Runners World article on calories burned per mile walking vs running
Options
Replies
-
TavistockToad wrote: »Get fit for the right shoes for you, don't worry about recommendations from other runners, they don't have your feet/gait/body.
This!!
Go to a specialty running store. They will find good shoes for your feet. Do not take recommendations from strangers or friends unless you're willing to spend that $140 on shoes that may not be good for your feet.
It's very beneficial to be fitted by a running store. I'm a size 8.5 in all my shoes. In running shoes, especially if you are thinking about increasing distances to a half marathon or a full, you need to have room for your feet to expand. If I just tried buying shoes on my own, I never would have done that and I definitely need the extra room.1 -
findingone wrote: »http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn
This is a good article on how many calories burned walking vs running. Increases in walking rate actually increase calorie burn and if you walk 12:30 miles per hour or faster, it's actually burning more calories then 10 minute miles ran! Again this is a runners world article that tested college students in a lab.
Lots of caveats in that article, and a very small sample size. I'd also note that there is no indication of how the EPOC was established.
I'd also note that the comparison of running at 10 min/ mile cf walking 12 min/ mile is unrealistic. Running at that pace is a comfortable pace that many can sustain for a long distance, whereas walking at that pace is much less easy to sustain. There are always exception cases.
Anyway, the point of training is not simple calorie expenditure.1 -
"Anyway, the point of training is not simple calorie expenditure."
But for people trying to lose weight by using CICO, it proves a good point.
But you're right. I just think training means a lot of things to a lot of different people. As always, your mileage may vary.
Definitely getting fitted now. Just have to get my butt to the shoe store! Thanks again.0 -
findingone wrote: »But for people trying to lose weight by using CICO, it proves a good point.
More aimed at the I can walk sooper fast willy waving upthread.
Walking at a 12 min/ mile is somewhat more challenging for many than just running at 10 min/ mile, so it becomes a moot debate.
From an ultra running perspective power walking is an important discipline, but then it's about deploying it at the right time in a race.3 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »findingone wrote: »But for people trying to lose weight by using CICO, it proves a good point.
More aimed at the I can walk sooper fast willy waving upthread.
I've seen people who do that, then I've seen people who just exercise walking normally. I just power through my walk, when I do walk. Just because you walk fast doesn't mean you have to look like your high. People buy into stupid *kitten* all the time.
Take care, see you out there.
0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Who walks 12 minute miles though? 18 mins is normal and 15 mins is my "I'm really late" pace.
I bet I can get REALLY close to that.
I'm sure a lot of people can. I'm also sure no one does on a regular basis.
I do. On a regular basis. Almost always, in fact. That was true when I was really fat and it is true now that I'm only a little bit fat. The only case where it isn't/wasn't true is in challenging terrain or if I'm distracted (i.e. I'm on my phone and walking simultaneously... in which case, I'm still usually faster than everyone else around me). Steep hills and rocky terrain slow me down quite a bit as well.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Who walks 12 minute miles though? 18 mins is normal and 15 mins is my "I'm really late" pace.
I bet I can get REALLY close to that.
I'm sure a lot of people can. I'm also sure no one does on a regular basis.
I do. On a regular basis. Almost always, in fact. That was true when I was really fat and it is true now that I'm only a little bit fat. The only case where it isn't/wasn't true is in challenging terrain or if I'm distracted (i.e. I'm on my phone and walking simultaneously... in which case, I'm still usually faster than everyone else around me). Steep hills and rocky terrain slow me down quite a bit as well.
For me, going from point a to b with no distractions, It's harder to walk at a 2.5-3 mph (18 min mile pace) than to walk at a 4 mph pace. Now I know that part of that is that a quicktime march(military standard cadence) is 4 mph, and I spent more than a few of my younger years in a formation marching. but even before that, when I was walking for transportation/locomotion, there's really no reason to go slower.
Which makes it easy to bear down and get to a 5 mph pace.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Who walks 12 minute miles though? 18 mins is normal and 15 mins is my "I'm really late" pace.
I bet I can get REALLY close to that.
I'm sure a lot of people can. I'm also sure no one does on a regular basis.
I do. On a regular basis. Almost always, in fact. That was true when I was really fat and it is true now that I'm only a little bit fat. The only case where it isn't/wasn't true is in challenging terrain or if I'm distracted (i.e. I'm on my phone and walking simultaneously... in which case, I'm still usually faster than everyone else around me). Steep hills and rocky terrain slow me down quite a bit as well.
For me, going from point a to b with no distractions, It's harder to walk at a 2.5-3 mph (18 min mile pace) than to walk at a 4 mph pace. Now I know that part of that is that a quicktime march(military standard cadence) is 4 mph, and I spent more than a few of my younger years in a formation marching. but even before that, when I was walking for transportation/locomotion, there's really no reason to go slower.
Which makes it easy to bear down and get to a 5 mph pace.
Yes, I think our earlier experience has a big impact on walking pace. For me, I had 4 min. between classes in middle school. During 8th grade, for one semester, I had alternating classes on the 3rd floor of different buildings in the morning. So I had 4 min. to fly down 3 flights of stairs, go outside and cross about 75-100 yards to a different building, fly up 3 flights of stairs, go to my locker to switch out books / musical instrument, and then get to class. It was during that time that I formed a habit of walking fast.
Also, since the halls and stairs were crowded, I became very good at walking fast and dodging other people. It wasn't a huge school (maybe 400-500 students total), so others mostly knew me or recognized me and figured out that if they kept doing their own thing, I could more easily move around them. Walking is different than running in that I can still stop on a dime, side-step as needed, turn my body sideways to fit through a gap, etc. Today, in a crowded environment, people do not know me. In a crowd, when people see me walking quickly, they react in an effort to avoid me. In fact, what happens is they end up moving unpredictably and that makes things more difficult for me. Where I had planned to move a few seconds ago is now blocked off and sometimes I have to stop altogether simply due to others' reactions. That is part of why crowded areas where everyone is going at slow paces (2-3 mph) is super annoying to me.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Who walks 12 minute miles though? 18 mins is normal and 15 mins is my "I'm really late" pace.
this guy used to.0 -
The whole issue of using arbitrarily fixed walking and running speeds as a comparison is useless in this case. It's a dumbing down of the topic into incoherence.
The breakpoint where ones VO2 at a walking speed begins to exceed that at the same running speed is based on individual biomechanics. It will be different for each person and it is not easy to do. You cannot maintain that "breakpoint" speed walking holding a phone to your ear and talking. You have to be moving at a race walking type of pace and style. If you are walking with a "normal" gait at 5 mph, no way can you be using more energy than if you are running at 6 mph. Cannot happen. It's the biomechanical inefficiency that leads to the higher energy expenditure, not the actual speed itself.
The fact is that, in almost every case, if you have the fitness level to walk at that "breakpoint" pace, you have the aerobic capacity to run even faster and work even harder. The only situation where racewalking would be superior to running would be one where, because of injury or other physical limitations, one absolutely could not run. Other than that, this whole topic has virtually no practical application.5 -
Azdak raised some great points.
Unfortunately, it's a safe bet that many people will completely misapply the information in this article. Joe Six-Pack and Jane Soccer Mom are likely to think, "Hey, great! All I have to do is walk and I can burn tons of calories," not realizing that this takes a pace that's pretty difficult to sustain.
That is, in fact, a common problem with recommending walking as exercise. Brisk walking can indeed be beneficial, but many people -- in an attempt to get some "exercise" -- simply stroll along at a leisurely pace. It's better than nothing, but it's also barely anything. Then articles like this talk about how it's *possible* to burn more calories through walking than running, and people are bound to jump to the wrong conclusion.1 -
I think that the following quote from this article is relevant."Exercise lite," as the American College of Sports Medicine calls it, is good for sedentary folk. That is, most of us: only 10 to 15 percent of Americans actually exercise vigorously three times a week (American Council on Exercise, Personal Trainer Manual, 328). That means for most of us, anything is better than zilch, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in desperation, perceived that people didn't exercise because it sounded too hard. So they made it look sorta easy.1
-
I think that the following quote from this article is relevant."Exercise lite," as the American College of Sports Medicine calls it, is good for sedentary folk. That is, most of us: only 10 to 15 percent of Americans actually exercise vigorously three times a week (American Council on Exercise, Personal Trainer Manual, 328). That means for most of us, anything is better than zilch, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in desperation, perceived that people didn't exercise because it sounded too hard. So they made it look sorta easy.
Only 10-15%? Well, then... I don't feel quite as bad when I exercise 4-5 days per week during slow work times and only 1-2 times per week during extremely busy times of year.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions