Walking vs Running

lisakatz2
lisakatz2 Posts: 507 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I once read, a long time ago, "You burn as much walking a mile as you do running a mile, it just takes longer to get there." Is this the case?

Replies

  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,853 Member
    Running burns more calories overall because the movement requires more muscle involvement. Running is basically like jumping (both feet in the air) while with walking one foot always remains on the ground.

    Why not play with this for a bit: https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs (use net calories as gross includes the calories for the movement, plus what your body burns just to stay alive).
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,133 Member
    There are many factors to consider.

    While running may burn more calories for the same distance, it may also compromise your other daily normal activities which will in turn, result in fewer overall calories being burned, then you have the wear and tear on your knees if you aren't fairly lean.

    Running can also cause you to be more hungry throughout the day so you cant base everything on the calories the exercise itself burns to determine the effectiveness it has on fatloss.
  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,726 Member
    edited August 4
    yirara wrote: »
    Running burns more calories overall because the movement requires more muscle involvement. Running is basically like jumping (both feet in the air) while with walking one foot always remains on the ground.

    Why not play with this for a bit: https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs (use net calories as gross includes the calories for the movement, plus what your body burns just to stay alive).

    And one click away on the same website: a chart showing the calorie burns depending on speed, because that also has an effect on both walking and running:
    https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,853 Member
    Lietchi wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »
    Running burns more calories overall because the movement requires more muscle involvement. Running is basically like jumping (both feet in the air) while with walking one foot always remains on the ground.

    Why not play with this for a bit: https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs (use net calories as gross includes the calories for the movement, plus what your body burns just to stay alive).

    And one click away on the same website: a chart showing the calorie burns depending on speed, because that also has an both walking and running:
    https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp

    Thanks. it's an excellent chart which really shows the difference between running and walking.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,916 Member
    lisakatz2 wrote: »
    I once read, a long time ago, "You burn as much walking a mile as you do running a mile, it just takes longer to get there." Is this the case?
    No you burn more running. On average for every mile, it's about 50 calories or so more running than walking. That might not seem like much, but if you did 4 miles, that's about 200 calories more which is pretty significant.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 40 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

  • chris_in_cal
    chris_in_cal Posts: 2,504 Member
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    then you have the wear and tear on your knees if you aren't fairly lean.
    Life causes wear and tear. When adjusted for body mass old people who run have healthier knees and lower extremities than old people who don't run.

  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,133 Member
    edited August 4
    chris_in_cal wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    then you have the wear and tear on your knees if you aren't fairly lean.
    Life causes wear and tear. When adjusted for body mass old people who run have healthier knees and lower extremities than old people who don't run.

    To reiterate,

    if you aren't fairly lean.

  • chris_in_cal
    chris_in_cal Posts: 2,504 Member
    edited August 4
    Not being fairly lean and being alive causes increased wear and tear.

  • mrmota70
    mrmota70 Posts: 533 Member
    Walking at a decent speed between 3.7-4.5 mph will be a very good workout and will be fairly close to a zone 2-3 jog of 5.5-6.5 mph. This will be a fairly close calorie burn equivalent . It’ll be more time, but will be maybe 20-30 cals diff of walk vs jog. Things to keep in mind is walking and even zone 2 jogging will help with burning more of your fat reserves and jogging at higher zone 3-4 will burn more of your carbohydrates. Total time and distance will impact and you decide what is comfortable and not be overdoing it to point of injury or deciding to give up all together. Start off slow and build. I went almost a full year of walking, elliptical and lower impact cardio before I ran a single minute. I went on an extended vacation of 20+ years from running and really any semblance of body maintenance. So more than a few few few lbs had to come off before I’d commit to the strain that running is. Being a 27 yr old and then starting back at 50 after the 1 year of walking and lowering mass did the trick. Here I am 5 years later. I run very regularly with a minimum of a 5k when I run. I’m 54 now and stay within my lane to be the person I can be now and not try to be someone from the past that is no longer here.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,853 Member
    edited August 5
    mrmota70 wrote: »
    Walking at a decent speed between 3.7-4.5 mph will be a very good workout and will be fairly close to a zone 2-3 jog of 5.5-6.5 mph. This will be a fairly close calorie burn equivalent . It’ll be more time, but will be maybe 20-30 cals diff of walk vs jog. Things to keep in mind is walking and even zone 2 jogging will help with burning more of your fat reserves and jogging at higher zone 3-4 will burn more of your carbohydrates. Total time and distance will impact and you decide what is comfortable and not be overdoing it to point of injury or deciding to give up all together. Start off slow and build. I went almost a full year of walking, elliptical and lower impact cardio before I ran a single minute. I went on an extended vacation of 20+ years from running and really any semblance of body maintenance. So more than a few few few lbs had to come off before I’d commit to the strain that running is. Being a 27 yr old and then starting back at 50 after the 1 year of walking and lowering mass did the trick. Here I am 5 years later. I run very regularly with a minimum of a 5k when I run. I’m 54 now and stay within my lane to be the person I can be now and not try to be someone from the past that is no longer here.

    The graph posted above, this one here: https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp disagrees. This data is based on METs collected by scientists.
    Walking at 3-7-4.5 mph burns about 50-65 calories/1mile/100lbs
    Running at 5.5-6.5 mph burns about 80-83 calories/1mile/100lbs

    Thus it's a substantial difference.
    However, if you're not used to running you might wreck yourself on a very short distance while you're able to walk much farther, and this way burn more calories.

    It also doesn't matter whether you use glycogen or fatty acids as source of energy. If you deplete your glycogen stores then new food restores them and energy is taken elsewhere, hence fatty acids. You also lose bodyfat if you use glycogen as energy source. Heck, I have a congenital muscle condition (yay, I finally have a diagnosis!) that does not allow me to use ANY fatty acids as substrate at all when exercising as low impact as moderately fast walking, and I'm totally able to lose body fat if I eat at maintenance and create my calorie deficit through running.
  • Retroguy2000
    Retroguy2000 Posts: 1,774 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    It also doesn't matter whether you use glycogen or fatty acids as source of energy. If you deplete your glycogen stores then new food restores them and energy is taken elsewhere, hence fatty acids. You also lose bodyfat if you use glycogen as energy source. Heck, I have a congenital muscle condition (yay, I finally have a diagnosis!) that does not allow me to use ANY fatty acids as substrate at all when exercising as low impact as moderately fast walking, and I'm totally able to lose body fat if I eat at maintenance and create my calorie deficit through running.
    The average person can have 1500-2000 calories of energy in their stored glycogen, so I assume most people aren't going to burn through all of that in a run, unless maybe they're fasted. If they are using mostly glycogen then presumably they'll be hungrier after as the body tries to restore those stores, which means more calories being consumed?

    Very interesting about your diagnosis. How does that affect your workouts?
  • mrmota70
    mrmota70 Posts: 533 Member
    I made a very generic statement and really when it comes down to it mileage may vary from person to person.. we are unique, but it can definitely have more exact data when you have people that are truly physically tuned and or a good tracking study is conducted. Exercise for me is a routine task much like brushing my teeth and taking a bath. For me that’s what I do and additionally I enjoy it. Wouldn’t be doing it otherwise. It comes down to do what you can and enjoy. Be mindful of your age, ability, nutrition and really just do something. And if it it’s just walking it’s better than nothing. Worrying too much about numbers shouldn’t be driving it.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,853 Member
    edited August 6
    Retroguy2000 wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »
    It also doesn't matter whether you use glycogen or fatty acids as source of energy. If you deplete your glycogen stores then new food restores them and energy is taken elsewhere, hence fatty acids. You also lose bodyfat if you use glycogen as energy source. Heck, I have a congenital muscle condition (yay, I finally have a diagnosis!) that does not allow me to use ANY fatty acids as substrate at all when exercising as low impact as moderately fast walking, and I'm totally able to lose body fat if I eat at maintenance and create my calorie deficit through running.
    The average person can have 1500-2000 calories of energy in their stored glycogen, so I assume most people aren't going to burn through all of that in a run, unless maybe they're fasted. If they are using mostly glycogen then presumably they'll be hungrier after as the body tries to restore those stores, which means more calories being consumed?

    Very interesting about your diagnosis. How does that affect your workouts?

    Well, I've been exercising like this for ages now. I know now my muscle glycogen is partially shot, and I know my body doesn't use fatty acids when exercising. Leaves me with a meager rest of muscle glycogen and the one stored in liver and kidneys. And I suppose some lactate. Meaning I have to eat very regularly. And if I want to run for longer than 50 minutes or so I need gel to prevent bonking. Strength is better, but with some muscle fibers shot and those clustering in specific muscles it's a bit annoying. Like, if I want to do pushups, I use the uppermost part of my pecs. I can't activate the whole rest at all, even not really while sitting here, writing this. Likewise there are ghost muscles elsewhere.

    I think I read somewhere that liver/kidney glycogen for a not so tall female is not much more than 400 calories. And even for a big dude, 1000 would be stretching it.

Categories