Walking burns more calories than running ?!?

kpw818

I think it depends on where you are walking (or hiking). Hilly trails will probably burn more than a flat street for the same amount of time, but comparing straight--no. Running takes more effort, so it burns more energy.

carliekitty

I read an article that stated net calories burned running are .63 x weight x miles ran.
Walking .36 x weight x miles walked.

lbetancourt

Walking?? Walking is boring. Walking is for boring people. jk

I agree with one of the above.. do the exercise you will do regularly. Mix it up. Have fun. The other day, I joined a body combat class. I mostly felt silly doing it but I had fun & got my 30 min of cardio in for the day. And, I don't really worry about how many calories I burn. I just try to stay within my calculated TDEE. It was too overwhelming for me to count my calories AND track calories burned. I am slowly losing the weight & I am okay with that.

arussell134

cwolfman13 wrote: »

OP...what you are referring to is energy sourcing. Low intensity stuff like walking is going to use fat as energy rather than glycogen...and not only walking and whatnot...but most of the mundane type of things you do every day...typing, driving, cooking, etc...most of that energy is coming from fat. Alternatively, higher intensity movement and exercise is going to pull energy from glycogen stores and carbohydrates...because you need rocket fuel to move fast and go hard.

All that said, in the end, burning more calories overall regardless of where that energy is derived from is what is important. Worrying about whether you're burning fat or glycogen for energy for a particular activity is not important...at the end of the day, if you are consuming less energy than your body requires, the net result is more fat burned to make up the difference.

THAT is exactly what I was trying to say last night (but failed miserably at articulating, lol)!

999tigger

Its the old fat burning zone argument v aerobic and anerobic exercise. the stuff Polar trots out to make you buy their product. Whilst you may burn a greater % of fat at a lower level the higher amount of calories burned at higher rates equates to a greater overall fat burn.

arussell134

999tigger wrote: »

Its the old fat burning zone argument v aerobic and anerobic exercise. the stuff Polar trots out to make you buy their product. Whilst you may burn a greater % of fat at a lower level the higher amount of calories burned at higher rates equates to a greater overall fat burn.

YUP!!

Azdak

aggelikik wrote: »

Very fast walking burns more calories per minute than slow running. So, if you are at a speed where you could either walk fast or start to jog, walking burns more calories (I do not have the link, I remember reading an analysis somewhere at runnersworld. A comfortable walking pace burns less calories per minute than a comfortable running pace.

Only at speeds that most people would find uncomfortable to sustain for any length of time. This is one of things that in theory contains a grain of truth, but in reality is true for almost no one.

bennettinfinity

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I remember reading a reference to walking at a faster pace would burn (slightly) more calories that running, simply because running form is more efficient than fast walking. Maybe broscience, but I can attest from personal experience; a personal trainer I once knew put me on a treadmill at a walking pace and continued to up the speed telling me to maintain a walking gait. Shortly, I was begging her to let me run - but that was the whole point of the exercise - running would have been easier.

Try it sometime... it's fun.

Mr_Knight

arussell134 wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

arussell134 wrote: »

From what I understand, when you walk more calories that you burn come from fat.

NO.

I may not be articulating this well. You would absolutely burn more calories OVERALL running than walking (which would basically mean, more fat calories burned running than walking). I agree with your initial comment.

I give up trying to explain it. It makes sense in my head, but I got no energy. Maybe someone else that understands what I'm getting at can say it. Sorry, I'm out.

I get what you are saying. The answer is still NO. There is no circumstance under which you will burn more fat from walking than you will from running the same distance.

Mr_Knight

alexiscastro_805 wrote: »

Lol and yes mr.knights posts on my mobile phone show the whole post In jail . Aww

Like Mr. Ali used to say...."I'm a bad, bad man!"

The problem is that walking burns very little above BMR/RMR, so even if all the walking burn is from fat metabolization, it can't catch up to the sheer excess number of burn calories that running gives.

atypicalsmith

It all boils down to distance. Walking a mile takes longer than running a mile, no matter what your speed at either is. Most of your calories are burned just keeping you alive, so walking a mile will actually burn more calories than running that same mile. However, walking a mile can take up to 20 minutes (as in ME), whereas running a mile can be done in eight minutes (according to a previous post; I have not ran a mile since I was 14 years old, IF then, so I can't compare myself to this).

So - end result? If you enjoy running and burning a lot of calories really fast, then do it! If you don't like running (which I don't), walking is still good and lets you watch your favorite television shows on the treadmill without running out of breath. Or lets you enjoy watching the squirrels if walking outside, whereas running is very demanding of your whole body and mind. But the upside is that you burn x calories in a much shorter period of time.

One day I might actually run, but probably not. Walking is so much nicer!

arussell134

Mr_Knight wrote: »

arussell134 wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

arussell134 wrote: »

From what I understand, when you walk more calories that you burn come from fat.

NO.

I may not be articulating this well. You would absolutely burn more calories OVERALL running than walking (which would basically mean, more fat calories burned running than walking). I agree with your initial comment.

I give up trying to explain it. It makes sense in my head, but I got no energy. Maybe someone else that understands what I'm getting at can say it. Sorry, I'm out.

I get what you are saying. The answer is still NO. There is no circumstance under which you will burn more fat from walking than you will from running the same distance.

I agree with you. That's the funny thing. I agree with your posts. LOL. Seriously, I'm out. (And I'm out for a run, not a walk, because we both agree I'll burn more fat calories that way) :0

Azdak

bennettinfinity wrote: »

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I remember reading a reference to walking at a faster pace would burn (slightly) more calories that running, simply because running form is more efficient than fast walking. Maybe broscience, but I can attest from personal experience; a personal trainer I once knew put me on a treadmill at a walking pace and continued to up the speed telling me to maintain a walking gait. Shortly, I was begging her to let me run - but that was the whole point of the exercise - running would have been easier.

Try it sometime... it's fun.

<sigh> another instance of a "trainer" not understanding even the most basic exercise physiology.

Running would have allowed you to burn significantly more calories and gain improved fitness as well.

EvgeniZyntx

atypicalsmith wrote: »

It all boils down to distance. Walking a mile takes longer than running a mile, no matter what your speed at either is. Most of your calories are burned just keeping you alive, so walking a mile will actually burn more calories than running that same mile. However, walking a mile can take up to 20 minutes (as in ME), whereas running a mile can be done in eight minutes (according to a previous post; I have not ran a mile since I was 14 years old, IF then, so I can't compare myself to this).

So - end result? If you enjoy running and burning a lot of calories really fast, then do it! If you don't like running (which I don't), walking is still good and lets you watch your favorite television shows on the treadmill without running out of breath. Or lets you enjoy watching the squirrels if walking outside, whereas running is very demanding of your whole body and mind. But the upside is that you burn x calories in a much shorter period of time.

One day I might actually run, but probably not. Walking is so much nicer!

Except you are wrong.

See the bolded, in the quote.
First part - you can actually walk faster than your slowest running speed. So it actually does depend on speed.

Second part. It seems to make sense.

It doesn't. Running is actually less energy efficient. It is mechanically more efficient and allows you to move faster. But even when the speeds match (you can walk or run at 4.5 miles per hour) running is about 50% less energy efficient at that speed.

A 200 lb person walking at 3.5 miles will burn about 100 cals per mile and take 17.1 min or 350 cals per hour

The same person running at 6-8 mph will burn about 162-158 cals per mile and take 10-7.5 min or 970-1260 cals.

(Data is ACSM regression formulas)

In terms of energy running always takes more energy for the same distance. In fact, slow running is less energy efficient than fast walking.

Mechanical efficiency =\= energy efficiency

hesn92

nutmegoreo wrote: »

alexiscastro_805 wrote: »

Hello I'm sorry I can't view your comment it looks like your comment has jail bars on it

Oh goodness! I have never read the forums from mobile before. On the website only the poster's profile pic is in jail, not the whole post! That is too funny.

I've wondered what the jail bars meant for a while now. I'm on mobile as well. I thought they were comments that got flagged as inappropriate or something lol... What do they mean??

hesn92

And no I don't think that is true. If you walk and run for the same amount of time, running will burn more calories.