Running/walking... Is it the same amount of calories lost?

MeanderingMammal

sinbos wrote: »

Unfortunatly i didn't found a neutral source.

Harvard is pretty neutral - http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/mets-activity-table/

And the Stanford Compendium https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxjb21wZW5kaXVtb2ZwaHlzaWNhbGFjdGl2aXRpZXN8Z3g6MjgyY2EyMzQzNWFlN2Q3OA

troytroy11

One thing I would like to throw out there to complicate the answer is how used the person is to the particular exercise, in this case running. Consider the runner has been running 2 miles several times a week at a certain speed for 6 months or so. The person eventually plateaus and the heart rate is no longer as high as it was when first trying this run. If that same person were to do little to no regular walking (unlikely but possible), and then were to suddenly walk at a brisk pace that same distance of 2 miles, there could be a comparable calorie burn that is apples to apples but the run would in my guess, still be the bigger apple. Probably not much bigger though.
It would be interesting to see that tested over various distances, speeds, etc.
Mythbusters where are you when we need you?!!!

BrianSharpe

troytroy11 wrote: »

One thing I would like to throw out there to complicate the answer is how used the person is to the particular exercise, in this case running. Consider the runner has been running 2 miles several times a week at a certain speed for 6 months or so. The person eventually plateaus and the heart rate is no longer as high as it was when first trying this run. If that same person were to do little to no regular walking (unlikely but possible), and then were to suddenly walk at a brisk pace that same distance of 2 miles, there could be a comparable calorie burn that is apples to apples but the run would in my guess, still be the bigger apple. Probably not much bigger though.
It would be interesting to see that tested over various distances, speeds, etc.
Mythbusters where are you when we need you?!!!

Wrong......there is no linear correlation to heart rate and caloric expenditure. An unfiit runner will have a higher heart rate than a less fit one of the same weight yet, all other things being equal, will burn approximately the same number of calories running the same distance.

This is the fundamental flaw with many HRMs algorithms.

Did you even read the previous posts? It's all laid out there.......

MeanderingMammal

troytroy11 wrote: »

The person eventually plateaus and the heart rate is no longer as high as it was when first trying this run.

So the conditioning from running means that the heart concentrates more oxygen per unit volume of blood, and as the heart improves in strength it moves a greater volume of blood per stroke. So as one improves in fitness that means that it takes fewer beats to get the same volume of oxygen to the system, hence one can burn the same number of calories for fewer heart beats.

troytroy11

BrianSharpe wrote: »

troytroy11 wrote: »

One thing I would like to throw out there to complicate the answer is how used the person is to the particular exercise, in this case running. Consider the runner has been running 2 miles several times a week at a certain speed for 6 months or so. The person eventually plateaus and the heart rate is no longer as high as it was when first trying this run. If that same person were to do little to no regular walking (unlikely but possible), and then were to suddenly walk at a brisk pace that same distance of 2 miles, there could be a comparable calorie burn that is apples to apples but the run would in my guess, still be the bigger apple. Probably not much bigger though.
It would be interesting to see that tested over various distances, speeds, etc.
Mythbusters where are you when we need you?!!!

Wrong......there is no linear correlation to heart rate and caloric expenditure. An unfiit runner will have a higher heart rate than a less fit one of the same weight yet, all other things being equal, will burn approximately the same number of calories running the same distance.

This is the fundamental flaw with many HRMs algorithms.

Did you even read the previous posts? It's all laid out there.......

Thank you for clearing that up.

troytroy11

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

troytroy11 wrote: »

The person eventually plateaus and the heart rate is no longer as high as it was when first trying this run.

So the conditioning from running means that the heart concentrates more oxygen per unit volume of blood, and as the heart improves in strength it moves a greater volume of blood per stroke. So as one improves in fitness that means that it takes fewer beats to get the same volume of oxygen to the system, hence one can burn the same number of calories for fewer heart beats.

Thank you that makes sense

troytroy11

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)

The formula is very helpful, thank you. I must have missed this earlier.