Fast walk versus slow jog

ToughHippieChick

Hi
I tried to search for this topic, but returned inconsistent results, so my apologies if this is repetitive.

I would like to know if a slow jog burns the same amount of calories as a fast walk of the same speed.
I am still very out of shape, but I have progressed to the point where I can jog slowly.
But my speed isn't changing.
I did 2 miles in 30 minutes walking quickly (like power walking).
The next day I did the same 2 miles at my jogging pace, but it still took me 30 minutes.
The actual motion of my body was dramatically different, but my speed and distance traveled stayed the same.

Is the calorie burn (or other health benefits) any different for a 4mph fast walk or a 4mph slow jog?

Thanks

Masonless

Bump

BigT555

i dont really know for sure, this is just my speculation

i think the jog would burn more calories, since in jogging, there are moments when both feet are off the ground. more energy is needed to push your body upwards and forward as opposed to walking where most motion is directed forward. in walking, your body stays relatively stable in the vertical plane, not so much in jogging

SingingSingleTracker

Hi
I tried to search for this topic, but returned inconsistent results, so my apologies if this is repetitive.

I would like to know if a slow jog burns the same amount of calories as a fast walk of the same speed.
I am still very out of shape, but I have progressed to the point where I can jog slowly.
But my speed isn't changing.
I did 2 miles in 30 minutes walking quickly (like power walking).
The next day I did the same 2 miles at my jogging pace, but it still took me 30 minutes.
The actual motion of my body was dramatically different, but my speed and distance traveled stayed the same.

Is the calorie burn (or other health benefits) any different for a 4mph fast walk or a 4mph slow jog?

Thanks

Hook up your HR monitor, use MapMyWalk and or MapMyRun to see what your burn is for both. Then you'll know. It won't be much different at all in terms of calorie burn until you increase your jogging pace up to 5 or 6 mph.

brower47

i dont really know for sure, this is just my speculation

i think the jog would burn more calories, since in jogging, there are moments when both feet are off the ground. more energy is needed to push your body upwards and forward as opposed to walking where most motion is directed forward. in walking, your body stays relatively stable in the vertical plane, not so much in jogging

I'm speculating as well but to the opposite side. I'd think about it as what the human body is better adapted at doing bio mechanically. We're good at moderate walking and we're good at moderate jogging for long distances (generally speaking for the species). At the same pace, say 4.5 mph, it would be difficult to keep your body in an actual walk (one foot always in contact with the ground) but it would be relatively easier for the body to be in a slow jog at that same speed.

Somewhere, there has to be a crossover where the walking becomes more difficult to maintain than a jog would be. Again, just speculating but you could test it. Very fast walking will raise the heart rate enough to make a HRM useful. Try walking at a very fast pace for 15 minutes and then try jogging at that same pace (maybe on a different day or several hours later). See what the monitor has to say. If you're heart rate was greater at the walk vs the jog or vice versa, you'd then have some descent evidence to answer your question.

DrJenO

In theory, you will burn a consistent amount of calories based on how far you go - you'll just burn them faster if you run.

I hate running. H.A.T.E. Hate it. It hurts. It makes my knees hurt, I'm sore the next day, etc - but, I will briskly walk 6-7 miles and feel like I could do 6-7 more. I've gotten to where I can "walk" sub-15:00 miles (granted, there are usually a few sprints thrown in there, where I'm trying to catch a street light), for an hour to an hour and a half.

Point is, keep walking if you want to.

BrianSharpe

In theory, you will burn a consistent amount of calories based on how far you go - you'll just burn them faster if you run.

Point is, keep walking if you want to.

One would think but the truth is that running burns, on average, twice the net calories as walking for the same distance.

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

Interestingly, however, this does not hold true for walking at very fast paces (5mph or higher)

But I agree with your second point, OP do what you feel is best for you. (I spent a long time walking before starting to run)

nnix64

Everyone pushes to run but in all honesty a power walk is much more effecient and burns calories without all the joint damage that can be done with running. Stick with power walking and your knees will thank you in the end! :-)

BrianSharpe

Everyone pushes to run but in all honesty a power walk is much more effecient and burns calories without all the joint damage that can be done with running. Stick with power walking and your knees will thank you in the end! :-)

Running does not damage your joints...........:explode: :explode: :explode:

Caper88

Everyone pushes to run but in all honesty a power walk is much more effecient and burns calories without all the joint damage that can be done with running. Stick with power walking and your knees will thank you in the end! :-)

Running does not damage your joints...........:explode: :explode: :explode:

I always thought that it was the weight that was bad on your joints and not the running?

RunDomRun24

I have always heard that running a mile running walking a mile results in the same calories burned. Same for running at various speed. The faster you go, the less time it takes you to walk or run that mile, the less time it takes you to burn the same number of calories. There may be slight differences, but I would not get too worried about it. it is not an exact science. I can't see running slow and walking fast being that much different if the pace is the same. Do what you enjoy the most or feel more comfortable doing. Good luck!

brower47

Everyone pushes to run but in all honesty a power walk is much more effecient and burns calories without all the joint damage that can be done with running. Stick with power walking and your knees will thank you in the end! :-)

Running does not damage your joints...........:explode: :explode: :explode:

This. I know two once competitive swimmers that have bad joints... from swimming, the sport that everyone says is easiest on your joints. Anything can damage the joints depending one whether the exercise is excessive (most competitive sports are hard on the human body since it's being done at such high levels) for that particular individual. Casual running will not damage your joints unless you already have joint issues or have poor form (poor form in any sport/activity can cause damage, even slow walking).

ToughHippieChick

I like the way I feel when I can jog. I know it sounds silly, but I get in this almost "zen" zone when I can jog. I'm not good at it yet, but I'm hoping as I lose weight I will be able to do it more.

I haven't felt any pain in my knees or other joints, but at my weight (217) and height (5'2") if jogging is harmful right now, then I will continue walking.

My problem currently is my breathing. I get out of breath long before I feel fatigued. My lungs give out before my muscles.

Right now my main concern is getting the weight off, burning calories, and doing so without any physical injury.
But ultimately I would like to be able to run. I doubt I'll ever be able to do a marathon or anything, but I'd like to be able to go a bit faster, a bit further, and a bit longer. I like the zen feeling it brings.

skippygirlsmom

I input same time and distance for running and walking into two different websites and got about 30 calories less for walking the same 2 mile distance in 30 mins.

danettetaulbee

1) at 15 min miles your walk will burn slightly more calories, but the jog will strengthen your cardio system better. (Runner's world study showed jogging slower than 13 min miles is where the calorie burn and cardio conditioning are both better).

IF you want to jog more or faster:
2) try fast walking and then add in short jogs (if you live in town, walk 2 light poles, jog one a little faster than your walk) - this will teach you to jog faster and one this is comfortable for your 30 minutes, decrease the walks and increase the jogs a little.

bidimus

I like the way I feel when I can jog. I know it sounds silly, but I get in this almost "zen" zone when I can jog. I'm not good at it yet, but I'm hoping as I lose weight I will be able to do it more.

I haven't felt any pain in my knees or other joints, but at my weight (217) and height (5'2") if jogging is harmful right now, then I will continue walking.

My problem currently is my breathing. I get out of breath long before I feel fatigued. My lungs give out before my muscles.

Running is by far my favorite activity. I totally get that "zen" feeling you're talking about. I often run pretty slow too (13:00/mi give or take a couple minutes) but it doesn't bother me because I'm enjoying my surroundings. My initial weight loss came as a side effect of my running and as my weight dropped, my speed increased slightly.

I agree with brower47 on joint injuries. Learn good form regardless of whether you're running or speed walking to ensure you can continue your new found sport well into the future. For running I recommend looking up Chi Running, Pose Running, or Natural Running. It's much easier on the joints.

For your cardio, use run/walk intervals. "Running for Mortals" has some great insight for the beginning runner on this. Your cardio will come around in time and quicker than you'd expect.

Run strong.

bidimus

I often run pretty slow too (13:00/mi give or take a couple minutes) but it doesn't bother me because I'm enjoying my surroundings.

You know what. I take that back. I don't run slow. I run at just the right pace for me.

Shropshire1959

i dont really know for sure, this is just my speculation

i think the jog would burn more calories, since in jogging, there are moments when both feet are off the ground. more energy is needed to push your body upwards and forward as opposed to walking where most motion is directed forward. in walking, your body stays relatively stable in the vertical plane, not so much in jogging

I agree and I reckon you expend more energy if you get your Heart Rate up.

brianpperkins

The article from Runner's World explains the caloric differences between walking and running ... including the why.

farfromthetree

I have always wondered the same thing. I have a Nike Sports Watch and it doesn't matter if I walk or jog, it's about 100 calories/mile. I am sure there are many more accurate ways to monitor though. I prefer jogging because I like the feeling I get when I finish vs. walking. That alone is worth it to me!

h7463

i dont really know for sure, this is just my speculation

i think the jog would burn more calories, since in jogging, there are moments when both feet are off the ground. more energy is needed to push your body upwards and forward as opposed to walking where most motion is directed forward. in walking, your body stays relatively stable in the vertical plane, not so much in jogging

I'm speculating as well but to the opposite side. I'd think about it as what the human body is better adapted at doing bio mechanically. We're good at moderate walking and we're good at moderate jogging for long distances (generally speaking for the species). At the same pace, say 4.5 mph, it would be difficult to keep your body in an actual walk (one foot always in contact with the ground) but it would be relatively easier for the body to be in a slow jog at that same speed.

Somewhere, there has to be a crossover where the walking becomes more difficult to maintain than a jog would be. Again, just speculating but you could test it. Very fast walking will raise the heart rate enough to make a HRM useful. Try walking at a very fast pace for 15 minutes and then try jogging at that same pace (maybe on a different day or several hours later). See what the monitor has to say. If you're heart rate was greater at the walk vs the jog or vice versa, you'd then have some descent evidence to answer your question.

Actually, I have used my HRM (with GPS) for power walking on the track, and my speed was in fact 4.88mph. I walked briskly for 1 hour. Average HR 135/ max HR 160.
I found it more comfortable than jogging, and my quads, glutes, and calves were burning for 2 days after that.....lol
While I was making my rounds, I watched a young lady jog slowly along, and she was miserable. Even the slow jog wore her out so much, that she gave up after about 3 laps....

Mr_Knight

Is the calorie burn (or other health benefits) any different for a 4mph fast walk or a 4mph slow jog?

It will be higher for the jog. Running burns roughly double the net calories of walking, for equivalent distance.

And HRMs do not give accurate burn estimates for activities like walking - they significantly over-estimate.

Azdak

The calculators used to estimate the energy cost of running are only valid at speeds greater than 5 mph. Under that, there is too much variation in running style to use a general equation. So calculators and sites like mapmyrun that are using speed to estimate calories will not be reliable (and that includes runners world).

It is likely that running at those lower speeds will burn fractionally more calories than walking, but the difference will not be as great as at faster speeds.

However, if you like running, or it motivates you, or you want to really increase aerobic fitness, then run away. Eventually you will get faster and then the burn will increase more substantially.

heybebe88

http://www.livestrong.com/article/366236-does-walking-burn-more-fat-than-jogging/

"Another study published in the Journal of "Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness" found that during walking and jogging at the same speed over the same distance, walkers burned as much or more energy than joggers."

"An article published in "The Physician and Sports Medicine" noted that moderate-intensity activity such as easy jogging has a higher rate of fat oxidation than low-intensity walking. But walking at higher intensities may result in similar fat-burning activity."

Katy009

Not going by statistics or any articles or anything, my personal experience is that I have 3 dogs that I have been walking for years at a decent speed and an average of 60 / 90 minute walks each time. I started jogging about 3 months ago. I go slow for about 35 / 40 minutes each time. Since then I have noticed a lot less fat on my body. So for me, jogging is better, even if it's a slower pace.

GillianMcK

Do what you enjoy, at our level of just enjoying it there won't be huge differences between brisk walk and running, if you enjoy running (regardless of the pace, it doesn't matter if it's a 6 min mile or a 16 min mile, it's still a mile), then run, it's good cardiovasicular workout, you get out of breath but that improves over time (I still can't breath properly for the first 4 miles and struggle to maintain a jog for that difference, after 4 miles I seem to find my stride and off I go), most beginner running apps are walk/jog intervals starting off really easy and working up to running for an hour at a time.

They only thing I would advise, is that if you want to run, go and get fitted at a proper running shop for the right shoes, these make a huge difference to your comfort (go to a couple of shops and see if they recommend the same shoes, rather than just the most expensive pair), and a good running bra if you don't already have one, these are the 2 things not to skimp on, everything else go to the cheap shops and get the cheap stuff, but shoes and bra's get the good stuff.