Which is more beneficial for weight loss: walking a mile or running a mile and why?
tmtatum01
Posts: 17 Member
Interesting question: I know a pound of bricks and a pound of feathers are still a pound but I'm curious; if running a mile or walking a mile is still considered a mile which if either is more beneficial for weight loss? If you throw a pound of bricks and a pound of feathers off a roof they are not going to fall at the same rate of speed one will land on the ground before the other so I'm curious to learn which is more beneficial for weight loss running or walking and why? Any suggestions?
0
Replies
-
Oh boy.
It sort of depends where you are in your weight loss. For someone who is morbidly obese, running can be hard on the joints which can lead to injury. For those people, I would say that walking is more beneficial.
For those people who are in shape enough to run, running will burn more calories in the long run and there is even some evidence that running regularly helps to control your metabolic functions. For those people, I am of the opinion that running is more beneficial.
However, the best exercise is the one you'll actually do. On a regular basis. So, if you hate running and don't want to do it, don't decide that's going to be your cardio and then sit on the couch instead.0 -
Walking a mile. Because I have no desire to run a mile, so it will never happen.0
-
A jogged mile will help you burn more calories than a walked mile (unless you are walking at an extremely fast speed and jogging and an extremely low speed).
However I can personally jog, let me think: 0 miles before having my knees go on me. And the most I've recently walked in a day is... let me think, oh yes, more than 16 miles.
So a mile of walking is much more beneficial for me!0 -
PeachyPlum made really good points about the possibility of injury and the best exercise being one you'll stick with. My only addition would be that on a purely surface level, I'd say they were fairly equal in usefulness. It depends on how fast you run and walk but if I use this calculator for a 38 yo 150 pound woman and compare walking a mile at 4 mph (15 minutes) and running a mile at 6 mph (10 minutes) the calorie burn favors the run (88 vs 114) but the difference is fairly small in absolute terms.
0 -
The best choice for you is the one you will comply with day after day. One might lead to the other, if you keep at it, but in the end, it's the one you stick with.0
-
I predict when you suddenly increase your exercise, you will temporarily gain (water) weight as your body rushes to repair muscle tissue. This is normal.
If you continue with a consistent fitness regimen, your calorie demands will be consistently higher, and you can eat more while still losing weight. It will be much harder to fall off the wagon and you will have more "lose" days than "gain" days. Your cardiovascular system will be improved as well, which means lower blood pressure and a slower resting heart rate. But exercise does not DIRECTLY affect weight loss.
Running a mile is faster and requires greater demands of the cardiovascular system, tendons, and muscles.
Wrap the bricks and feathers in the same plastic box so their wind resistance is the same, and they will both hit the ground at the same time. Physics.
I walked before I ran because I was starting at dead still sedentary. So walk first and once that gets easy, run.0 -
The one you're more likely to stick with doing is best for weight loss.0
-
Interesting question: I know a pound of bricks and a pound of feathers are still a pound but I'm curious; if running a mile or walking a mile is still considered a mile which if either is more beneficial for weight loss? If you throw a pound of bricks and a pound of feathers off a roof they are not going to fall at the same rate of speed one will land on the ground before the other so I'm curious to learn which is more beneficial for weight loss running or walking and why? Any suggestions?
Running uses more calories because Power is Work/Time (P=W/T). The work to walk a mile and run a mile is the same because work is just how far you move a mass. The distance you are moving and the mass you are moving is the same whether you walk or run but because work is divided by time the time to run is smaller increasing the power and thus the calories.
I'm not sure what you mean by a pound of bricks and a pound of feathers but a pound of feathers will fall just as fast as the pound of bricks in a vacuum. If you throw them off of a roof they will fall slower due to wind resistance.0 -
The feathers fall more slowly because of their shape, not their weight. Throw a brick and a marble off the roof at the same time, they will land together. Maybe if you dropped like, the moon and Mercury at the same time they would fall at a different rate, but Earth's gravity does not differentiate between puny things like say people and grains of sand.
Running a mile will burn a few more calories than walking a mile.
Walking a mile will burn a LOT more calories than sitting around.
0 -
This. More people are likely going to last much much longer walking for life, versus running for life. Obvious reason is wear and tear.mamapeach910 wrote: »The one you're more likely to stick with doing is best for weight loss.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
During the activity itself, as pointed out above, the work done (i.e. calories spent) is exactly the same for the same mass and distance. Time is not a factor in work. However, because the run requires you to spend those calories in a shorter period of time, the "after effect" is better with the run - that is, your body keeps burning more calories for a longer period of time AFTER the activity in the case of a run than in the case of a walk.
That said, if a Run makes you hungrier and you end up overeating because of it, you may in fact hurt your deficit rather than help it. So what's best for you in terms of weight loss depends of what helps you create the greater deficit.0 -
This. More people are likely going to last much much longer walking for life, versus running for life. Obvious reason is wear and tear.mamapeach910 wrote: »The one you're more likely to stick with doing is best for weight loss.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Agree. Plus running bores the hell out of me. I can walk and walk forever but totally despise running.0 -
PeachyPlum wrote: »Oh boy.
It sort of depends where you are in your weight loss. For someone who is morbidly obese, running can be hard on the joints which can lead to injury. For those people, I would say that walking is more beneficial.
For those people who are in shape enough to run, running will burn more calories in the long run and there is even some evidence that running regularly helps to control your metabolic functions. For those people, I am of the opinion that running is more beneficial.
However, the best exercise is the one you'll actually do. On a regular basis. So, if you hate running and don't want to do it, don't decide that's going to be your cardio and then sit on the couch instead.
PeachyPlum's advice is always spot on. Running is very tough on those who are very overweight. I've read that every extra 10 pounds of body weight is like 30 pounds to our knees.
The best exercise is the one you like because it's the one you'll continue to do. I started with walking and eventually started running because it is more efficient timewise. I then started running races and running became fun. I still run regularly so I can run races and challenge myself. I also added in weight lifting.
You will never, however, see me on an elliptical machine or for very long on a treadmill. I'd rather try to run 13.1 miles with my shoelaces tied together.0 -
PeachyPlum wrote: »Oh boy.
It sort of depends where you are in your weight loss. For someone who is morbidly obese, running can be hard on the joints which can lead to injury. For those people, I would say that walking is more beneficial.
For those people who are in shape enough to run, running will burn more calories in the long run and there is even some evidence that running regularly helps to control your metabolic functions. For those people, I am of the opinion that running is more beneficial.
However, the best exercise is the one you'll actually do. On a regular basis. So, if you hate running and don't want to do it, don't decide that's going to be your cardio and then sit on the couch instead.
PeachyPlum's advice is always spot on. Running is very tough on those who are very overweight. I've read that every extra 10 pounds of body weight is like 30 pounds to our knees.
The best exercise is the one you like because it's the one you'll continue to do. I started with walking and eventually started running because it is more efficient timewise. I then started running races and running became fun. I still run regularly so I can run races and challenge myself. I also added in weight lifting.
You will never, however, see me on an elliptical machine or for very long on a treadmill. I'd rather try to run 13.1 miles with my shoelaces tied together.
Running is totally boring, unless you have a dog. I run for the pleasure of seeing my pup's absolute joy when we go for a run.
You'll only see me on the treadmill if I'm warming up my legs before doing something else (or I'm using it as a vantage point to peek at a really built guy on the free weights).0 -
According to MFP If I walk a 15 minute mile, I'd burn approx 108 calories. If I ran a 11.5 minute mile I'd burn 195. So, I suppose running a mile would be better, in terms of calorie burn. However, I can walk for miles. Jogging, not so much. I'd rather do a long distance walk, than a short distance run.0
-
Interesting question: I know a pound of bricks and a pound of feathers are still a pound but I'm curious; if running a mile or walking a mile is still considered a mile which if either is more beneficial for weight loss? If you throw a pound of bricks and a pound of feathers off a roof they are not going to fall at the same rate of speed one will land on the ground before the other so I'm curious to learn which is more beneficial for weight loss running or walking and why? Any suggestions?
I think running a mile is better. I get better results from running but I am so far from even being able to run that it is not an option for me.
0 -
The feathers fall more slowly because of their shape, not their weight. Throw a brick and a marble off the roof at the same time, they will land together. Maybe if you dropped like, the moon and Mercury at the same time they would fall at a different rate, but Earth's gravity does not differentiate between puny things like say people and grains of sand.
Running a mile will burn a few more calories than walking a mile.
Walking a mile will burn a LOT more calories than sitting around.
I love your quote and excellent point.0 -
I have been a serious runner for the last 5 years and I'm switching to walking. Running any more than 3 miles seriously messed with my appetite. I would get SO hungry and end up gaining weight training for races. I would be sore, hungry, and tired all the time. Walking never does that for me. I can walk 5 miles and feel great. Since switching to waking I'm sleeping, eating and feeling so much better.0
-
Thank you for all of the advice I was surprised. I assumed running would burn way more calories than walking. I'm shocked to learn the difference is minimal. I agree with the general consensus stick with what you like more that way you are more inclined to do it. I can also see the long term effects of running being detrimental to my joints; sounds much safer to walk. I am more inclined to walk long distance than run long distance as well. Can anyone recommend a charity walk most of the ones I found were running marathons. There is tons of information on training for a run/marathon I haven't been able to locate anything on walking. Any recommendations for a charity walking event?0
-
Actually you do burn more running. For each person, it's approximately 50 more calories than if you walked. I used to believe it was even due to mass and distance, but a physics professor schooled me and showed me mathematically the difference.During the activity itself, as pointed out above, the work done (i.e. calories spent) is exactly the same for the same mass and distance. Time is not a factor in work. However, because the run requires you to spend those calories in a shorter period of time, the "after effect" is better with the run - that is, your body keeps burning more calories for a longer period of time AFTER the activity in the case of a run than in the case of a walk.
That said, if a Run makes you hungrier and you end up overeating because of it, you may in fact hurt your deficit rather than help it. So what's best for you in terms of weight loss depends of what helps you create the greater deficit.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
My viewpoint has always been to try and burn the most calories in the amount of time I have available only because time is so limited for me. So if I have 15 minutes to walk 1 mile (~100 calories), I'd rather run 15 minutes and burn ~150 (if I run a 10 minute mile pace).
0 -
Yeah a pound of bricks and a pound of feathers given no air resistance would actually hit the ground at the same time. Anyway, more factors go into walking vs running but I personally don't run because my body probably isn't ready for that lol0
-
Interesting question: I know a pound of bricks and a pound of feathers are still a pound but I'm curious; if running a mile or walking a mile is still considered a mile which if either is more beneficial for weight loss? If you throw a pound of bricks and a pound of feathers off a roof they are not going to fall at the same rate of speed one will land on the ground before the other so I'm curious to learn which is more beneficial for weight loss running or walking and why? Any suggestions?
Neither. Exercise is not necessary to lose weight.
0 -
ncboiler89 wrote: »
This. More people are likely going to last much much longer walking for life, versus running for life. Obvious reason is wear and tear.mamapeach910 wrote: »The one you're more likely to stick with doing is best for weight loss.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Agree. Plus running bores the hell out of me. I can walk and walk forever but totally despise running.
I love to run..hence my username. 0 -
If you're fit enough to do it, running a mile produces higher calorie burn and more physiological improvements than does walking a mile. There's really no contest there.
Walking is better than nothing, but at that short distance, it is *barely* better than nothing (unless you're coming from a "My 600 pound life" type context).
0 -
Actually you do burn more running. For each person, it's approximately 50 more calories than if you walked. I used to believe it was even due to mass and distance, but a physics professor schooled me and showed me mathematically the difference.During the activity itself, as pointed out above, the work done (i.e. calories spent) is exactly the same for the same mass and distance. Time is not a factor in work. However, because the run requires you to spend those calories in a shorter period of time, the "after effect" is better with the run - that is, your body keeps burning more calories for a longer period of time AFTER the activity in the case of a run than in the case of a walk.
That said, if a Run makes you hungrier and you end up overeating because of it, you may in fact hurt your deficit rather than help it. So what's best for you in terms of weight loss depends of what helps you create the greater deficit.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's because of the plyometric aspect of having both feet off the ground at the same time, no? I *believe* the energy needed to propel you up and forward instead of just forward is what makes the difference, but I'm not super sure.0 -
Thank you for all of the advice I was surprised. I assumed running would burn way more calories than walking. I'm shocked to learn the difference is minimal. I agree with the general consensus stick with what you like more that way you are more inclined to do it. I can also see the long term effects of running being detrimental to my joints; sounds much safer to walk. I am more inclined to walk long distance than run long distance as well. Can anyone recommend a charity walk most of the ones I found were running marathons. There is tons of information on training for a run/marathon I haven't been able to locate anything on walking. Any recommendations for a charity walking event?
Check meetup.com, that's a good place to search for walking events. I find out about stuff through the organization I volunteer with so that's another place to check.
0 -
Actually you do burn more running. For each person, it's approximately 50 more calories than if you walked. I used to believe it was even due to mass and distance, but a physics professor schooled me and showed me mathematically the difference.During the activity itself, as pointed out above, the work done (i.e. calories spent) is exactly the same for the same mass and distance. Time is not a factor in work. However, because the run requires you to spend those calories in a shorter period of time, the "after effect" is better with the run - that is, your body keeps burning more calories for a longer period of time AFTER the activity in the case of a run than in the case of a walk.
That said, if a Run makes you hungrier and you end up overeating because of it, you may in fact hurt your deficit rather than help it. So what's best for you in terms of weight loss depends of what helps you create the greater deficit.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's because of the plyometric aspect of having both feet off the ground at the same time, no? I *believe* the energy needed to propel you up and forward instead of just forward is what makes the difference, but I'm not super sure.
This would be the only way. The work done against gravity is greater if you run because you are for small fractions of time completely lifted and because your legs lift further for a run than a walk (i.e. requiring greater force for the lift). But speaking of the work done against horizontal forces (wind resistance, friction) would be the same. And if one is looking to make up 50 calories, take a backpack to increase the weight.
0 -
@tmtatum01 you live on Long Island! Lucky duck. Charity runs and walks often are at the same event. I googled Charity Walk Long Island 2015 and got this:
http://www.parkinsonsassociation.org/2015-walkrun-expo/0 -
On pure calorie burn, solid explanation here: runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions