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
Replies
-
NorthCascades wrote: »@Cbean08
Walking a mile in 35 minutes at Disneyland is probably 20 minutes of walking and 15 minutes of standing still.
The best way to estimate calories for things like walking and running outside a lab is by work done, which is mass over distance, and elevation change.
That's my point.... 1 mile in different situations can have a different calorie burn.0 -
How many calories difference do you think walking 0.99 mile, standing for an hour, then walking the last 0.1 mile makes compared to walking 1 mile straight? 2 calories?0
-
GottaBurnEmAll 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 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.
Were you stalking me the first time I ran C25K?
FWIW, my Garmin device gives me more calories for running than walking both for distance and time. That stupid watch is not particularly accurate, but it does prove that there are two different formulas used to calculate the two different activities. I'm going to guess they did that because running burns more than walking.1 -
katnadreau wrote: »I only have my chest strap HR monitor, and no math equations or websites to back me up, but when I walk my 3+ mile route I burn about 335 (give or take a few), the days I did Run/walk intervals I burned closer to 435 (again, give or take a few).
The HRM based calorie estimates are only accurate for medium intensity cardiovascular activities. HR cannot be used to estimate calorie burns for low intensity activities such as walking.
In addition, the reliability and accuracy of different HR based calorie counts varies pretty widely. If the HRM is set up correctly and is a high quality unit that takes into account the person's HR zones and fitness level, it can get pretty good estimates under established limits with caveats. Weather and recovery can change the HR/intensity relationship and throw them off. My HRM will give inflated calorie counts in hot weather due to this.0 -
Simple physics on any running burns more calories per mile: with walking you are displacing your mass horizontally, whereas running you displace both horizontally and vertically.10
-
I run 2-4 miles at a time, and per my HRM I burn about 140 kcal per mile running. Walking is only about 105.
Also, running is NOT speed. Whoever above said it is gait is absolutely correct. I run at about a 12 min/mi pace and yeah, it's pretty slow. That's my natural pace. But I'm a runner! Even if power walkers might pass me. But I can guarantee I am sweating way more and breathing harder than people walking.
Runners don't like being held to a speed requirement. It intimidates people and causes them to be scared to run. I used to be embarrassed by my pace. Now, I am proud of the distance I can cover.6 -
GemstoneofHeart wrote: »I run 2-4 miles at a time, and per my HRM I burn about 140 kcal per mile running. Walking is only about 105.
Also, running is NOT speed. Whoever above said it is gait is absolutely correct. I run at about a 12 min/mi pace and yeah, it's pretty slow. That's my natural pace. But I'm a runner! Even if power walkers might pass me. But I can guarantee I am sweating way more and breathing harder than people walking.
Runners don't like being held to a speed requirement. It intimidates people and causes them to be scared to run. I used to be embarrassed by my pace. Now, I am proud of the distance I can cover.
Slow runner fist bump!4 -
This content has been removed.
-
JerSchmare wrote: »Jesus Christ. There have been numerous studies on this. Stop freaking arguing. Running burns only slightly more for the same distance. Just like running fast for 3 miles burns the EXACT same calories as a slow jog for 3 miles. Walking 3 miles only burns about 20% less than running 3 miles.
Please google it first before commenting any further.
This is a forum, people are allowed to comment without prior googling requirements.
Please link your "studies". I'm sure we'd all love to be enlightened.2 -
JerSchmare wrote: »Jesus Christ. There have been numerous studies on this. Stop freaking arguing. Running burns only slightly more for the same distance. Just like running fast for 3 miles burns the EXACT same calories as a slow jog for 3 miles. Walking 3 miles only burns about 20% less than running 3 miles.
Please google it first before commenting any further.
You're close, but not quite there.3 -
GemstoneofHeart wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »Jesus Christ. There have been numerous studies on this. Stop freaking arguing. Running burns only slightly more for the same distance. Just like running fast for 3 miles burns the EXACT same calories as a slow jog for 3 miles. Walking 3 miles only burns about 20% less than running 3 miles.
Please google it first before commenting any further.
This is a forum, people are allowed to comment without prior googling requirements.
Please link your "studies". I'm sure we'd all love to be enlightened.
Already linked above. This is a two page thread, please read every post before commenting.HardcoreP0rk 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.
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.
Most notable.Walking is a different kind of animal. Increases in walking speed dramatically raise calorie burn per mile as well as per minute. Indeed, at about 12:30 per mile, walking hits a point where it burns about the same calories/mile as running. Walk faster than 12:30 and you will burn more calories/mile than running at 10:00 pace.1 -
I did read every comment and I still want to know what studies he has read that make him so defensive and angry about this. I digress0
-
GemstoneofHeart wrote: »I did read every comment and I still want to know what studies he has read that make him so defensive and angry about this. I digress
You read the studies in the linked article?? then you have your answer0 -
JerSchmare wrote: »Jesus Christ. There have been numerous studies on this. Stop freaking arguing. Running burns only slightly more for the same distance. Just like running fast for 3 miles burns the EXACT same calories as a slow jog for 3 miles. Walking 3 miles only burns about 20% less than running 3 miles.
Please google it first before commenting any further.
80 kg person:
Walk 3 miles at 3.0 mph -- approx 250 calories
Run 3 miles at 6.0 mph -- approx 400 calories
Difference: 60%
5 -
It's noteworthy to point out that the equations for predicting energy expenditure for walking and running are limited by the conditions under which they were developed. There is no magic button that you push that spits out the calorie burn.
The American College of Sports Medicine has developed equations for walking and running that are as accurate as you are going to find.
The walking equations are valid for speeds between 2.0 mph and 4.2 mph.
The running equations are valid for speeds of 5.0 mph and faster.
For any walking or runnng speeds outside these ranges, there is no generalized equation that will predict calorie burn. And it's doubtful one can be developed because there is too much biomechanical variability between individuals at those speeds.
Using those equations, it's notable that the intensity for walking 4.2 mph is about 4.2 METs. Running at 5.0 mph has an intensity of about 8.5 METs. So a 19% increase in speed results in an energy (and calorie) increase of over 100%.6 -
stanmann571 wrote: »GemstoneofHeart wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »Jesus Christ. There have been numerous studies on this. Stop freaking arguing. Running burns only slightly more for the same distance. Just like running fast for 3 miles burns the EXACT same calories as a slow jog for 3 miles. Walking 3 miles only burns about 20% less than running 3 miles.
Please google it first before commenting any further.
This is a forum, people are allowed to comment without prior googling requirements.
Please link your "studies". I'm sure we'd all love to be enlightened.
Already linked above. This is a two page thread, please read every post before commenting.HardcoreP0rk 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.
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.
Most notable.Walking is a different kind of animal. Increases in walking speed dramatically raise calorie burn per mile as well as per minute. Indeed, at about 12:30 per mile, walking hits a point where it burns about the same calories/mile as running. Walk faster than 12:30 and you will burn more calories/mile than running at 10:00 pace.
Your link talks about a walking speed nobody walks at. It's occasionally relevant to 0.1% of the world.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »GemstoneofHeart wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »Jesus Christ. There have been numerous studies on this. Stop freaking arguing. Running burns only slightly more for the same distance. Just like running fast for 3 miles burns the EXACT same calories as a slow jog for 3 miles. Walking 3 miles only burns about 20% less than running 3 miles.
Please google it first before commenting any further.
This is a forum, people are allowed to comment without prior googling requirements.
Please link your "studies". I'm sure we'd all love to be enlightened.
Already linked above. This is a two page thread, please read every post before commenting.HardcoreP0rk 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.
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.
Most notable.Walking is a different kind of animal. Increases in walking speed dramatically raise calorie burn per mile as well as per minute. Indeed, at about 12:30 per mile, walking hits a point where it burns about the same calories/mile as running. Walk faster than 12:30 and you will burn more calories/mile than running at 10:00 pace.
Your link talks about a walking speed nobody walks at. It's occasionally relevant to 0.1% of the world.
It's quite relevant, just because you can't or don't walk at that pace doesn't mean nobody does.2 -
It's more complicated than just saying "running burns this percentage more than walking."
A 6mph run vs a 3mph walk will have a bigger difference than a 5mph run vs a 4mph walk.
Yes, a run means than both feet are off the ground prior to each footfall. This requires an upward thrust which results in more calories burned per mile (you're moving up as well as forward).
However, this is also slightly (though not entirely) mitigated by the fact that walking requires constant expenditure of energy to keep moving forward (one foot always in the ground means one foot constantly pushing you forward) whereas in a run, there is a short period of time just before the footfall that you're being carried by gravity as opposed to your own energy expenditure.
So...walking 4 miles in one hour will burn less than running 4 miles in one hour. However, it's not as drastic as what one poster claimed it as being double the calorie burn.
Factor in that the speed of the walk and the speed of the run further complicate the issue and I think we can all agree that they both burn calories.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »GemstoneofHeart wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »Jesus Christ. There have been numerous studies on this. Stop freaking arguing. Running burns only slightly more for the same distance. Just like running fast for 3 miles burns the EXACT same calories as a slow jog for 3 miles. Walking 3 miles only burns about 20% less than running 3 miles.
Please google it first before commenting any further.
This is a forum, people are allowed to comment without prior googling requirements.
Please link your "studies". I'm sure we'd all love to be enlightened.
Already linked above. This is a two page thread, please read every post before commenting.HardcoreP0rk 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.
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.
Most notable.Walking is a different kind of animal. Increases in walking speed dramatically raise calorie burn per mile as well as per minute. Indeed, at about 12:30 per mile, walking hits a point where it burns about the same calories/mile as running. Walk faster than 12:30 and you will burn more calories/mile than running at 10:00 pace.
Your link talks about a walking speed nobody walks at. It's occasionally relevant to 0.1% of the world.
It's quite relevant, just because you can't or don't walk at that pace doesn't mean nobody does.
How many calories do you burn walking at 200 mph?3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »GemstoneofHeart wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »Jesus Christ. There have been numerous studies on this. Stop freaking arguing. Running burns only slightly more for the same distance. Just like running fast for 3 miles burns the EXACT same calories as a slow jog for 3 miles. Walking 3 miles only burns about 20% less than running 3 miles.
Please google it first before commenting any further.
This is a forum, people are allowed to comment without prior googling requirements.
Please link your "studies". I'm sure we'd all love to be enlightened.
Already linked above. This is a two page thread, please read every post before commenting.HardcoreP0rk 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.
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.
Most notable.Walking is a different kind of animal. Increases in walking speed dramatically raise calorie burn per mile as well as per minute. Indeed, at about 12:30 per mile, walking hits a point where it burns about the same calories/mile as running. Walk faster than 12:30 and you will burn more calories/mile than running at 10:00 pace.
Your link talks about a walking speed nobody walks at. It's occasionally relevant to 0.1% of the world.
It's quite relevant, just because you can't or don't walk at that pace doesn't mean nobody does.
How many calories do you burn walking at 200 mph?
WAT? The first time shown for walking is 18:36, which is ~3.2 mph. Lots of people walk at that speed.
Where are you getting 200 mph?
eta: The later (12:30) mention is 4.8 mph. No, not a lot of people walk that pace - at least, not for an extended period of time - but that's just to show a point.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »GemstoneofHeart wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »Jesus Christ. There have been numerous studies on this. Stop freaking arguing. Running burns only slightly more for the same distance. Just like running fast for 3 miles burns the EXACT same calories as a slow jog for 3 miles. Walking 3 miles only burns about 20% less than running 3 miles.
Please google it first before commenting any further.
This is a forum, people are allowed to comment without prior googling requirements.
Please link your "studies". I'm sure we'd all love to be enlightened.
Already linked above. This is a two page thread, please read every post before commenting.HardcoreP0rk 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.
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.
Most notable.Walking is a different kind of animal. Increases in walking speed dramatically raise calorie burn per mile as well as per minute. Indeed, at about 12:30 per mile, walking hits a point where it burns about the same calories/mile as running. Walk faster than 12:30 and you will burn more calories/mile than running at 10:00 pace.
Your link talks about a walking speed nobody walks at. It's occasionally relevant to 0.1% of the world.
It's quite relevant, just because you can't or don't walk at that pace doesn't mean nobody does.
How many calories do you burn walking at 200 mph?
WAT? The first time shown for walking is 18:36, which is ~3.2 mph. Lots of people walk at that speed.
Where are you getting 200 mph?
eta: The later (12:30) mention is 4.8 mph. No, not a lot of people walk that pace - at least, not for an extended period of time - but that's just to show a point.
They are being facetious.0 -
For me they burn about the same, difference is walking takes longer, therefore it burns more calories in the same distance.2
-
Did you just tell people to stop arguing in a debate thread lmaoJerSchmare wrote: »Jesus Christ. There have been numerous studies on this. Stop freaking arguing. Running burns only slightly more for the same distance. Just like running fast for 3 miles burns the EXACT same calories as a slow jog for 3 miles. Walking 3 miles only burns about 20% less than running 3 miles.
Please google it first before commenting any further.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions