Does running add a significant amount of calories?

stealthq

heybales wrote: »

stealthq wrote: »

3p0l0v3sU wrote: »

Way I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.

Sorry, no. Walking a mile burns about half of running per mile*.

It has to do with gait. Running is a series of one-legged hops with periods of having no foot on the ground. Walking is a smooth transition from one foot to the other, no hops. The hops make all the difference (energy to push to leave the ground, energy to land).

*Exception for speed-walking. Walking is inefficient at high speeds. It is equal in calorie burn to running for the same distance once you reach 12:30 min/mi and will burn more than running per mile at faster speeds.

Well - that's not true either - it's not that big a difference per MILE.

Per time obviously different.

http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html

While the often used claim walking burns the same per mile as running is wrong, it's at least closer than your claim in accuracy.

Actually, it is true - at least as far as can be verified with a limited population of subjects. Too different studies. Very similar results:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446673
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150

From the latest paper,

TOTAL CALORIES/MILE (WALK)
.57 x wt in lbs

TOTAL CALORIES/MILE (RUN)
.72 x wt in lbs

From the earlier paper,

TOTAL CALORIES/MILE (WALK)
.53 x wt in lbs

TOTAL CALORIES/MILE (RUN)
.75 x wt in lbs

NET CALORIES/MILE (WALK)
.30 x wt in lbs

NET CALORIES/MILE (RUN)
.63 x wt in lbs

Notice how the equations for total calories burned are almost the same in both studies? Which means net calories burned (which is what you should be using or you would be double counting) should also be very similar although they were not provided as far as I can tell in the later paper.

0.3 is roughly half of 0.63.

Now, this does not include afterburn calories which are also greater when running than walking, but afterburn is more of a per run/walk thing, not a per mile or per minute thing so it would not be appropriate to include. It does increase as speed increases.

ETA: changing tables to lists for readability

neutroncore

3p0l0v3sU wrote: »

Way I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.

The way I see it. Walking 1 mile is = the muscle work needed to move your body weight in horizonal plane for 1 mile + little muscle work for stability during walking.
While Running 1 mile is = work needed to move your body weight in horizontal plane for 1 mile (same work as you stated) Plus the work needed to osilate your body weight in the vertical plane for each stride for 1 mile (usually more with more body weight) Plus huge muscle work to stabilize your running gait in the increased momentum.
So according to the law of physics, running one will definitely burn more calories than walking 1 mile. Your statement can be true if the only variable is the speed of the moving object, running is Not just faster way of moving, it has different physical dynamics.

heybales

stealthq wrote: »

heybales wrote: »

stealthq wrote: »

3p0l0v3sU wrote: »

Way I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.

Sorry, no. Walking a mile burns about half of running per mile*.

It has to do with gait. Running is a series of one-legged hops with periods of having no foot on the ground. Walking is a smooth transition from one foot to the other, no hops. The hops make all the difference (energy to push to leave the ground, energy to land).

*Exception for speed-walking. Walking is inefficient at high speeds. It is equal in calorie burn to running for the same distance once you reach 12:30 min/mi and will burn more than running per mile at faster speeds.

Well - that's not true either - it's not that big a difference per MILE.

Per time obviously different.

http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html

While the often used claim walking burns the same per mile as running is wrong, it's at least closer than your claim in accuracy.

Actually, it is true - at least as far as can be verified with a limited population of subjects. Too different studies. Very similar results:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446673
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150

From the latest paper,

TOTAL CALORIES/MILE (WALK)
.57 x wt in lbs

TOTAL CALORIES/MILE (RUN)
.72 x wt in lbs

From the earlier paper,

TOTAL CALORIES/MILE (WALK)
.53 x wt in lbs

TOTAL CALORIES/MILE (RUN)
.75 x wt in lbs

NET CALORIES/MILE (WALK)
.30 x wt in lbs

NET CALORIES/MILE (RUN)
.63 x wt in lbs

Notice how the equations for total calories burned are almost the same in both studies? Which means net calories burned (which is what you should be using or you would be double counting) should also be very similar although they were not provided as far as I can tell in the later paper.

0.3 is roughly half of 0.63.

Now, this does not include afterburn calories which are also greater when running than walking, but afterburn is more of a per run/walk thing, not a per mile or per minute thing so it would not be appropriate to include. It does increase as speed increases.

ETA: changing tables to lists for readability

Yep, those are the studies I linked in other topic about accuracy of the formula compared to measured.

Which is what the link showing the graph is using, and where the values came from.

They came up with different values per that graph and table.

Because even the mere study synopsis values don't show a difference of 2x using the averages found.