Is a mile a mile?
Options
rlpomeroy
Posts: 636 Member
Generally speaking, will I burn the same number of calories walking a mile, regardless of the pace? Does 60 mins at 2 miles an hour burn the same as 30 minutes at 4 miles an hour?
0
Replies
-
No....0
-
ofc not. Not only that but the less weight you have the less calories you burn due to lesser effort0
-
Yes net calories spent are the same - it's physics (mass X distance moved) not feelings.
Weight in pounds X distance in miles X 0.3 (efficiency ratio) = approximate net calories.
Speed has an impact on rate of calorie burn not the total calorie burn.0 -
That equation doesn't seem right ... 58 calories burned at 193 lbs per mile .....0
-
Yes net calories spent are the same - it's physics (mass X distance moved) not feelings.
Weight in pounds X distance in miles X 0.3 (efficiency ratio) = approximate net calories.
Speed has an impact on rate of calorie burn not the total calorie burn.
This is just simply not true. Walk 3mph, you lose circa 70-80 calories on average per mile. Run at around 7-8mph and you lose about 110-130 calories/mile.
It is the same as with a car going at 30mph vs going at 80mph. It needs more fuel to operate at that speed.0 -
@eldamianoYes net calories spent are the same - it's physics (mass X distance moved) not feelings.
Weight in pounds X distance in miles X 0.3 (efficiency ratio) = approximate net calories.
Speed has an impact on rate of calorie burn not the total calorie burn.
This is just simply not true. Walk 3mph, you lose circa 70-80 calories on average per mile. Run at around 7-8mph and you lose about 110-130 calories/mile.
It is the same as with a car going at 30mph vs going at 80mph. It needs more fuel to operate at that speed.
Walking and running are different - walking slow or walking fast is the comparison not comparing walking and running.
Different movements and so different efficiency ratings.
For running net calories spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.63) x (Distance in miles)0 -
Yes net calories spent are the same - it's physics (mass X distance moved) not feelings.
Weight in pounds X distance in miles X 0.3 (efficiency ratio) = approximate net calories.
Speed has an impact on rate of calorie burn not the total calorie burn.
This
@eldamianoYes net calories spent are the same - it's physics (mass X distance moved) not feelings.
Weight in pounds X distance in miles X 0.3 (efficiency ratio) = approximate net calories.
Speed has an impact on rate of calorie burn not the total calorie burn.
This is just simply not true. Walk 3mph, you lose circa 70-80 calories on average per mile. Run at around 7-8mph and you lose about 110-130 calories/mile.
It is the same as with a car going at 30mph vs going at 80mph. It needs more fuel to operate at that speed.
Walking and running are different - walking slow or walking fast is the comparison not comparing walking and running.
Different movements and so different efficiency ratings.
For running net calories spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.63) x (Distance in miles)
and this0 -
@eldamianoYes net calories spent are the same - it's physics (mass X distance moved) not feelings.
Weight in pounds X distance in miles X 0.3 (efficiency ratio) = approximate net calories.
Speed has an impact on rate of calorie burn not the total calorie burn.
This is just simply not true. Walk 3mph, you lose circa 70-80 calories on average per mile. Run at around 7-8mph and you lose about 110-130 calories/mile.
It is the same as with a car going at 30mph vs going at 80mph. It needs more fuel to operate at that speed.
Walking and running are different - walking slow or walking fast is the comparison not comparing walking and running.
Different movements and so different efficiency ratings.
For running net calories spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.63) x (Distance in miles)
Grade is going to effect the equation as well. More work to travel vertically as you're moving horizontally.0 -
Walking pace has little impact on burn per mile (It does have minimal, especially once you cross the 4 mph point). So, if you're looking for the bestest, more exact figure, you need a GPS + HRM to track the caloric burn.
Running v Walking, again, are different, and have different burn rates per mile as well. Same thing, you'll need a GPS + HRM to track it with any precision.
However, when you add in all of the variables together, you run into something called "Law of Large Numbers". The rule of 100 cals/mile running or walking is a pretty good rule.0 -
Yes net calories spent are the same - it's physics (mass X distance moved) not feelings.
Weight in pounds X distance in miles X 0.3 (efficiency ratio) = approximate net calories.
Speed has an impact on rate of calorie burn not the total calorie burn.
No, because when you run you power off to the point that both feet are momentarily off the ground. When you walk there is always one foot in contact with the ground. The work done to run is equivalent to walking the same distance + jumping the cumulative height (about 3 inches?) per stride.
I seem to remember that running is about 110-115% work to walk the same distance.0 -
StealthHealth wrote: »Yes net calories spent are the same - it's physics (mass X distance moved) not feelings.
Weight in pounds X distance in miles X 0.3 (efficiency ratio) = approximate net calories.
Speed has an impact on rate of calorie burn not the total calorie burn.
No, because when you run you power off to the point that both feet are momentarily off the ground. When you walk there is always one foot in contact with the ground. The work done to run is equivalent to walking the same distance + jumping the cumulative height (about 3 inches?) per stride.
I seem to remember that running is about 110-115% work to walk the same distance.
Read the rest of the thread!0 -
Generally speaking, will I burn the same number of calories walking a mile, regardless of the pace? Does 60 mins at 2 miles an hour burn the same as 30 minutes at 4 miles an hour?
If you're walking, yes. Mass over distance with a scaling factor to reflect mechanical efficiency; 0.3 for walking, 0.6 for running.
Both 2mph and 4mph are similar in terms of efficiency.0 -
-
walking a mile is walking a mile, and running a mile is running a mile and burns more (more up and down movement) until you pass some speed where walking is less efficient than jogging. Which, according to this study is around 12 minutes/mile.
http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn0 -
coreyreichle wrote: »Walking pace has little impact on burn per mile (It does have minimal, especially once you cross the 4 mph point). So, if you're looking for the bestest, more exact figure, you need a GPS + HRM to track the caloric burn.
Running v Walking, again, are different, and have different burn rates per mile as well. Same thing, you'll need a GPS + HRM to track it with any precision.
However, when you add in all of the variables together, you run into something called "Law of Large Numbers". The rule of 100 cals/mile running or walking is a pretty good rule.
If you're close to 150 lbs and not going for long distances, that works.
Those of us who are lighter can burn significantly less. Those of us who are heavier can burn significantly more. And, of course, the farther you go the greater the inaccuracy of the estimation.0 -
StealthHealth wrote: »Yes net calories spent are the same - it's physics (mass X distance moved) not feelings.
Weight in pounds X distance in miles X 0.3 (efficiency ratio) = approximate net calories.
Speed has an impact on rate of calorie burn not the total calorie burn.
No, because when you run you power off to the point that both feet are momentarily off the ground. When you walk there is always one foot in contact with the ground. The work done to run is equivalent to walking the same distance + jumping the cumulative height (about 3 inches?) per stride.
I seem to remember that running is about 110-115% work to walk the same distance.
He wasn't comparing walking to running, which he addressed up thread. Walking is walking which is what he was comparing...walking slow vs walking a little faster...0 -
Generally speaking, will I burn the same number of calories walking a mile, regardless of the pace? Does 60 mins at 2 miles an hour burn the same as 30 minutes at 4 miles an hour?
Yes. You just get your walk done faster. If you've fine walking for 60 minutes you can do twice the workout in the same amount of time. That's the real benefit of walking faster.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »StealthHealth wrote: »Yes net calories spent are the same - it's physics (mass X distance moved) not feelings.
Weight in pounds X distance in miles X 0.3 (efficiency ratio) = approximate net calories.
Speed has an impact on rate of calorie burn not the total calorie burn.
No, because when you run you power off to the point that both feet are momentarily off the ground. When you walk there is always one foot in contact with the ground. The work done to run is equivalent to walking the same distance + jumping the cumulative height (about 3 inches?) per stride.
I seem to remember that running is about 110-115% work to walk the same distance.
He wasn't comparing walking to running, which he addressed up thread. Walking is walking which is what he was comparing...walking slow vs walking a little faster...
Yep, sorry I didn't read it properly. My bad.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions