Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
calories burned running vs walking
Options
System
Posts: 1,900 MFP Staff
in Debate Club
This discussion was created from replies split from: Weight lifting doesn't burn fat.
1
Replies
-
Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.21 -
scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.8 -
scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
you burn more calories running than you do walking,the formulas for both are even different
walk-calories/MILE .57 x wt in lbs, run-.72 x wt in lbs
walk-CALORIES/MIN .03 x wt in lbs ,run-.07 x wt in lbs
it may not be a big difference but its still a difference. if you burned the same amount of calories walking as you do running then why run when you can walk? you are using more energy to run than you are walking.6 -
scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No, running involves jumping from foot to foot with every step and walking does not. Running requires about twice as much energy per mile because it's more physical work.11 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
I'm definitely not an expert but I think the difference is that with running there are times where both of your feet are off the ground as opposed to always having one foot on the ground like walking so it takes more energy.1 -
singingflutelady wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
I'm definitely not an expert but I think the difference is that with running there are times where both of your feet are off the ground as opposed to always having one foot on the ground like walking so it takes more energy.
Yes, this is true. I particularly feel this when I'm running downhill. For a split second, you're flying
Greatest feeling in the world for me. 7 -
scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No.2 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
The difference between running and walking IS speed.2 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
The difference between running and walking IS speed.
Nope. The difference between running and walking is solely the fact that walking means always having one foot on the ground, while running will have at at times both feet off the ground.15 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
They are actually quite accurate if you adjust for what you would have burned anyway during the time.
Any good walking or running formula uses your weight and speed (well, time and distance), and I don't think form is going to make that much difference.
Hills or not will matter, and wind or not may matter some, although less so than with a bike.
I'm conservative and round down a little for running (because of the what you would have burned anyway factor), but it's one thing where I consistently ate back all logged calories when I was logging exercise separately.1 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
The difference between running and walking IS speed.
Nope. The difference between running and walking is that when you run, both feet are off the ground during a portion of your gait. When you walk, one foot always touches the ground.
Beginning runners can often walk faster than they run or run rather close to their fastest walking speed.
Running is a gait, not a speed.16 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
The difference between running and walking IS speed.
Nope. The difference between running and walking is solely the fact that walking means always having one foot on the ground, while running will have at at times both feet off the ground.
OED:
Move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time.2 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
The difference between running and walking IS speed.
Nope. The difference between running and walking is solely the fact that walking means always having one foot on the ground, while running will have at at times both feet off the ground.
OED:
Move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time.
The latter part is what's definitive. It's absolutely possible to run slower than your fastest walking speed. The difference is not speed but the moment of suspension. In walking, both feet are on the ground at the same time for part of the stride. In running, the first foot leaves the ground before the second foot lands (even if only fractionally). So you're actually entirely off the ground, however briefly.
ETA note that the reason the OED wording is slightly vague is it's giving a generalised definition for all animals. Animals with more than two feet have any number of different running gaits. We only have one - one foot at a time with a moment of suspension between.
The first part is there for a reason.
You don't get to pick and choose what's relevant. I'm not looking for a debate where there's a clear answer and understanding. Running is primarily differentiated from walking by speed.11 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
The difference between running and walking IS speed.
Nope. The difference between running and walking is solely the fact that walking means always having one foot on the ground, while running will have at at times both feet off the ground.
OED:
Move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time.
The latter part is what's definitive. It's absolutely possible to run slower than your fastest walking speed. The difference is not speed but the moment of suspension. In walking, both feet are on the ground at the same time for part of the stride. In running, the first foot leaves the ground before the second foot lands (even if only fractionally). So you're actually entirely off the ground, however briefly.
ETA note that the reason the OED wording is slightly vague is it's giving a generalised definition for all animals. Animals with more than two feet have any number of different running gaits. We only have one - one foot at a time with a moment of suspension between.
The first part is there for a reason.
You don't get to pick and choose what's relevant. I'm not looking for a debate where there's a clear answer and understanding. Running is primarily differentiated from walking by speed.
Do you run?3 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
The difference between running and walking IS speed.
Nope. The difference between running and walking is solely the fact that walking means always having one foot on the ground, while running will have at at times both feet off the ground.
OED:
Move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time.
The latter part is what's definitive. It's absolutely possible to run slower than your fastest walking speed. The difference is not speed but the moment of suspension. In walking, both feet are on the ground at the same time for part of the stride. In running, the first foot leaves the ground before the second foot lands (even if only fractionally). So you're actually entirely off the ground, however briefly.
ETA note that the reason the OED wording is slightly vague is it's giving a generalised definition for all animals. Animals with more than two feet have any number of different running gaits. We only have one - one foot at a time with a moment of suspension between.
The first part is there for a reason.
You don't get to pick and choose what's relevant. I'm not looking for a debate where there's a clear answer and understanding. Running is primarily differentiated from walking by speed.
I have to disagree, because I jogged a half marathon so slowly that speed walkers were passing me. The definition of walking is one foot firmly in contact on the ground. Running is ... both feet can lift from the ground.5 -
MommaGem2017 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
The difference between running and walking IS speed.
Nope. The difference between running and walking is solely the fact that walking means always having one foot on the ground, while running will have at at times both feet off the ground.
OED:
Move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time.
The latter part is what's definitive. It's absolutely possible to run slower than your fastest walking speed. The difference is not speed but the moment of suspension. In walking, both feet are on the ground at the same time for part of the stride. In running, the first foot leaves the ground before the second foot lands (even if only fractionally). So you're actually entirely off the ground, however briefly.
ETA note that the reason the OED wording is slightly vague is it's giving a generalised definition for all animals. Animals with more than two feet have any number of different running gaits. We only have one - one foot at a time with a moment of suspension between.
The first part is there for a reason.
You don't get to pick and choose what's relevant. I'm not looking for a debate where there's a clear answer and understanding. Running is primarily differentiated from walking by speed.
I have to disagree, because I jogged a half marathon so slowly that speed walkers were passing me. The definition of walking is one foot firmly in contact on the ground. Running is both feet can't lift from the ground.
I think you might want to rethink your wording on the last sentence
I know what you mean, but your words didn't quite convey it. 2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »MommaGem2017 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
The difference between running and walking IS speed.
Nope. The difference between running and walking is solely the fact that walking means always having one foot on the ground, while running will have at at times both feet off the ground.
OED:
Move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time.
The latter part is what's definitive. It's absolutely possible to run slower than your fastest walking speed. The difference is not speed but the moment of suspension. In walking, both feet are on the ground at the same time for part of the stride. In running, the first foot leaves the ground before the second foot lands (even if only fractionally). So you're actually entirely off the ground, however briefly.
ETA note that the reason the OED wording is slightly vague is it's giving a generalised definition for all animals. Animals with more than two feet have any number of different running gaits. We only have one - one foot at a time with a moment of suspension between.
The first part is there for a reason.
You don't get to pick and choose what's relevant. I'm not looking for a debate where there's a clear answer and understanding. Running is primarily differentiated from walking by speed.
I have to disagree, because I jogged a half marathon so slowly that speed walkers were passing me. The definition of walking is one foot firmly in contact on the ground. Running is both feet can't lift from the ground.
I think you might want to rethink your wording on the last sentence I know what you mean, but your words didn't quite convey it.
Ha Ha! Yes, dang typos.
1 -
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ktlincoln/the-spasmic-glory-of-race-walking-in-gifs?utm_term=.jeG9P49j69#.fkdREORr9R
Here's some folks walking faster than most everyone involved in this discussion runs.1 -
Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
More than twice? No. No it does not.
https://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn
Not per distance. Maybe per minute.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No, running involves jumping from foot to foot with every step and walking does not. Running requires about twice as much energy per mile because it's more physical work.
Per minute, yes. Per mile, no. It's a bigger calorie burn but it is not a 2x burn.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
- 390 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
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions