Walk 1 mile vs. run 1 mile. Burn the same amount of calories PER MILE ?

Debbie_Ferr

Walk 1 mile vs. run 1 mile. Burn the same amount of calories PER MILE ?
Is there still a debate?

http://www.womenshealthmag.com/weight-loss/calories-burned-running-vs-walking

Per Runners World 8.8.16

.....................................WALK*...........RUN**
Cals/Mile.....................88.90...........112.50
Cals/Minute...................4.78.............11.26
After-burn/Mile...........21.70............46.10
New Total /Mile.........110.60..........158.60

Cals/Minute....................5.95............15.86

*one mile walk in 18:36; ** one mile run in 10:00

MeanderingMammal

That link is broken, but I'm very sceptical of a claim of EPOC at 40% of net, anything I've seen that's been research attributed would put EPOC at 4-6% of net.

FatMoojor

Debbie_Ferr wrote: »

Walk 1 mile vs. run 1 mile. Burn the same amount of calories PER MILE ?
Is there still a debate?

http://www.womenshealthmag.com/weight-loss/calories-burned-running-vs-walking

Per Runners World 8.8.16

.....................................WALK*...........RUN**
Cals/Mile.....................88.90...........112.50
Cals/Minute...................4.78.............11.26
After-burn/Mile...........21.70............46.10
New Total /Mile.........110.60..........158.60

Cals/Minute....................5.95............15.86

*one mile walk in 18:36; ** one mile run in 10:00

Sorry are you saying they do or they don't. What part of this debate are "you" discussing. By the numbers there you have shown that they don't burn the same. With running burning almost 50 calories a mile more.

goldthistime

Your body leaves the ground when you are running, a push against gravity. So there should be no debate, running burns more per mile than walking.

TheLegendaryBrandonHarris

I wasn't aware of there ever being a debate on this subject.

LivingtheLeanDream

Your chart shows different burns, as anyone would expect and it makes sense....

erickirb

On top of the EPOC not being that high, what size person was used here as 11.25 cal/min at such a slow running pace seems inflated as well. At 250lbs it may be close.

CatchMom11

Wasn't aware that there was a debate. It's pretty un-debatable. Running clearly burns more calories. You're increasing your heart rate, which increases your calories burned. It's kind of a no-brainer.

oocdc2

MandaB9780 wrote: »

Wasn't aware that there was a debate. It's pretty un-debatable.

Unless, of course, the OP is *looking* for a debate--gods know we're good for that around here...

TheLegendaryBrandonHarris

oocdc2 wrote: »

Unless, of course, the OP is *looking* for a debate--gods know we're good for that around here...

I totally disagree! Wanna fight about it?

3dogsrunning

oocdc2 wrote: »

MandaB9780 wrote: »

Wasn't aware that there was a debate. It's pretty un-debatable.

Unless, of course, the OP is *looking* for a debate--gods know we're good for that around here...

To be fair, it comes up quite frequently on the boards here. There *are* a lot of people who believe that you burn the same amount for walking a mile and running a mile, since the mile walk takes longer. Even Runner's World wrote an article on the "debate". This is the third one from them I've seen on the topic.

pondee629

I thought the formula for calories burned was:
For running: Weight in pounds times .62 times distance in miles. 185# * .62 = 114 cals. per mile running
For walking: Weight in pounds times .30 times distance in miles. 185# * .30 = 55 cals. per mile walking.

Seems the debate is more the amount of calories burned in each/either/any activity. I'm beginning to think that the world may never know and only give us guesses. Maybe best guesses maybe just guesses. But guesses none-the-less.

_Waffle_

Debbie_Ferr wrote: »

Walk 1 mile vs. run 1 mile. Burn the same amount of calories PER MILE ?
Is there still a debate?

Not that I know of. Why? What have you heard?

genpopadopolous

pondee629 wrote: »

I thought the formula for calories burned was:
For running: Weight in pounds times .62 times distance in miles. 185# * .62 = 114 cals. per mile running
For walking: Weight in pounds times .30 times distance in miles. 185# * .30 = 55 cals. per mile walking.

Seems the debate is more the amount of calories burned in each/either/any activity. I'm beginning to think that the world may never know and only give us guesses. Maybe best guesses maybe just guesses. But guesses none-the-less.

These are the formulas I've always seen, too. I thought they were pretty heavily researched.

belgerian

I have seen what I consider many silly fitness/nutritional debates but this is the first I have heard of this one. Again a no brainer.

mbaker566

running burns more calories than walking because your body has to use more energy to do it

oocdc2

TheLegendaryBrandonHarris wrote: »

oocdc2 wrote: »

Unless, of course, the OP is *looking* for a debate--gods know we're good for that around here...

I totally disagree! Wanna fight about it?

Oh, it's on now...

evilokc

I have never walked a mile. I always sprint. What i do know is that once you are running faster than an 9 min mile you do not burn more calories which seems dumb to me but does seem to be the case. So running a 9min mile and a 7 min mile for me both burn about 130cal.

Budjola

unless we talk walking uphill

ald783

I think it is kind of pointless to compare calories burned for walking versus running from a distance/mileage perspective when they obviously take very different amounts of time. Of course everyone knows that per minute and per hour, running burns more. It looks like the same is also true per mile, but to a lesser degree since walking a mile takes about twice as long. So I'm not sure how helpful it is to consider how many calories you burn in 9 minutes of running vs. 18 minutes of walking, or whatever the case may be.