to continue walking or go on with training to run

stephfly

Hi,

I'm not sure if this is even the best place to ask this, but here it goes.

I have been walking for over a year, going about 7 or 8 miles a day. I have lost a lot of weight but still have a bit to go to reach my target weight.

When I first started walking it was obviously more exerting for me, now at the end of each walk I have barely worked up a sweat.

This is why a few months back I decided to try working in c25k, and completed this pretty quickly. Ever since then I have done a few runs a week in between the walking days.

My question, in terms of weight loss, would it be better to go back to doing the walk 5 days a week, or stick with what I am doing now, 3 days a week running and two walking? I seemed to lose more weight steadily when just walking but I had a lot more to lose then.

When I walk: roughly two hours, a brisk enough pace, mix of different inclines
When I run there is no incline and I usually run 4 miles in roughly 36 minutes (I always take it steady as I am worried about injury)

TL/DR: which burns more calories: walking at a brisk pace for 2 hours or running for 36 min? I want to stick with the better calorie burn for now.

autumnblade75

For running vs. walking, there's not much of a difference in calorie burn. I've seen a fair number of arguments over whether or not running might burn more. I think it does, but it doesn't make as big of a difference as the number of miles logged. If you're walking 7 or 8 miles when you walk, or running 4 miles when you run, you'll burn roughly twice as many calories on the days you walk compared to the days you run.

Running burns the calories quicker, but we haven't all got the stamina to run as many miles as we could walk. Have you considered walking in addition to running on the days that you run? It sounds like you're getting fewer miles now than you were before.

JKDLady

Congratulations on your weight loss and your healthy walking routine. Also good job for really thinking about your exercise instead of just mindlessly following what you've been doing.

I walk at least 5 miles seven days a week. In addition to that I also run 4 times a week. I would like to run more, but it's just too hard on my knees. I enjoy both running and walking and find that I get a different sense of accomplishment from running that I don't get with walking. I love walking though.

Now, to answer your question from my data. Last Tuesday I ran 3.07 miles in 30 minutes and burned 351 cal. I burn just over 100 calories per mile run. You would burn slightly over 400 calories for your runs.

For a 2 hour walk I burn about 520 calories. I don't have inclines, so you would probably burn more.

I think it just depends on what you want and what fits in your schedule. If you continue to run, then you will increase your time and distance and your calorie burn. You definitely get a larger calorie burn by running.

Good luck to you. Just keep moving!

2hobbit1

Whichever way you chose to go with walking vs running you will get to a point that you do not increase burn due to fitness levels. Then it becomes a matter of how much return on time invested. Do you have the time and interest in extended cardio?
Have you considered mixing in a strength training routine like strong lifts or new rules of lifting rather than continuing to extend the cardio?
If you build a bit more muscle mass you will burn more calories in the background and the increase in strength/muscle mass will make you look tighter/firmer with out necessarily needing to drop all the pounds you currently think you need to lose to get into the size your aiming for.

stephfly

Have you considered walking in addition to running on the days that you run? It sounds like you're getting fewer miles now than you were before.

I am thinking about this, just going back to a daily walk and then a few times a week doing a nightly run.

I walk at least 5 miles seven days a week. In addition to that I also run 4 times a week. I would like to run more, but it's just too hard on my knees. I enjoy both running and walking and find that I get a different sense of accomplishment from running that I don't get with walking. I love walking though

I really want to try something like what you are doing. I lost a good amount of weight from walking and as I got fitter I decided to try running as this was something I had always thought that I could never do and I was scared of trying. But then I succeeded at it and after a while then began to worry if I was now getting less miles. I think I should take the next step and do extra running on walk days, rather than just running in place of walking. I have already proved to myself that I can keep the running up so now I should adjust again to up the calorie burn.

Have you considered mixing in a strength training routine like strong lifts or new rules of lifting rather than continuing to extend the cardio?

I don't know if they are what you are talking about, but I had tried to mix in kettlebells but if I do a kettlebell workout then I find that I am very sore for the next few days and on a few occasions wasn't able to either walk or run? This happens if I do a small number of kettlebell swings and squats. As a result, I never really stuck with them and I guess if I had done maybe I would have got stronger and become less prone to soreness. I am considering trying again, by mixing just walking and kettlebells for a while, as I found that after kettlebells, my legs really weren't up to running whereas I could more conceivably take a walk.

JKDLady

I also follow The New Rules of Lifting for Women. Weights are great, but you need to be ready for that move. I didn't comment on that because you asked about cardio. I do think weights will help you mix things up.

Don't get caught up in the mileage. Numbers don't really matter that much. Do what feels right.

Friend me if you want. I will support you if you support me.

Again, good luck to you!

Mr_Knight

My question, in terms of weight loss, would it be better to go back to doing the walk 5 days a week, or stick with what I am doing now, 3 days a week running and two walking? I seemed to lose more weight steadily when just walking but I had a lot more to lose then.

For the same number of miles, at the same body weight, running will burn roughly 2x the net calories as walking. If the goal is to optimize calorie burn per minute of exercise, 3x a week running is a clear winner over 5x a week walking, once you work up to the necessary level of fitness, mobility, etc. Especially as there is no reason you can't walk on the off-days, anyway.

It might be worth considering taking the next step, and moving your running to the 10k level.

AllanMisner

Congratulations! You've made an awesome change in your life.

If you're looking to make the next step, consider a program that incorporates HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training). If you do that two to three times a week, you can use walking as active recovery days.

RunnerElizabeth

Running is much more efficient. I run home from work with my daughter in the jogging stroller. It's 5 miles and takes me about 50 mins running time. If I walk, it takes me more like an hour and 25 mins to walk. Same exact distance, but I saved 35 mins, time I got to spend on something else.

And with running you do get to build up to more than you would be able to run because it's so much faster. I ran 13.2 miles today in 2 hours and 13 mins.

So working on building up your endurance is something to think about, because you could be getting similar or more of a calorie burn for less time. Time is invaluable to me. And you could use that time to add more excercise. If you aren't ready for lifting, consider a progressive body weight strength program like You Are Your Own Gym.

Good luck!

autumnblade75

My question, in terms of weight loss, would it be better to go back to doing the walk 5 days a week, or stick with what I am doing now, 3 days a week running and two walking? I seemed to lose more weight steadily when just walking but I had a lot more to lose then.

For the same number of miles, at the same body weight, running will burn roughly 2x the net calories as walking. If the goal is to optimize calorie burn per minute of exercise, 3x a week running is a clear winner over 5x a week walking, once you work up to the necessary level of fitness, mobility, etc. Especially as there is no reason you can't walk on the off-days, anyway.

It might be worth considering taking the next step, and moving your running to the 10k level.

Are you sure that you burn twice as many calories running the same number of miles? In addition to being done twice as quick? I believe you burn twice as many calories *per minute* over walking, but that's because you're going twice the distance.

meerkat70

Yes, it's between 1.5 and 2 x the calorie burn per mile. There's a significant sports sci literature about this - force as well as distance counts in the calculation of the burn. A mile is not a mile, in cal burn terms - what you do in that mile matters.

Explanation here is nice and clear: http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn?page=single

I agree with the poster suggesting a gradual shift to 10k. Do that once a week, and your 5k twice a week. Keep walking too, but you could comfortably reduce the distance and time, if you want to. All time on legs is good time!

the 10k distance is very rewarding, and I find it's the best distance for me for calorie burn and effective fat loss.

KingRat79

If you have the time to spend a couple of hours walking every day and that's what you enjoy then go for it. However for me it’s about fitting as much exercise as possible e in to limited time Running gives me more calories burnt per minute.

Mr_Knight

Delete. Repeat.

autumnblade75

Yes, it's between 1.5 and 2 x the calorie burn per mile. There's a significant sports sci literature about this - force as well as distance counts in the calculation of the burn. A mile is not a mile, in cal burn terms - what you do in that mile matters.

Explanation here is nice and clear: http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn?page=single

I agree with the poster suggesting a gradual shift to 10k. Do that once a week, and your 5k twice a week. Keep walking too, but you could comfortably reduce the distance and time, if you want to. All time on legs is good time!

the 10k distance is very rewarding, and I find it's the best distance for me for calorie burn and effective fat loss.

From the linked article: "As you can see, running a mile burns roughly 26 percent more calories than walking a mile. Running a minute (or 30 minutes, or an hour, etc.) burns roughly 2.3 times more calories than the same total time spent walking."

That's not 2.3 times more calories per mile, that's per minute. The difference in calories over a mile, at the speeds cited, is 26%. That's a little better than I was aware of - actually significant - but not twice as many calories per mile.

fleetzz

That seems about right--my HRM will tell me 97 calories burned walking, while the next day if I run it will be 126 (well, my run is a very slow jog).

I believe it is because while walking we do not physically propel our weight up off the ground-one foot always has some of our weight on it, while when running there is a moment when we are not touching the ground.

Mr_Knight

From the linked article: "As you can see, running a mile burns roughly 26 percent more calories than walking a mile. Running a minute (or 30 minutes, or an hour, etc.) burns roughly 2.3 times more calories than the same total time spent walking."

Those are gross, not net calories. It's right around 2x for net calories, in favour of running, because your regular calorie burn is a much larger percentage (basically half) of the walking burn.

Running is a *much* more efficient means of burning calories than walking, but it's important to build up to it, and walking is a good first step.

autumnblade75

From the linked article: "As you can see, running a mile burns roughly 26 percent more calories than walking a mile. Running a minute (or 30 minutes, or an hour, etc.) burns roughly 2.3 times more calories than the same total time spent walking."

Those are gross, not net calories. It's right around 2x for net calories, in favour of running, because your regular calorie burn is a much larger percentage (basically half) of the walking burn.

Running is a *much* more efficient means of burning calories than walking, but it's important to build up to it, and walking is a good first step.

Now it's getting complicated, with gross vs. net. I agree that running is more efficient, and I can live with it that we don't seem to agree about exactly how much more efficient it really is. I'd just like to leave this link here: http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html because I think it's a pretty nifty calculator. If the OP is still reading, he can figure out his optimal walk/run calorie burn with it.

Mr_Knight

Now it's getting complicated, with gross vs. net.

I hear ya!

When burn rates are high, gross/net doesn't matter much. But for activities where burn rates are low, like walking, it means you basically end up double-counting half the calorie burn. For those with large deficits and lots to lose, that may not make an appreciable difference. For people running 250-500 calorie deficits, it can be the difference between losing and stalling.

meerkat70

Now it's getting complicated, with gross vs. net.

I hear ya!

When burn rates are high, gross/net doesn't matter much. But for activities where burn rates are low, like walking, it means you basically end up double-counting half the calorie burn. For those with large deficits and lots to lose, that may not make an appreciable difference. For people running 250-500 calorie deficits, it can be the difference between losing and stalling.

Best explanation of this i have seen.