ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2022
Quantifying the benefits of inefficient walking: Monty Python inspired laboratory based experimental study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Silly walks: An urgent practical solution to the inactivity and obesity pandemics.Experimental physiology · 2025Review
- Increasing the health span: unique role for exercise.Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the rate of energy expenditure of low efficiency walking with high efficiency walking.
designLaboratory based experimental study.
settingUnited States.
participants13 healthy adults (six women, seven men) with no known gait disorder, mean (±standard deviation) age 34.2±16.1 years, height 174.2±12.6 cm, weight 78.2±22.5 kg, and body mass index 25.6±6.0.
interventionParticipants performed three, five minute walking trials around an indoor 30 m course. The first trial consisted of walking at a freely chosen walking speed in the participant's usual style. The next two trials consisted of low efficiency walks in which participants were asked to duplicate the walks of Mr Teabag and Mr Putey (acted by John Cleese and Michael Palin, respectively) in the legendary Monty Python Ministry of Silly Walks (MoSW) skit that first aired in 1970. Distance covered during the five minute walks was used to calculate average speed. Ventilation and gas exchange were collected throughout to determine oxygen uptake (V̇O
main outcome measuresV̇O
resultsV̇O
conclusionsFor adults with no known gait disorder who average approximately 5000 steps/day, exchanging about 22%-34% of their daily steps with higher energy, low efficiency walking in Teabag style-requiring around 12-19 min-could increase daily EE by 100 kcal. Adults could achieve 75 minutes of vigorous intensity physical activity per week by walking inefficiently for about 11 min/day. Had an initiative to promote inefficient movement been adopted in the early 1970s, we might now be living among a healthier society. Efforts to promote higher energy-and perhaps more joyful-walking should ensure inclusivity and inefficiency for all.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.