muggs

Hey, if you think walking is going to make you lose weight at the same rate as running...knock yourself out. As I'm sure you'll admit, there seems to be contradicting sides to the arguement and several theories- so with that in mind I'm not sure how you can be so sure to say that my estimation "is no where near" accurate. And if you think the experiment is flawed, I could agrue it's not anymore flawed than posting links from a website promoting walking which only supporting idea is how many METs are burned... The only thing a MET should be used for is calculating METs burned, not comparing running to walking. Like I said, if you're too old to consider running or your doctor does not recommend running for you, or if you're looking for a light excercise, spending time with your spouse, enjoying the scenery, than running is a good use of your time. But as I've said all along, if you're hoping walking is going to improve your physical fitness, you simply won't see the results you're hoping for.

The problem with these ideas, is it doesn't take anything close to what is happening inside your body into account. I tell you what, you take men the same age, same weight, same health...feed them the same diet for a 12 week period, have one walk 4 miles a day at 3 mph, and have the other run at 6 mph for 4 miles everyday...we'll see who's in better health after 12 weeks.

I'm no expert, but I will by running my 6th marathon on Sunday. Obviously, just like with anything, there's various theories etc... I didn't want to get too technical, but here goes: The arguement that walking at the same speed as opposed to running at the same speed burning the same calories is based on METS "metabolic equivalents" some made up unit of measurement that was developed recently. In my first post, I said running at your slowest pace burn more calories than walking at your fastest pace...assuming your running pace would be faster. I should clarify that because it's confusing...again, trying to keep in simple. A runner and a fast walker, both at a speed of 12 minutes per mile or 5 miles per hour, achieve the exact same 8 MET. Their calories per mile and calories per hour are identical. The difference is in how the energy is used. METs don't take that into consideratino. Running is more strenous an activity, so you body responds by converting the most easily converted energy source, which is glucose stores found in muscle tissue (sugars converted from consumed carbohydrates), once glucose stores are depleted, the body than turns to burning off lipids (fat stores) for energy. So, when running you'll use the glucose quickier, allowing you to begin to burn lipids more quickly. So, undoubtedly running 4 miles is a better physical exercise than walking. I pulled this from runningplanet, quoting a study done at Syracuse University: Researchers at Syracuse University conducted a study in December of 2004 for the purpose of comparing the energy expenditure of walking and running with equations that predict energy expenditure. As a part of that study the researchers needed to determine whether differences exist in energy expenditure of walking versus running. The researchers measured the calorie burn of 12 male and 12 female subjects as they both ran and walked for 1600 meters on a track and a treadmill. Each subject ran at one specific pace and walked at one specific pace. The scientists, headed by Jill A. Kanaley, PhD in the Department of Exercise Science, found that the women expended about 105 calories while running versus only 74 when walking. The men had similar results of 124 calories when running compared with just 88 calories burned while walking. (Med Sci Sports Exerc.2004 Dec;36(12):2128-34). That seems like a big difference, but it is actually even larger. To get the true number of calories burned from exercise, you must subtract the calories you would have consumed at rest. After taking away those “resting” calories, the net calorie burn for the women was 91 running versus 43 walking. For the men the net calories burned was 105 running versus 52 walking. So, in reality, the subjects were burning more than twice the calories when running versus walking. Again, this all doesn't even mention the cardiovascular benefits running has over walking. Again, walking is better for you than sitting on your couch, and can be enjoyable...so by all means, walk to your hearts content, but if you're thinking walking is going to make you fit, you'll be disappointed. It's physics really...energy expenditure is greater when physical activity is greater. Bottomline.

Hahaha, are you being serious?

Honestly, walking really isn't going to do much for you, even at a brisk pace. Jogging at a 10 min per mile pace burns about 100 calories per mile, walking probably burns about 40% of that, or only 40 calories per mile. So, if your average walk is say, 4 miles you're burning approx 160 calories, maybe 200 calories at best. That is very minimal. So, jogging at your slowest pace is much better than walking at your fastest pace. Plus, walking really doesn't do anything for your cardiovascular system. The only way to improve that is to elevate your respiration and heartrate for extended periods of time. Again, a slow jogging pace is going to do much more for you in that dept. whereas walking only elevates your heartrate and respiration minimally. Walk if you like it, and obviously, it's better for your health than sitting on your couch. But if your main concern is improving your overall physical condition I'd strongly recommend jogging, even at a slow pace. Even if you walk a 1/4 mile, run a 1/4 mile and so on, it's going to be a lot more for you. You can slowly build up and walk 1/4 mile, run 1/2 mile, walk another 1/4 run another 1/2... if you're hoping to use walking as a means to improve your health, the sad reality is that you'll be disappointed.

That's exactly correct. Using grips that are too thick will generally cause you to push the ball right. I know, because I just dealt with the exact opposite. I bought a set of "pre-owned" Callaway irons and they re-gripped them before sending them out. These grips felt like ladies grips and man, was I hooking my irons. A thin grip really activates your hands in the swing and causes you to turn the club over too early, whereas too thick a grip makes turning the club over harder so you tend to come through impact with an open face...that's not accounting for anything else that's gonig on in your swing. I had no idea how much grips could affect your shots, but after talking with a pro and having him look at my grips, he said that was a big part of my problem. I put on the Golf Pride tour velvet and it's really helped me out.

That's because you're from Saskatchewan, guys from B.C. hit them a mile...just kidding. I'd kill to be able to bow hunt in Sask.

Now...if Tiger could figure out a way to blame Haney for all the "transgressions" he'd be all set.

I picked up a dozen of these a few weeks back because it came with a free hat...glad I did. It's a 3-piece ball, has great feel and they give me a lot more spin than a cheaper ball does. They aren't cheap, think I paid around $40 for them, but I believe these are their best ball. If you're not already a Pro V1 loyalist, you may want to give these a try.

yeah, i play them. i've been using them for several years and love them. they're very forgiving.

my main flaw is that from time to time, I cup my left wrist at the top of my swing. That opens the face. If you can videotape your swing, take some video from a down the line angle. I have a feeling you're probably cupping your wrist. in my case, since my left wrist was cupped and the face was open at the top, I subconsciously had to really try to square it back up prior to impact and it was making me very inconsistent. If I got too handsy I'd hook it, if I wasn't able to square it up in time I was blocking/pushing it out to the right. It was really hard for me to correct this, but a few weeks of going to the range 4x per got me over it for the most part. I've been a lot more accurate with my irons now. i'm by no means an instructor, or that great of a player...so take this with a grain of salt, but your problem sounds similar to mine, so you might want to at least take a look at your left wrist at the top of your backswing.

hope it's the first of many!

I'll say thanks even tough the OP seems unsure if he should or not. This is sound advice and something I need to work on myself. OP- the thing I noticed is that you break your wrists at take away, that opens up the club face immediately. I don't know though, seems like some guys who know a lot more about the golf swing have already commented and didn't it bring it up, so...

nothing beats playoff hockey...nothing.

btw- Ohio State would beat Boise by 30 points.

"hang on sloopy...sloopy hang on...O...H...I...O..." Pryor really matured the last half of the 2009 season. Unfortunately, two terrible title showings has soured everyone on them. I think they can overcome that though, the convincing win over Oregon was a step in the right direction. Pryor has a legit shot at the Heismann this year, and they're just so loaded on both sides of the ball...I don't see them lossing a regular season game. I think they'll be in the championship game...vs. who, I don't know. 'Bama lost a lot of D, true, but they still have Ingram, but who knows, the SEC regular season is definitely the hardest conf schedule...USC looks to be in trouble. I don't buy Oregon especially with their QB gone. Hard for me to make a guess at who will come get voted in. But like I said, if OSU takes care of their regular season schedule they should be one of the teams.

Good question. I like Roy's chances at St. Andrews. I could see anyone winning the PGA too. What a great lineup of majors this year, obviously Pebble Beach and St. Andrews are the classics, but I'm really looking forward to seeing this Whistling Straights course. Honestly, you'd swear it's in Ireland or something.

You know my friends?

Schwartzel should have some votes...

Seeing how the past year has been for him, do you think we've seen the end of his dominance, or do you think he's talented and determined enough to overcome this adversity and be the true #1 again?

I actually heard Jack breathe a sigh of relief this morning...that record is looking safer and safer with each passing day.

i'd like to have his swing problems.

The smart money is on Rory, but I really like Dustin Johnson, the young man has major game. So I'm the one knucklehead that voted for him. I think AK should probably have the lowest odds though, that guy shows a sort of charging ability, not quite on Tiger's level but he can make Sunday runs.

i put one on my putter less than a week ago. i personally think it helps me with feel, and keeps my wrist out of the equation.

This guy's videos are pretty basic (in a good way) and should get you started down the right path. Plus, his name is something like Rickardt Stronghardt which sounds like eihter a Swedish superhero or a French porn star...great name. http://www.videojug.com/film/golf-why-you-hit-fat