Running/walking... Is it the same amount of calories lost?
kayleexbabeex
Posts: 55 Member
So I do a 40minute workout on the treadmill by usually warming up with walking on the treadmill but then my aim to run as much as I can. I'm 9st 13lbs so I'm just looking to burn those 13lbs. I was reading a forum on the net and read that you pretty much burn the same amount if you ran or walked. So is it true that if I were to walk for 40minutes it would be the equivalent lost to running for 40minutes? I thought I would burn more running :? X
0
Replies
-
Calorie burn and fat burn is determined on your heart rate when exercising so I think that forum was incorrect.
Walking will not raise your heart rate as much as running (unless you are power walking at 4.5mph and your run speed is around 5.5mph, then they might be close.) my heart rate tends to be almost the same when I'm running (ok, jogging) and walking fast. So I tend to walk fast (4-4.5mph) with some bursts of 6.5 mph running for 60 min to keep my heart rate in its target zone.
Also weight loss is most importantly a matter of calorie deficit. So focus on the food first! When it comes to working out, it matters a little less. As long as you get your heart rate up and keep it up for 40+ minutes, and combine resistance training to keep muscles strong.0 -
For equivalent amounts of time, one burns more running.0
-
Makes sense to me that your heart rate will be higher when running but I agree with thatshistorical most important is being at a calorie deficit0
-
kayleexbabeex wrote: »I thought I would burn more running :? X
Running burns about twice as many calories per distance as walking will, give or take a bit of margin.
0 -
thatshistorical wrote: »Calorie burn and fat burn is determined on your heart rate when exercising
Calorie expenditure is more about mass, distance and mechanical efficiency. Running consumes around twice the calories that walking does.
Heart Rate can act as an indicator of calorie expenture, in a limited set of circumstances
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »thatshistorical wrote: »Calorie burn and fat burn is determined on your heart rate when exercising
Calorie expenditure is more about mass, distance and mechanical efficiency. Running consumes around twice the calories that walking does.
Heart Rate can act as an indicator of calorie expenture, in a limited set of circumstances
Pretty much this...0 -
No that's not correct. i think they may be suggesting that it's the same calorie burn for the same miles ... not the time it takes to walk or run those miles. I never agreed with that though.
But you know if you love walking, then go for it. I speed walk and run. Sometimes I just really prefer speed walking . I like to hit the hills hard so my muscles are getting worked.0 -
thatshistorical wrote: »Calorie burn and fat burn is determined on your heart rate when exercising so I think that forum was incorrect.
Sorry, there's no linear correlation between heart rate and caloric expenditure.
An unfit 200lb person will typically have a higher heart rate than a fit person of the same weight yet they would both expend almost the same number of calories running or walking the same distance. HR is an indicator of fitness, nothing else.
To estimate net calories expended Runners World has proposed the following formula.
Walking .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)
Running same but use .63
Apparently, however, race walking at 5mph or more expends more calories as result of mechanical inefficiency walking at that speed.
OP - the weight loss will come as a result of a caloric deficit, you can lose it with or without exercise. Exercise is for fitness and health (but numerous studies have also shown that people who exercise on a regular basis are more likely to keep the weight off in the long term) and IMO cardiovascular fitness is more important than the number on a scale (and may mitigate some of the consequences of being moderately overweight)
0 -
My girlfriend can run 6.5 miles on level treadmill for 30 minutes. At the same time I can walk at 4 miles an hour on a 8% incline and burn the same calories. A lot less impact on my joints..But on a level playing field running burns a lot more then walking.0
-
A couple of good links that apply.....
exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html
The chart at the top appears to be based on gross calorie burns, not net calorie burns. And as with anything else it's based on accepted formulas, not exacts.
exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
A calculator based on the methods. Very close to the numbers stated by some from the Runners World article and studies if you use net calorie burn for running.
This brings up a point I thought about recently due to another thread. Though treadmills often know miles moved, as well as user weights and such, I'm not sure if any of them allows programming or a button to push to differentiate between walking and running. I'd have to guess that if they don't have a way to specify, they probably use some standard formula or averages to transition the calories burn calculations from walking to running. The extremes of either (fast walking or slow running) might grossly skew the machine calculations.
We had a cheap treadmill years ago, and I know they have progressed a lot on all levels. Does anyone use a home or commercial treadmill that differentiates between walking and running somehow?
Personally I discount HR as an estimation, unless a user has enough data or some other form of power measure to allow them to have an accurate indication of HR vs speeds or loads.0 -
rippedhippie wrote: »My girlfriend can run 6.5 miles on level treadmill for 30 minutes. At the same time I can walk at 4 miles an hour on a 8% incline and burn the same calories. A lot less impact on my joints..But on a level playing field running burns a lot more then walking.
Weight makes a difference. At the same weight, running at 6.5 mph would burn approx 25%-29% more calories per minute than the workload you described.
When comparing "walking" vs "running", it is assumed that both are on a flat surface. Incline walking is a completely separate type of exercise (an excellent one, I might add, but irrelevant to this discussion).
0 -
It is funny how this just showed up in my Facebook feed. Think they are watching me or something???
http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn?cid=soc_Runner's World - RunnersWorld_FBPAGE_Runner’s World__Nutrition0 -
robertw486 wrote: »A couple of good links that apply.....
exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html
The chart at the top appears to be based on gross calorie burns, not net calorie burns. And as with anything else it's based on accepted formulas, not exacts.
exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
A calculator based on the methods. Very close to the numbers stated by some from the Runners World article and studies if you use net calorie burn for running.
This brings up a point I thought about recently due to another thread. Though treadmills often know miles moved, as well as user weights and such, I'm not sure if any of them allows programming or a button to push to differentiate between walking and running. I'd have to guess that if they don't have a way to specify, they probably use some standard formula or averages to transition the calories burn calculations from walking to running. The extremes of either (fast walking or slow running) might grossly skew the machine calculations.
We had a cheap treadmill years ago, and I know they have progressed a lot on all levels. Does anyone use a home or commercial treadmill that differentiates between walking and running somehow?
Personally I discount HR as an estimation, unless a user has enough data or some other form of power measure to allow them to have an accurate indication of HR vs speeds or loads.
The calculations for walking are valid for speeds up to 4.2 mph. The calculations for running start at 5.0 mph. Outside of those parameters, there is too much variability to come up with an equation that will be valid and consistent.
Since there are no valid equations, the treadmill uses the running equation for speeds of 5.0 and above and walking equations for less than that.
0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »thatshistorical wrote: »Calorie burn and fat burn is determined on your heart rate when exercising so I think that forum was incorrect.
Sorry, there's no linear correlation between heart rate and caloric expenditure.
An unfit 200lb person will typically have a higher heart rate than a fit person of the same weight yet they would both expend almost the same number of calories running or walking the same distance. HR is an indicator of fitness, nothing else.
To estimate net calories expended Runners World has proposed the following formula.
Walking .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)
Running same but use .63
Apparently, however, race walking at 5mph or more expends more calories as result of mechanical inefficiency walking at that speed.
OP - the weight loss will come as a result of a caloric deficit, you can lose it with or without exercise. Exercise is for fitness and health (but numerous studies have also shown that people who exercise on a regular basis are more likely to keep the weight off in the long term) and IMO cardiovascular fitness is more important than the number on a scale (and may mitigate some of the consequences of being moderately overweight)
Unrelated to the original question, but why are heart rate monitors so popular in that case? Aren't they calculating calorie expenditure based on heart rate? If there's no correlation, are all of the posts saying "get a HRM for better accuracy determining your burn" pointless and misleading? Genuine question, I think I must be misunderstanding something about HRMs.0 -
@xLyricBrianSharpe wrote: »thatshistorical wrote: »Calorie burn and fat burn is determined on your heart rate when exercising so I think that forum was incorrect.
Sorry, there's no linear correlation between heart rate and caloric expenditure.
An unfit 200lb person will typically have a higher heart rate than a fit person of the same weight yet they would both expend almost the same number of calories running or walking the same distance. HR is an indicator of fitness, nothing else.
To estimate net calories expended Runners World has proposed the following formula.
Walking .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)
Running same but use .63
Apparently, however, race walking at 5mph or more expends more calories as result of mechanical inefficiency walking at that speed.
OP - the weight loss will come as a result of a caloric deficit, you can lose it with or without exercise. Exercise is for fitness and health (but numerous studies have also shown that people who exercise on a regular basis are more likely to keep the weight off in the long term) and IMO cardiovascular fitness is more important than the number on a scale (and may mitigate some of the consequences of being moderately overweight)
Unrelated to the original question, but why are heart rate monitors so popular in that case? Aren't they calculating calorie expenditure based on heart rate? If there's no correlation, are all of the posts saying "get a HRM for better accuracy determining your burn" pointless and misleading? Genuine question, I think I must be misunderstanding something about HRMs.
They are so popular mainly through ignorance and a desire to measure something that is actually quite hard to measure. They are also very cheap & convenient compared to going to a sports science lab and being hooked up to a gas analyser that can measure your oxygen uptake.
They can be a really good training aid for advanced cardio but they really don't (can't) measure energy.
Some more advanced ones that either have the ability to be custom calibrated or have a more advanced algorithm may do a better job at providing an estimate.
A basic HRM can give a reasonable approximation for someone doing an appropriate exercise if they happen to have an average exercise HR - that's about it.
Take an unfit person quite probably doing an inappropriate exercise (walking, intervals, strength training, dancing.....) and it's a complete lottery.
Then again the need to be accurate about exercise calorie burns is vastly inflated too. Consistency and "reasonableness" is fine.
0 -
@xLyricBrianSharpe wrote: »thatshistorical wrote: »Calorie burn and fat burn is determined on your heart rate when exercising so I think that forum was incorrect.
Sorry, there's no linear correlation between heart rate and caloric expenditure.
An unfit 200lb person will typically have a higher heart rate than a fit person of the same weight yet they would both expend almost the same number of calories running or walking the same distance. HR is an indicator of fitness, nothing else.
To estimate net calories expended Runners World has proposed the following formula.
Walking .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)
Running same but use .63
Apparently, however, race walking at 5mph or more expends more calories as result of mechanical inefficiency walking at that speed.
OP - the weight loss will come as a result of a caloric deficit, you can lose it with or without exercise. Exercise is for fitness and health (but numerous studies have also shown that people who exercise on a regular basis are more likely to keep the weight off in the long term) and IMO cardiovascular fitness is more important than the number on a scale (and may mitigate some of the consequences of being moderately overweight)
Unrelated to the original question, but why are heart rate monitors so popular in that case? Aren't they calculating calorie expenditure based on heart rate? If there's no correlation, are all of the posts saying "get a HRM for better accuracy determining your burn" pointless and misleading? Genuine question, I think I must be misunderstanding something about HRMs.
They are so popular mainly through ignorance and a desire to measure something that is actually quite hard to measure. They are also very cheap & convenient compared to going to a sports science lab and being hooked up to a gas analyser that can measure your oxygen uptake.
They can be a really good training aid for advanced cardio but they really don't (can't) measure energy.
Some more advanced ones that either have the ability to be custom calibrated or have a more advanced algorithm may do a better job at providing an estimate.
A basic HRM can give a reasonable approximation for someone doing an appropriate exercise if they happen to have an average exercise HR - that's about it.
Take an unfit person quite probably doing an inappropriate exercise (walking, intervals, strength training, dancing.....) and it's a complete lottery.
Then again the need to be accurate about exercise calorie burns is vastly inflated too. Consistency and "reasonableness" is fine.
This in bold ^^.
They are reasonably accurate with error rates of <10% for calories. Their real role is HR & distance as a training tool for recovery.
For someone guesstimating their burns, they exceed what is provided by tables or mfp database. Particularly if you only eat back 25% or 50% of burns. HRM are not SO off as to miss 25% of burns in general steady state. And the newer ones (using firstbeat tech) report better error rates for non-steady state and daily activity.0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »thatshistorical wrote: »Calorie burn and fat burn is determined on your heart rate when exercising so I think that forum was incorrect.
Sorry, there's no linear correlation between heart rate and caloric expenditure.
An unfit 200lb person will typically have a higher heart rate than a fit person of the same weight yet they would both expend almost the same number of calories running or walking the same distance. HR is an indicator of fitness, nothing else.
To estimate net calories expended Runners World has proposed the following formula.
Walking .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)
Running same but use .63
Apparently, however, race walking at 5mph or more expends more calories as result of mechanical inefficiency walking at that speed.
OP - the weight loss will come as a result of a caloric deficit, you can lose it with or without exercise. Exercise is for fitness and health (but numerous studies have also shown that people who exercise on a regular basis are more likely to keep the weight off in the long term) and IMO cardiovascular fitness is more important than the number on a scale (and may mitigate some of the consequences of being moderately overweight)
Unrelated to the original question, but why are heart rate monitors so popular in that case? Aren't they calculating calorie expenditure based on heart rate? If there's no correlation, are all of the posts saying "get a HRM for better accuracy determining your burn" pointless and misleading? Genuine question, I think I must be misunderstanding something about HRMs.
The fact that there isn't a linear correlation doesn't mean that there isn't a correlation.
It's like saying there is no linear correlation between speed and fuel consumption (there isn't - it's a functional curve) and assuming that going faster suddenly doesn't consume fuel. Under consistent conditions there is a relatively reasonable curve between HR and oxygen consumption which in turn corresponds to an estimate to total energy consumption - ideally if one knows max HR and a few other factors.0 -
Sadly I don't run that much faster than I walk...and running makes me a lot hungrier. So from a weight loss standpoint walking makes the most sense.0
-
I disagree with the poster that says running and walking SAME distance that running burns twice as many calories.
No it doesn't.
Same distance calories burned are close.
It's time that makes the difference 30 minutes running burns more than 30 minutes walking because you go further.0 -
@meritage4I disagree with the poster that says running and walking SAME distance that running burns twice as many calories.
No it doesn't.
Same distance calories burned are close.
It's time that makes the difference 30 minutes running burns more than 30 minutes walking because you go further.
Actually no - the efficiency ratios (converting power to movement) of walking and running are very different. Watch a runner's head and you will see it's constantly rising and falling, unlike a walker.
Lifting your mass repeatedly takes energy and a lot of that is wasted (we aren't kangaroos!) - hence the different efficiency of the two movements.0 -
Unrelated to the original question, but why are heart rate monitors so popular in that case?
MArketing and advertising, practitioners of both of those should be third up against the wall come the time of the glorious revolution.
They're a useful tool, but to increase market penetration they're advertised in a fairly creative way that implies that a secondary application in a fairly narrow set of circumstances has broad applicability.
0 -
-
I disagree with the poster that says running and walking SAME distance that running burns twice as many calories.
No it doesn't.
Same distance calories burned are close.
It's time that makes the difference 30 minutes running burns more than 30 minutes walking because you go further.
What are basing this on?
The formula given by Runners World is based on laboratory observations. Cite your source.....
0 -
@xLyricBrianSharpe wrote: »thatshistorical wrote: »Calorie burn and fat burn is determined on your heart rate when exercising so I think that forum was incorrect.
Sorry, there's no linear correlation between heart rate and caloric expenditure.
An unfit 200lb person will typically have a higher heart rate than a fit person of the same weight yet they would both expend almost the same number of calories running or walking the same distance. HR is an indicator of fitness, nothing else.
To estimate net calories expended Runners World has proposed the following formula.
Walking .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)
Running same but use .63
Apparently, however, race walking at 5mph or more expends more calories as result of mechanical inefficiency walking at that speed.
OP - the weight loss will come as a result of a caloric deficit, you can lose it with or without exercise. Exercise is for fitness and health (but numerous studies have also shown that people who exercise on a regular basis are more likely to keep the weight off in the long term) and IMO cardiovascular fitness is more important than the number on a scale (and may mitigate some of the consequences of being moderately overweight)
Unrelated to the original question, but why are heart rate monitors so popular in that case? Aren't they calculating calorie expenditure based on heart rate? If there's no correlation, are all of the posts saying "get a HRM for better accuracy determining your burn" pointless and misleading? Genuine question, I think I must be misunderstanding something about HRMs.
They are so popular mainly through ignorance and a desire to measure something that is actually quite hard to measure. They are also very cheap & convenient compared to going to a sports science lab and being hooked up to a gas analyser that can measure your oxygen uptake.
They can be a really good training aid for advanced cardio but they really don't (can't) measure energy.
Some more advanced ones that either have the ability to be custom calibrated or have a more advanced algorithm may do a better job at providing an estimate.
A basic HRM can give a reasonable approximation for someone doing an appropriate exercise if they happen to have an average exercise HR - that's about it.
Take an unfit person quite probably doing an inappropriate exercise (walking, intervals, strength training, dancing.....) and it's a complete lottery.
Then again the need to be accurate about exercise calorie burns is vastly inflated too. Consistency and "reasonableness" is fine.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »thatshistorical wrote: »Calorie burn and fat burn is determined on your heart rate when exercising so I think that forum was incorrect.
Sorry, there's no linear correlation between heart rate and caloric expenditure.
An unfit 200lb person will typically have a higher heart rate than a fit person of the same weight yet they would both expend almost the same number of calories running or walking the same distance. HR is an indicator of fitness, nothing else.
To estimate net calories expended Runners World has proposed the following formula.
Walking .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)
Running same but use .63
Apparently, however, race walking at 5mph or more expends more calories as result of mechanical inefficiency walking at that speed.
OP - the weight loss will come as a result of a caloric deficit, you can lose it with or without exercise. Exercise is for fitness and health (but numerous studies have also shown that people who exercise on a regular basis are more likely to keep the weight off in the long term) and IMO cardiovascular fitness is more important than the number on a scale (and may mitigate some of the consequences of being moderately overweight)
Unrelated to the original question, but why are heart rate monitors so popular in that case? Aren't they calculating calorie expenditure based on heart rate? If there's no correlation, are all of the posts saying "get a HRM for better accuracy determining your burn" pointless and misleading? Genuine question, I think I must be misunderstanding something about HRMs.
The fact that there isn't a linear correlation doesn't mean that there isn't a correlation.
It's like saying there is no linear correlation between speed and fuel consumption (there isn't - it's a functional curve) and assuming that going faster suddenly doesn't consume fuel. Under consistent conditions there is a relatively reasonable curve between HR and oxygen consumption which in turn corresponds to an estimate to total energy consumption - ideally if one knows max HR and a few other factors.
Thank you both for the clarification!0 -
I disagree with the poster that says running and walking SAME distance that running burns twice as many calories.
No it doesn't.
Same distance calories burned are close.
It's time that makes the difference 30 minutes running burns more than 30 minutes walking because you go further.
As mentioned above, running is much less efficient than walking. You use different muscles in different ways. When walking, one foot is always on the ground; when running, you spend much more time with both feet off the ground. Your pushoffs are faster, more forceful and "waste" some of their energy in the vertical plane movement.
If you'd like to test the difference in efficiency for yourself, do a walking program until you're very comfortable walking 3 miles at a brisk pace and don't experience DOMS from it anymore. Then try running those exact same 3 miles. I can 100% guarantee you that for the next 2 to 3 days afterward, you'll feel the difference in how the muscles are worked.0 -
When i spend a lazy afternoon with google resarching this i came to the following: all the sites and magazines that are running specific say that running needs more calories and the walking / hiking ones that mile for a mile you use the same amount per distance.
Unfortunatly i didn't found a neutral source.0 -
When i spend a lazy afternoon with google resarching this i came to the following: all the sites and magazines that are running specific say that running needs more calories and the walking / hiking ones that mile for a mile you use the same amount per distance.
Unfortunatly i didn't found a neutral source.
Hiking is a different story......the calorie calculations that are done are based on distance over relatively flat terrain, typically hiking involves a more vertically challenging environment (just like walking on a treadmill at a high incline burns more calories than walking on a level surface)........now if you want really crazy calorie burns check out trail running!
Here's a fairly neutral site that does the math......note that walking at 5mph and running at 5mph are rated the same (as they are in the Runners World calculation) based the mechanical inefficiency of walking at 5mph or more.....
walking.about.com/od/calorie1/a/calorieswalkrun.htm
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »A couple of good links that apply.....
exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html
The chart at the top appears to be based on gross calorie burns, not net calorie burns. And as with anything else it's based on accepted formulas, not exacts.
exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
A calculator based on the methods. Very close to the numbers stated by some from the Runners World article and studies if you use net calorie burn for running.
This brings up a point I thought about recently due to another thread. Though treadmills often know miles moved, as well as user weights and such, I'm not sure if any of them allows programming or a button to push to differentiate between walking and running. I'd have to guess that if they don't have a way to specify, they probably use some standard formula or averages to transition the calories burn calculations from walking to running. The extremes of either (fast walking or slow running) might grossly skew the machine calculations.
We had a cheap treadmill years ago, and I know they have progressed a lot on all levels. Does anyone use a home or commercial treadmill that differentiates between walking and running somehow?
Personally I discount HR as an estimation, unless a user has enough data or some other form of power measure to allow them to have an accurate indication of HR vs speeds or loads.
The calculations for walking are valid for speeds up to 4.2 mph. The calculations for running start at 5.0 mph. Outside of those parameters, there is too much variability to come up with an equation that will be valid and consistent.
Since there are no valid equations, the treadmill uses the running equation for speeds of 5.0 and above and walking equations for less than that.
I agree that on ranges people might come up with close numbers for where it should transition from walking to running. I'm just curious if people that own treadmills have tested the theory on specific machines. Since the higher end speeds of walking come close to the lower end speeds of running (in gross calories) I'm wondering if treadmills just have a linear calculation or an actual transition point to estimate calorie burns.
Depending on the way the machine works, it could skew numbers quite a bit for some people.I disagree with the poster that says running and walking SAME distance that running burns twice as many calories.
No it doesn't.
Same distance calories burned are close.
It's time that makes the difference 30 minutes running burns more than 30 minutes walking because you go further.
Though I agree with the posters that the calorie burn rates differ between the two, in the context of your post they are closer. When you factor the time and calculate gross calorie burn the numbers tighten up. For use inputting to sites or calculators like MFP uses, having the net calorie burn number is what is desired, since the energy expenditure related to the time factor is already accounted for.0 -
I stand corrected. It is a common myth that walking and running same distance are equal. Running burns more calories because of the moment of suspension. You use energy going up and down, not just forward. Learn something new everyday....0
-
kayleexbabeex wrote: »So I do a 40minute workout on the treadmill by usually warming up with walking on the treadmill but then my aim to run as much as I can. I'm 9st 13lbs so I'm just looking to burn those 13lbs. I was reading a forum on the net and read that you pretty much burn the same amount if you ran or walked. So is it true that if I were to walk for 40minutes it would be the equivalent lost to running for 40minutes? I thought I would burn more running :? X
Walk a mile, run a mile see which one burns more calories.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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