running vs walking same speed

yirara

I'mnot a fast runner and temperatures are climbing towards unpleasant now. I have to make more and more wLking breaks. That got me wondering: walking and running at the same speed, lets say 8.20 minutes/km: what's the calorie expenditure difference? On one hand I find running more exhausting and I luft up my feet more, on the other hand it's got more momentum than walking where I find it more difficult to keep the speed up. Any idea?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

isulo_kura

Couldn't tell you the exact figure but running will use more calories because the biomechanics are different

Timorous_Beastie

From what I can gather, very fast walking burns about the same amount of calories as running. http://walking.about.com/od/calorie1/a/calorieswalkrun.htm

Azdak

Timorous_Beastie wrote: »

From what I can gather, very fast walking burns about the same amount of calories as running. http://walking.about.com/od/calorie1/a/calorieswalkrun.htm

Only when comparing extremely fast (ie race walking) walking speeds to very slow running speeds. That's more hypothetical than practical. Someone who has the fitness level/athletic ability to walk at that fast a speed can easily run even faster and thus get a better training stimulus and burn a lot more calories.

Someone who does not have the fitness level to run will not be able to walk at those fast speeds.

brianpperkins

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

yirara

For me the first bit feels a bit like comparing apples with pears. But first of all I'm glad they're using net calorie expenditure!

"Thanks to the Syracuse researchers, we now know the relative NCB of running a mile in 9:30 versus walking the same mile in 19:00. Their male subjects burned 105 calories running, 52 walking; the women, 91 and 43."

So basically, those people ran approximately twice as fast as they walked. In fact they ran at what I would call a pace that would take some effort while walked very slowly. That's not a useful comparison because one uses more energie when moving faster and it's not so easy to walk at a very brisk pace.

The below got my puzzled for a moment, but it's correct
"That is, running burns twice as many net calories per mile as walking. And since you can run two miles in the time it takes to walk one mile, running burns four times as many net calories per hour as walking."

Using above speeds people would burn
1 mile running = 570 sec = 105kcal = 0.184kcal/sec
1 mile walking = 1140 sec = 52kcal = 0.046kcal/sec * 4 = 0.182kcal/sec
But again, those people just strolled along instead of really putting in some effort.

It still feels wrong to me. I wonder what's in the MET compendium on expenditure of walking vs. running at the same speed:
METS 5.0 walking, 4.0 mph, level, firm surface, very brisk pace
METS 8.3 walking, 5.0 mph, level, firm surface
METS 6.0 running, 4 mph (15 min/mile)
METS 8.3 running, 5 mph (12 min/mile)

Hmmm...
Getting above numbers in METS gives us approximately:
METS 3.5 walking, 2.8 to 3.2 mph, level, moderate pace, firm surface
METS 9.8 running, 6 mph (10 min/mile)
So that's about 3x (2.8x) more for running for this particular setup, but how does the effort of running at this speed compare to walking at the other speed? I know for me, the run would be very touch on me, while the walk is just a comfortable stroll I could keep up for ages.

"Wearing a heart-rate monitor, I ran on a treadmill for two minutes at 3.0 mph (20 minutes per mile), and at 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, and 5.5 mph (10:55 per mile). After a 10-minute rest to allow my heart rate to return to normal, I repeated the same thing walking. Here's my running vs. walking heart rate at the end of each two-minute stint: 3.0 (99/81), 3.5 (104/85), 4.0 (109/94), 4.5 (114/107), 5.0 (120/126), 5.5 (122/145). My conclusion: Running is harder than walking at paces slower than 12-minutes-per-mile. At faster paces, walking is harder than running."

Hmmm...

Mr_Knight

yirara wrote: »

I'mnot a fast runner and temperatures are climbing towards unpleasant now. I have to make more and more wLking breaks. That got me wondering: walking and running at the same speed, lets say 8.20 minutes/km: what's the calorie expenditure difference?

Once you back out the BMR, it's about double the net burn for running at typical speeds for each activity, for the same distance. It is a way more time-efficient way to burn calories than walking.

blobby10

A few years ago I used a PT for 4 sessions and he told me that as I was running so slowly, I would be better walking (I do walk fast!) as there was less likelihood of injury and I'd burn more calories. I have no idea whether this is the case but thought Id throw it into the mix! Personally, I feel it doesn't matter whether you are running jogging or walking so long as you get your heart rate up and get sweaty/breathless/tired - however you measure your personal effort!

mbaker566

i have no scientific proof, but I will say that I sweat more and breath harder when I jog slowly as opposed to walking fast the same distance

yirara

moyer566 wrote: »

i have no scientific proof, but I will say that I sweat more and breath harder when I jog slowly as opposed to walking fast the same distance

I certainly as well. If I run I get out of breath quicker than when I walk at the same speed. Though I do find it more difficult to keep the speed up when walking. Looking at my cardio stats I can see when I run (relatively smooth pace line) vs when I walk (more irregular line though at the same average pace). I can keep the speed when running but not when walking. And walking a longer distance at 7.5minutes/km (12 minutes/mile) is downright difficult on my body but I get my breath back, while running at that speed is mainly difficult on my lungs. I also get side stitches much more when I walk fast, and they go away as soon as I run.