Walk/Run or slower jog?
goofylady5692
Posts: 2 Member
Which burns more calories? If you were to do a combination of walking (let's say for 2 minutes) and a 5 minute fairly intense run versus going the same distance for a slower jog?
0
Replies
-
Good question, I think it would depend on how "intense" the run was and how slow the jog was. If you covered the same distance in the same amount of time I would think the calories would be fairly similar. For example, if you went 2 miles in 20 minutes under either approach I would think the calories would be pretty close. Just a guess though.1
-
HIIT (high intensity interval training) can be applied to running or to exercises such as squatting. HIIT is considered to be much more effective than normal cardio because the intensity is higher and you are able to increase both your aerobic and anaerobic endurance while burning more fat than ever before.
"In research, HIIT has been shown to burn adipose tissue more effectively than low-intensity exercise - up to 50% more efficiently." It has also been shown to speed up your metabolism which helps you burn more calories throughout the day.(www.musclemedia.com)
https://bodybuilding.com/content/what-is-the-best-hiit-workout.html1 -
I think it depends on the purpose of the run (note, I HATE jog as a term)
are you doing a long, slow run in Z2 (aerobic training); or are you trying to do anaerobic/temp run?0 -
You'd have to know the pace of the walk, jog and run in each circumstance to know.
A jog/run burns roughly twice as many calories as walking for the same distance*, so you can calculate the answer if you want.
*Presuming you're not race-walking. When you get to ~12min/mi walking you burn approx the same cals as running.0 -
You'd have to know the pace of the walk, jog and run in each circumstance to know.
A jog/run burns roughly twice as many calories as walking for the same distance*, so you can calculate the answer if you want.
*Presuming you're not race-walking. When you get to ~12min/mi walking you burn approx the same cals as running.
I disagree.
Whether you jog or walk 3 miles you will burn the same number of calories for that workout. You are moving a mass over a distance if you want to apply the laws of physics.
If you run for 30mins compared to walking for 30mins the running will burn more calories as you are travelling further in that time.
So to answer your question- if it's purely calories you are interested in it doesn't matter how you run/walk/jog the distance.1 -
goofylady5692 wrote: »Which burns more calories? If you were to do a combination of walking (let's say for 2 minutes) and a 5 minute fairly intense run versus going the same distance for a slower jog?
The material point is the distance you cover. In practice running the whole distance will burn more than a walk/ run approach. The real differentiator is the total distance.
Three miles of running vs three miles of run/ walk the difference isn't huge, ten miles of it will lead to a greater improvement.
I would add that the point of running isn't to burn calories, it's to improve fitness. Run/ walk can be a good way to build the aerobic capacity to then be able to run longer.0 -
_runnerbean_ wrote: »You'd have to know the pace of the walk, jog and run in each circumstance to know.
A jog/run burns roughly twice as many calories as walking for the same distance*, so you can calculate the answer if you want.
*Presuming you're not race-walking. When you get to ~12min/mi walking you burn approx the same cals as running.
I disagree.
Whether you jog or walk 3 miles you will burn the same number of calories for that workout. You are moving a mass over a distance if you want to apply the laws of physics.
If you run for 30mins compared to walking for 30mins the running will burn more calories as you are travelling further in that time.
So to answer your question- if it's purely calories you are interested in it doesn't matter how you run/walk/jog the distance.
Running burns twice the calories that walking does per mile.3 -
Disclaimer - This is just my opinion so take it as you will!
One of my favorites that I used to do in the army was 30 - 60's. Which is 30 seconds of sprinting and 60 seconds of walking. repeat process over 20 to 25 minutes. Once you get excellent and it feels easy, progress up to 60 - 120's, which is 60 seconds of sprinting (as fast as you can) and 120 seconds of walking.
I truly believe in this method as its worked for me for many times build stamina, and anaerobic threshold.
In due time salt and pepper in other forms of cardio, jogging for endurance and Tempo'ed for distance / speed work.1 -
_runnerbean_ wrote: »You'd have to know the pace of the walk, jog and run in each circumstance to know.
A jog/run burns roughly twice as many calories as walking for the same distance*, so you can calculate the answer if you want.
*Presuming you're not race-walking. When you get to ~12min/mi walking you burn approx the same cals as running.
I disagree.
Whether you jog or walk 3 miles you will burn the same number of calories for that workout. You are moving a mass over a distance if you want to apply the laws of physics.
If you run for 30mins compared to walking for 30mins the running will burn more calories as you are travelling further in that time.
So to answer your question- if it's purely calories you are interested in it doesn't matter how you run/walk/jog the distance.
Not true. It has been scientifically proven to be wrong.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446673
This one is a little easier to read and references the above source.
http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn
"... As you can see, running a mile burns roughly 26 percent more calories than walking a mile. Running a minute (or 30 minutes, or an hour, etc.) burns roughly 2.3 times more calories than the same total time spent walking..."3 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »_runnerbean_ wrote: »You'd have to know the pace of the walk, jog and run in each circumstance to know.
A jog/run burns roughly twice as many calories as walking for the same distance*, so you can calculate the answer if you want.
*Presuming you're not race-walking. When you get to ~12min/mi walking you burn approx the same cals as running.
I disagree.
Whether you jog or walk 3 miles you will burn the same number of calories for that workout. You are moving a mass over a distance if you want to apply the laws of physics.
If you run for 30mins compared to walking for 30mins the running will burn more calories as you are travelling further in that time.
So to answer your question- if it's purely calories you are interested in it doesn't matter how you run/walk/jog the distance.
Running burns twice the calories that walking does per mile.
Looks like it's actually running burns twice (2.3 times) the calories that walking does PER MINUTE.1 -
goofylady5692 wrote: »Which burns more calories? If you were to do a combination of walking (let's say for 2 minutes) and a 5 minute fairly intense run versus going the same distance for a slower jog?
Traversing a distance via bipedal locomotion regardless of speed burns roughly the same amount of calories during the activity in question.
There are no adjustments or assumption made with regards to the adaptation of the individual in question.1 -
goofylady5692 wrote: »Which burns more calories? If you were to do a combination of walking (let's say for 2 minutes) and a 5 minute fairly intense run versus going the same distance for a slower jog?
Traversing a distance via bipedal locomotion regardless of speed burns roughly the same amount of calories during the activity in question.
There are no adjustments or assumption made with regards to the adaptation of the individual in question.
Individual weight does make a difference, i.e. it takes more calories to power 250 lbs. a mile vs. 125 lbs.0 -
mburgess458 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »_runnerbean_ wrote: »You'd have to know the pace of the walk, jog and run in each circumstance to know.
A jog/run burns roughly twice as many calories as walking for the same distance*, so you can calculate the answer if you want.
*Presuming you're not race-walking. When you get to ~12min/mi walking you burn approx the same cals as running.
I disagree.
Whether you jog or walk 3 miles you will burn the same number of calories for that workout. You are moving a mass over a distance if you want to apply the laws of physics.
If you run for 30mins compared to walking for 30mins the running will burn more calories as you are travelling further in that time.
So to answer your question- if it's purely calories you are interested in it doesn't matter how you run/walk/jog the distance.
Running burns twice the calories that walking does per mile.
Looks like it's actually running burns twice (2.3 times) the calories that walking does PER MINUTE.
The issue with per minute variants of the calculation is that it's dependent on pace, whereas a per mile variant has fewer opportunities for variability.0 -
goofylady5692 wrote: »Which burns more calories? If you were to do a combination of walking (let's say for 2 minutes) and a 5 minute fairly intense run versus going the same distance for a slower jog?
Traversing a distance via bipedal locomotion regardless of speed burns roughly the same amount of calories during the activity in question.
There are no adjustments or assumption made with regards to the adaptation of the individual in question.
Wrong, look at the scientific study I posted a link to. Unless you would say a 26% difference is "roughly the same".
Just google it. I agree it makes logical sense that it could be the same, but it's not. I read an explanation involving the fact that in walking you're always in contact with the ground... you only apply enough force to move forward. In running you apply enough force to essentially jump slightly... you are airborne for slight periods of time. It takes more effort/calories to do that.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »mburgess458 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »_runnerbean_ wrote: »You'd have to know the pace of the walk, jog and run in each circumstance to know.
A jog/run burns roughly twice as many calories as walking for the same distance*, so you can calculate the answer if you want.
*Presuming you're not race-walking. When you get to ~12min/mi walking you burn approx the same cals as running.
I disagree.
Whether you jog or walk 3 miles you will burn the same number of calories for that workout. You are moving a mass over a distance if you want to apply the laws of physics.
If you run for 30mins compared to walking for 30mins the running will burn more calories as you are travelling further in that time.
So to answer your question- if it's purely calories you are interested in it doesn't matter how you run/walk/jog the distance.
Running burns twice the calories that walking does per mile.
Looks like it's actually running burns twice (2.3 times) the calories that walking does PER MINUTE.
The issue with per minute variants of the calculation is that it's dependent on pace, whereas a per mile variant has fewer opportunities for variability.
Fine, that same study said 26% more per mile by running (I don't think the summary I linked to gave the specific pace they used in the study as "running" versus "walking").0 -
I said "roughly".mburgess458 wrote: »goofylady5692 wrote: »Which burns more calories? If you were to do a combination of walking (let's say for 2 minutes) and a 5 minute fairly intense run versus going the same distance for a slower jog?
Traversing a distance via bipedal locomotion regardless of speed burns roughly the same amount of calories during the activity in question.
There are no adjustments or assumption made with regards to the adaptation of the individual in question.
Wrong, look at the scientific study I posted a link to. Unless you would say a 26% difference is "roughly the same".
Just google it. I agree it makes logical sense that it could be the same, but it's not. I read an explanation involving the fact that in walking you're always in contact with the ground... you only apply enough force to move forward. In running you apply enough force to essentially jump slightly... you are airborne for slight periods of time. It takes more effort/calories to do that.
I'm not pedantic enough to worry about min/max when it comes to people wanting to get active and achieve a healthy lifestyle (in fact, I'm mostly against it). That's also why I disregarded training level. Highly trained individuals produce different metrics (they burn 'less' as they go faster) as do woefully untrained individuals. Once variances and standard deviation are accounted for, the adage that calorie burn is roughly equivalent regardless of pace holds true.
0 -
I said "roughly".mburgess458 wrote: »goofylady5692 wrote: »Which burns more calories? If you were to do a combination of walking (let's say for 2 minutes) and a 5 minute fairly intense run versus going the same distance for a slower jog?
Traversing a distance via bipedal locomotion regardless of speed burns roughly the same amount of calories during the activity in question.
There are no adjustments or assumption made with regards to the adaptation of the individual in question.
Wrong, look at the scientific study I posted a link to. Unless you would say a 26% difference is "roughly the same".
Just google it. I agree it makes logical sense that it could be the same, but it's not. I read an explanation involving the fact that in walking you're always in contact with the ground... you only apply enough force to move forward. In running you apply enough force to essentially jump slightly... you are airborne for slight periods of time. It takes more effort/calories to do that.
I'm not pedantic enough to worry about min/max when it comes to people wanting to get active and achieve a healthy lifestyle (in fact, I'm mostly against it). That's also why I disregarded training level. Highly trained individuals produce different metrics (they burn 'less' as they go faster) as do woefully untrained individuals. Once variances and standard deviation are accounted for, the adage that calorie burn is roughly equivalent regardless of pace holds true.
For running vs walking there is a material change in energy consumption. Whilst walking there isn't much variation until reaching the higher paces, so walking quickly is a bit less efficient than running slowly.
Again in running energy consumption doesn't vary much with pace.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions