Running Vs walking for calories burned?

dave_in_ni

I'm not much of a runner, I do enjoy a good walk though. I assumed running burned more calories but no the same route walking burned more. Is this correct or my Garmin dodgy?

Lietchi

For the same distance, running burns almost twice as much as walking, on average.

I like this calculator to check if my Garmin is giving me accurate calorie burns:
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

And here you have more detail on the efficiency of walking versus running (depending on the speed):
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp

dave_in_ni

Lietchi wrote: »

For the same distance, running burns almost twice as much as walking, on average.

I like this calculator to check if my Garmin is giving me accurate calorie burns:
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

And here you have more detail on the efficiency of walking versus running (depending on the speed):
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp

Thats what I read too but here's the screen shots

Lietchi

Check out my second link. You walked 3.9km in 36 minutes, that's quite fast (less efficient walking speed).

On top of that, you should know that Garmin gives you gross calorie burns (BMR calories included) which skews the numbers a bit (walking takes longer, so more BMR calories included).

The most important thing though is that Garmin estimates, it doesn't measure. And one of the metrics it uses for that is your heart rate, which isn't necessarily a good basis for calculating calorie burn. Your heart rate was quite high during your walk (even a max heart rate of 165 which seems extremely high for walking) which could have inflated the calorie burn calculation. With a max heart rate of 165 registered, I'm wondering if it's even correct (wrist heart rate measurements can be less accurate than chest straps).

sijomial

Your Garmin/Strava combo will be giving you a gross calorie estimate whereas you really want net calories.
Plus HR often isn't a great guide to calories and it can be a very poor choice for walking.

yirara

I find that garmin grossly overestimates calories for walking, while running isn’t too bad. But that’s different for everyone. If you get a heartrate of 164 for walking though it seems likely that you have a fairly high maxHr which isn’t captured by 220-age. If so your device will give you crazy burns that aren’t there.

vanmep

To me, the 300 calorie burn seems very high for either running or walking for half an hour

Lietchi

vanmep wrote: »

To me, the 300 calorie burn seems very high for either running or walking for half an hour

I disagree. It's really going to depend on OP's weight, which he hasn't mentioned. And it's gross calories, which also gives a higher number. Could be high, could be normal, hard to tell without knowing OP's weight.

jjpptt2

I'm going from memory here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there some pretty standard formulas that are pretty widely accepted as reasonable enough for the majority of people? Something like...

Walking:
weight * distance * .3

Running:
weight * distance * .6

thisvickyruns

vanmep wrote: »

To me, the 300 calorie burn seems very high for either running or walking for half an hour

for walking maybe, but not for running. OP is male so 100 cals a mile isn't unheard of. I am a reasonably small female and I get 84 cals a mile running.

Jthanmyfitnesspal

My experience with the Garmin calorie estimates for walking (hiking), running, and cycling has been very good (as said many times). What I mean is that, if I faithfully eat what Garmin tells MFP I should on days with those activities, then I control my weight over time.

I find it best to set MFP to sedentary, and "negative calorie adjustments" turned off. Then Garmin can only add calories for workouts and general activities. I watch my weight trend and factor that in to my decision of how much of it to eat back on any particular day. It helps to undershoot on most days so you have a little extra capacity when you're in the mood to splurge. But, most days I eat close to what's indicated by Garmin, and my weight has been well controlled by that advice.

(Through lots of experimentation, I've concluded that Garmin slightly underestimates calorie estimates for pool swimming, for some reason. On swim days, I mentally add a few extra calories. I've posted that many times before.)

yirara

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

My experience with the Garmin calorie estimates for walking (hiking), running, and cycling has been very good (as said many times). What I mean is that, if I faithfully eat what Garmin tells MFP I should on days with those activities, then I control my weight over time.

I find it best to set MFP to sedentary, and "negative calorie adjustments" turned off. Then Garmin can only add calories for workouts and general activities. I watch my weight trend and factor that in to my decision of how much of it to eat back on any particular day. It helps to undershoot on most days so you have a little extra capacity when you're in the mood to splurge. But, most days I eat close to what's indicated by Garmin, and my weight has been well controlled by that advice.

(Through lots of experimentation, I've concluded that Garmin slightly underestimates calorie estimates for pool swimming, for some reason. On swim days, I mentally add a few extra calories. I've posted that many times before.)

Interestingly, i think for me walking cals are very off (but not as much as with fitbit), while running is pretty much in line with my data of running and tracking truthfully for a long time. I'm also quite impressed with the cals for strength training (haven't done interval training yet). Cycling might be a bit on the low side for very long days, but not by much. Yoga/breathworks... for some reason that seems to stress me out, but that's a different story

Jthanmyfitnesspal

@yirara : You are making the very important point that personal experience adds a lot to all of these estimates! In the end, your weight trend is the final arbiter of your calorie balance. If you're intending to lose weight, eat exercise calories conservatively.

yirara

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

@yirara : You are making the very important point that personal experience adds a lot to all of these estimates! In the end, your weight trend is the final arbiter of your calorie balance. If you're intending to lose weight, eat exercise calories conservatively.

This! Eat conservatively, but eat back some calories, especially if already close to 1200 for women and 1500 for men.

viajera99

dave_in_ni wrote: »

I'm not much of a runner, I do enjoy a good walk though. I assumed running burned more calories but no the same route walking burned more. Is this correct or my Garmin dodgy?

It's because you're thinking of calories per mile, not calories per hour. As you note, calories/mile are nearly identical. However, in the walking case

347 Cal / 36.5 minutes * 60 minutes/hour = 570 Cal/hour

but when running the same distance

318 Cal / 26.5 minutes * 60 minutes/hour = 720 Cal/hour.

So yeah, running does burn more calories and your Garmin seems to be working fine. (Based on those numbers, you must weigh around 90 kg.)

Lietchi

Sorry, but running does not burn a 'nearly identical' number of calories per mile (or kilometer) as walking.

As per the calculator I linked to:
1 hour at 5km/h for a 175lb person = 282 gros calories (199 net)
30 minutes at 10km/h = 439 gross calories (398 net)

NorthCascades

@Lietchi is right. Running is jumping from foot to foot, it takes a lot more energy to fight gravity vs walking. Roughly twice as much.

kshama2001

My calories per mile for running = 0 because I haven't run since I left the military and no one could make me run any more