Which is more beneficial for weight loss: walking a mile or running a mile and why?
Replies
-
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
-
I started walking. Then transitioned to running.
I'm in maintenance and usually will run for 4 miles in the morning and burn 600 calories and walk 6 miles the off day I don't run and burn 500.
So for me, running is only slightly better. If you're not a runner, walk and train to eventually run.
0 -
One thing my Timex HRM does for me is track my hr as it goes from elevated to resting. Soon as I hit stop, it calculates values. The faster my heart comes down to resting, the more in shape I (possibly) am.
Physically speaking, the bricks/feathers thing is apples and the walk/run thing is oranges. Freefall is mainly on the y axis, and is accelerated by gravity. Running goes against gravity, along with incline, friction, wind resistance, and/or slippage, which is why it is so damn difficult. You cant really use that analogy bc they have no correlation. But the more you go against gravity, the faster the body will adapt (ie grow muscle) to the new stress.
The more you put stress on your body, the more fit your body becomes, regardless of food consumption (to a degree). So, it is just a matter of how far you want to jump out of your comfort zone to achieve desired results in a certain timeframe.
Personally, I choose to run. If I walk, it is at 10-15° of incline. I am 5'9" 195 lbs (down from 225 & couldnt run 1/2 mile Oct 2012), not very muscular, and I am halfway to being able to run a half marathon. I track my progress through my endurance and hr. Its all about personal goals. You cant miss so long as you get moving.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?
You can walk at most running events. I see lots of walkers at 5K and 10K races and even at half marathons. There are even lots of people who do a combination of both running and walking. You do need to be able to walk at a decent clip for some events, so check the maximum time. For example, for most half marathons the course is open for 4 hours so 13.1 miles/4 hours = 3.275 MPH average pace needed to finish in time.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »Walking a mile. Because I have no desire to run a mile, so it will never happen.
THIS.0 -
There is evidence that running 4 hours a week or more is as bad for you as being sedentary.
http://time.com/3692668/when-exercise-does-more-harm-than-good/
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »There is evidence that running 4 hours a week or more is as bad for you as being sedentary.
http://time.com/3692668/when-exercise-does-more-harm-than-good/
That research has been taken apart very well. It doesn't actually say what people think it does.
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/the-supposed-dangers-of-running-too-much0 -
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 don't see how running is more boring than walking (assuming we're comparing running and walking in the same environment, either both outside or both on a treadmill). I understand it if you just don't like to run because it's harder, but if anything running is much less boring than walking....if nothing else the scenery changes quicker.0 -
Eating at a deficit is more beneficial to losing weight.0
-
mburgess458 wrote: »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 don't see how running is more boring than walking (assuming we're comparing running and walking in the same environment, either both outside or both on a treadmill). I understand it if you just don't like to run because it's harder, but if anything running is much less boring than walking....if nothing else the scenery changes quicker.
It's the gasping for air part that gets old quickly.0 -
It's the one you'll do, but I actually posted to say thanks - I've felt a bit sick today and reading this has inspired me to go do a mile walk! So Thanks
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions