Calories burned is the same if you are walking slow or fast

Dellagirl5316

There seems to be conflicting information on the inter webs. Maybe y’all can weigh in on a debate between my husband and I. I believe that if someone walks 2 miles in 30 minutes they burn the same amount of calories as someone who runs it in 15. My husband thinks that if you walk faster you burn more calories. I say the distance and calories burned are the same the only difference is it takes longer to finish. Any thoughts?

ddsb1111

https://www.runtastic.com/blog/en/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/amp/

Excerpt from link (2021):

“Studies show that running the same distance can burn 〜30% more calories than walking(1)
If you run at high-intensity, you can benefit from additional calorie burn due to the afterburn effect
It’s a good choice if you want to burn more calories in less time”

ninerbuff

The exertion from running burns more calories because of the force needed to move the body faster. It's why the heart rate speeds up.

Try this. Walk up a flight of stairs say 4 times. Now do it running up the stairs 4 times. You'll be much more gassed out running them.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

lynn_glenmont

When you run, you lift your body off the ground into the air. When you walk, you always have one foot on the ground. You are doing more work when you run to cover the same distance, because you are moving vertically as well as horizontally. Running is less efficient than walking, but sometimes (such as when chasing prey or trying to escape a predator) speed is more important than efficiency.

Lietchi

Try this calculator (scientifically based, despite the ads):
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
And you can check out this page as basis for the calculator:
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp

FuzzyGunna

ddsb1111 wrote: »

“Studies show that running the same distance can burn 〜30% more calories than walking(1)
If you run at high-intensity, you can benefit from additional calorie burn due to the afterburn effect
It’s a good choice if you want to burn more calories in less time”

This study compares a 10 min mile running pace to about a 3.2 mph walk which suggests that the benefit of running is only this good if you can run a 10 min mile, or if you can't walk faster than a slightly moderate pace. Obviously, if you can walk faster or can't run as fast this diminishes the benefit.

Another way of saying it "Walking gives you 70% of the benefit of running on a per distance basis" You can take the 70% and walk a little faster/farther you'll get close to the same benefit and save your joints (at the cost of some extra time)

PAV8888

Two individuals will not burn the same amount of calories even if they are doing the exact same thing because they are moving different loads with different engines. But, as we all know, for weight management the total amount of calories spent in a day is what matters. This includes both our activity and resting calories.

Running 15 minutes may yield more calories burned per minute while walking 60 minutes may well yield more calories burned in total for a particular individual. But cross-individual comparisons are probably a no-go.

Per minute running spends more calories and covers more ground. So if you spend a set amount of time running, say 30 minutes, you will burn more calories and cover a larger distance than if you were to walk for the same 30 minutes. For most people. In most cases.

But, yes, there do exist ranges in the continuum of physical activity where slower running/jogging burns the same, or even less, Calories on a per minute of effort basis than fast walking.

You can play with the MET activity tables to find out where these spots may be though you may also want to use corrected METs if you're trying to individualize the results: https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/

A reminder that the burns you see there are not "net" AND that when you are converting the burns to MFP-speak you should be deducting MORE than 1.0xBMR. This is because MFP assigns 1.25 to 1.8x BMR to every minute of your day. So your "MFP-net" requires more than a 1.0 deduction when talking about the particular span of time.

In general you would do best (in terms of total calories) if you were to engage in an activity that you enjoy, are challenged by, and is one that does not necessarily leave you exhausted and unable to move the rest of the day. Being too tired to engage in movement the rest of the day "loses" some of the calories that you gained for your "extra vigorous effort"

That said, challenging exercise is good for it's own sake. NOT *everything* SHOULD be about the Calories. If it becomes the case that it is, then we may be flirting with other issues.

As an example:
17231 8.3 walking, 5.0 mph, level, firm surface
12030 8.3 running, 5 mph (12 min/mile)

A reminder that the OP asked, as many of us have, whether the total distance *irrespective of time spent* is what matters when it comes to Calories burned. The MET table example I give covers the same distance, yes, but it also takes the exact same amount of time to do so. So it is NOT irrespective of time.

All it really says is that the inefficiency induced by faster walking intersects with the relative inefficiency of slower running/jogging.

jdogdiggitydo

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

When you run, you lift your body off the ground into the air. When you walk, you always have one foot on the ground. You are doing more work when you run to cover the same distance, because you are moving vertically as well as horizontally. Running is less efficient than walking, but sometimes (such as when chasing prey or trying to escape a predator) speed is more important than efficiency.

or trying to escape a predator - - - This is the only reason to run, and only if you can't kill it.