients to. He does not advocate running, but is a great fan of walking. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-runners-heart-healthier-than-a-walkers-heart/609107/13 "2012-01-15T08:46:16Z")
“Heart attack” is not a medical term, but colloquism for ischemic damage to the heart (myocardial infarction), and the severity of it depends on how much heart tissue was damaged. If only one coronary artery was occluded, the damage could be mild, and the heart can adapt if you take care of yourself to prevent further cardiac ischemia. IMNAMD. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-runners-heart-healthier-than-a-walkers-heart/609107/14 "2012-01-15T13:32:25Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > None of the responses answered the life expectancy question. … The life expectancy answer is ultimately what the guideline makers were referencing when they that twice as much moderate does as much good as any particular amount of vigorous activity. The rational is explained some [here.](http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/guidelines/appendix1.aspx) > [@](#): > > A metabolic equivalent, or MET, is a unit useful for describing the energy expenditure of a specific activity. A MET is the ratio of the rate of energy expended during an activity to the rate of energy expended at rest. For example, 1 MET is the rate of energy expenditure while at rest. A 4 MET activity expends 4 times the energy used by the body at rest. If a person does a 4 MET activity for 30 minutes, he or she has done 4 x 30 = 120 MET-minutes (or 2.0 MET-hours) of physical activity. A person could also achieve 120 MET-minutes by doing an 8 MET activity for 15 minutes. > > MET-Minutes and Health Benefits > > A key finding of the Advisory Committee Report is that the health benefits of physical activity depend mainly on total weekly energy expenditure due to physical activity. In scientific terms, this range is 500 to 1,000 MET-minutes per week. A range is necessary because the amount of physical activity necessary to produce health benefits cannot yet be identified with a high degree of precision; this amount varies somewhat by the health benefit. For example, **activity of 500 MET-minutes a week results in a substantial reduction in the risk of premature death, but activity of more than 500 MET-minutes a week is necessary to achieve a substantial reduction in the risk of breast cancer**. … > > … Light-intensity activities are defined as 1.1 MET to 2.9 METs. > Moderate-intensity activities are defined as 3.0 to 5.9 METs. Walking at 3.0 miles per hour requires 3.3 METs of energy expenditure and is therefore considered a moderate-intensity activity. > Vigorous-intensity activities are defined as 6.0 METs or more. Running at 10 minutes per mile (6.0 mph) is a 10 MET activity and is therefore classified as vigorous intensity. (Bolding mine) The body of work supporting that conclusion is based on studies like [this one](http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/706533). > [@](#): > > men who exercised for at least 30 minutes a day at moderate to high intensity halved their risk of dying prematurely from cancer, mainly gastrointestinal and lung cancer. … The reduction in the risk for premature death from cancer was seen in men who exercised for more than 30 minutes every day, and with an intensity that was moderate to high, Dr. Kurl noted. The activities they performed included jogging, swimming, cycling to work, and gardening or yard work, he said > > Exercise intensity was measured in metabolic equivalents of oxygen consumption (METs). The average intensity of jogging was 10.1 MET, of skiing was 9.6 MET, of ball games was 6.7 MET, of swimming was 5.4 MET, of rowing was 5.4 MET, of cycling was 5.1 MET, of gardening/farming/yard work was 4.3 MET, and of walking was 4.2 MET. … The results show that at least moderate-intensity physical activity is more beneficial than low-intensity physical activity in the prevention of cancer …