Which is more beneficial for weight loss: walking a mile or running a mile and why?

13»

Replies

  • beemerphile1
    beemerphile1 Posts: 1,710 Member
    tmtatum01 wrote: »
    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....

    You are comparing distance. The situation changes if you compare time exercising.
  • SueInAz
    SueInAz Posts: 6,592 Member
    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.

    Agreed. My sister-in-law does the 3 day Susan G Komen walk most years. I've thought about doing it but being forced to go at a walking pace, rather than running much of it, would drive me slowly insane over that weekend.
    sofaking6 wrote: »
    It's the gasping for air part that gets old quickly.

    LOL!
    tmtatum01 wrote: »
    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....

    You are comparing distance. The situation changes if you compare time exercising.

    Running burns more calories and more quickly than walking. It's the time factor that matters to me and why I started running in the first place. I can walk 6 miles in two hours (410 calories) or I can run that far in one hour (620 calories). I'll take the latter.
  • _QueenE_
    _QueenE_ Posts: 459 Member
    PeachyPlum said it great. I think the best is what you think is best for you and whatever you like to do.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    tmtatum01 wrote: »
    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'm not sure what a brick and a feather has to do with anything, but running a mile will burn more calories than walking a mile.
  • peter56765
    peter56765 Posts: 352 Member
    deaniac83 wrote: »
    sofaking6 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    deaniac83 wrote: »
    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.
    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.

    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

    9285851.png

    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. :smiley:

    Air resistance is directly proportional to velocity so the faster you go, the more force you need to overcome air resistance, and therefore the greater energy expenditure you need to maintain your forward velocity.
  • ExRelaySprinter
    ExRelaySprinter Posts: 874 Member
    edited April 2015
    However, I can walk for miles. Jogging, not so much. I'd rather do a long distance walk, than a short distance run.
    I agree with this^^.
    I Powerwalk and can walk for a long time.
    Whereas running or jogging, i'd get tired after 15 minutes. :lol:

  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,138 Member
    Running burns more calories per unit of time invested.

    Which one is "better" for you really depends on what you're able and willing to do with the least risk of injury and highest possibility of compliance!
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Like others have said, the one you will do.

    For me, both/no reason to choose. I enjoy running, but I try to walk as much as possible every day and think both are important. Running is important because it provides motivation to focus on fitness and is a form a stress relief that I really enjoy (and which is much better than eating). Walking is important because it's a consistent way to burn calories every day without really noticing and without a threat of injury/soreness/needing to take any time off.
  • wilsonctenney
    wilsonctenney Posts: 13 Member
    Walk. You will burn fat.
  • Merkavar
    Merkavar Posts: 3,082 Member
    My guess is running. Forget the calories burned stuff.

    If you walk at 4 miles per hour and run at 8 your going to get your exercise done twice as fast and have more free time to relax.


    0rbsg3nv093n.jpg
  • RockstarWilson
    RockstarWilson Posts: 836 Member
    sofaking6 wrote: »
    ncboiler89 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    The one you're more likely to stick with doing is best for weight loss.
    This. More people are likely going to last much much longer walking for life, versus running for life. Obvious reason is wear and tear.

    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

    9285851.png

    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.

    All the more reason to run.