if you walk more its the same as running less?

FitBun9

So i have a theoretical question,
If i run+walk for 30 minutes and burn around 200 calories, theoretically, if i brisk walk for one hour and burn about the same amount wouldn't it be the same exercise? only it takes longer? i'd be still losing the weight the same?

I'm asking this since lately i had some pain arond my ankles and generally from the knee down when i run. (I don't run too fast and i have good shoes for running.)
Thanks

BrianSharpe

If you're strictly concerned with caloric expenditure walking briskly for 1 hr would be roughly equal to running 30 min. In terms of improved cardiovascular health you derive a greater benefit from running (or other activities that elevate your hear rate for a sustained period of time).

If running is causing you pain by all means walk, if you want to run (don't feel pressured that you have to run) work your way into it gradually. It's likely the pain you're experiencing is a result of trying to do too much too soon.

If you decide that you want to run check out some of the videos on runnersworld.com re: core, hip and glute strength - surprisingly weak hips and /or glutes can often manifest themselves in knee pain.

MeanderingMammal

If i run+walk for 30 minutes and burn around 200 calories, theoretically, if i brisk walk for one hour and burn about the same amount wouldn't it be the same exercise? only it takes longer? i'd be still losing the weight the same?

As above, if you're only interested in calorie expenditure then yes it's the same effect. However, any CV programme that's looking at improving your general health will have a combination of sessions all of which have different effects on your system:

The long slow session improves your endurance. In this sense what you're describing is the "long, slow" but at walking pace rather than recovery pace.

The tempo session, shorter and at higher intensity, improves the systems ability to perform at that higher intensity.

Intervals, going from high intensity to recovery intensity, improve your ability to convert power and improve your capacity again.

If you're not pushing yourself in this way then you're not improving. Over time your recovery pace increases and your higher and highest intensities increase.

I'm asking this since lately i had some pain around my ankles and generally from the knee down when i run. (I don't run too fast and i have good shoes for running.)

Advice depends on the type of pain, if it's muscular ache then that's more an indication that you're stretching yourself and the muscle is rebuilding, If it's joint pain then it's worth a checkup, you may have tried too much too quickly and caused a little bit of overuse injury. Basically the treatment is rest and icing, and easing back on the intensity a little.

From what you describe it's not shinsplints, although some would probably use that name for it. Shinsplints was described quite nicely in another thread as like someone driving a knife into your shins and twisting it around every time you put weight on it.

LKArgh

If you walk or run the same distance, on average you will burn the same calories. For relatively slow speeds, running burns a bit more, as the speed increases, walking burns a bit more. But unless you need for some reason to know the details up to the last calorie, use distance as a rule.

nuttyfamily

The difference in calorie burn for me between a walk and run is about 15 calories.

I burn around 85 for a one mile walk at 4 mph and around 100 for a one mile run at 5 to 6 mph.

BrianSharpe

If you walk or run the same distance, on average you will burn the same calories. For relatively slow speeds, running burns a bit more, as the speed increases, walking burns a bit more. But unless you need for some reason to know the details up to the last calorie, use distance as a rule.

The difference in calorie burn for me between a walk and run is about 15 calories.

I burn around 85 for a one mile walk at 4 mph and around 100 for a one mile run at 5 to 6 mph.

Wrong.......running burns about 2 x the calories compared to walking the same distance (there is an exception....race walking)

running .63 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

walking .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

Sreneesa

If you walk or run the same distance, on average you will burn the same calories. For relatively slow speeds, running burns a bit more, as the speed increases, walking burns a bit more. But unless you need for some reason to know the details up to the last calorie, use distance as a rule.

The difference in calorie burn for me between a walk and run is about 15 calories.

I burn around 85 for a one mile walk at 4 mph and around 100 for a one mile run at 5 to 6


Wrong.......running burns about 2 x the calories compared to walking the same distance (there is an exception....race walking)

running .63 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

walking .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

This


ofcourse running burns more cals than walking. ...kind of obvious.

When I used to run on treadmill around 50mins nonstop my heart rate was up and worked up a major sweat that walking couldn't compare too. No way walking and running the same distance burn the same calories. Lol...

nuttyfamily

The difference in calorie burn for me between a walk and run is about 15 calories.

I burn around 85 for a one mile walk at 4 mph and around 100 for a one mile run at 5 to 6 mph.

Wrong.......running burns about 2 x the calories compared to walking the same distance (there is an exception....race walking)

running .63 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

walking .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
[/quote]

I use a HRM so I am not wrong and running does not burn double what walking does for the same mile. If you read that article and do the math, it backs me up.

There are many factors involved too. The article even states that a brisk walk can even burn more than running if done fast enough.

biggsterjackster

I hear often, that there is a big after burn effect after high speed activity. So even in the hours after the fast run you burn more than after a walk.

MeanderingMammal

I hear often, that there is a big after burn effect after high speed activity. So even in the hours after the fast run you burn more than after a walk.

It's really not a significant amount, you're talking single figures for the majority of people

brianpperkins

The difference in calorie burn for me between a walk and run is about 15 calories.

I burn around 85 for a one mile walk at 4 mph and around 100 for a one mile run at 5 to 6 mph.

Wrong.......running burns about 2 x the calories compared to walking the same distance (there is an exception....race walking)

running .63 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

walking .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

I use a HRM so I am not wrong and running does not burn double what walking does for the same mile. If you read that article and do the math, it backs me up.

There are many factors involved too. The article even states that a brisk walk can even burn more than running if done fast enough.

Thank you for illustrating the issues when depending on a HRM and that they are quite often inaccurate.

BrianSharpe

The difference in calorie burn for me between a walk and run is about 15 calories.

I burn around 85 for a one mile walk at 4 mph and around 100 for a one mile run at 5 to 6 mph.

Wrong.......running burns about 2 x the calories compared to walking the same distance (there is an exception....race walking)

running .63 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

walking .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

I use a HRM so I am not wrong and running does not burn double what walking does for the same mile. If you read that article and do the math, it backs me up.

There are many factors involved too. The article even states that a brisk walk can even burn more than running if done fast enough.

I've done the math, if you read the article yourself you would see that, on average, running results in double the net caloric expenditure that walking does.(If you use gross the differential is small but gross calories are meaningless in that they include the calories you'd expend in that time lying in bed, perhaps you should read the article again..... )

and your HRM is not exactly the gospel, lots of them calculate gross calories expended.

The article didn't say "brisk pace" it said "walking at very fast speeds" which is very different........