Running vs Walking & calorie burning

PrincessSparkle5253

Just an article I found, take what you what from it!

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

joehempel

I've seen this before....and acording to my calculations I burn about the same walking vs running. But to me a 30 calorie difference is pretty negligable.

I average right now at 191lbs about 130-140 per mile.

Gsc122

Whatever gets your heart rate up, and you breathing hard.article made sense too me.

joehempel

Also this article is almost 6-7 years old. I think there have been more studies done.

elliecolorado

According to my HRM although I burn a little bit more running I burn pretty close to the same whether I walk a mile or run a mile. However if I run 2 miles in the time it takes to walk 1 mile I burn twice as much in that time.

bovbjerg

Interesting....for me, walking would definitely burn more calories than running because I know I will be able to walk longer than running and I will actually get out there and walk whereas running....probably not so much!

Thanks for sharing! :drinker:

fastbelly

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

fastbelly

I've seen this before....and acording to my calculations I burn about the same walking vs running. But to me a 30 calorie difference is pretty negligable.

I average right now at 191lbs about 130-140 per mile.

It all depends on the level of effort and consequently the intake of oxigen you have during the exercise. If your effort is consistent when running and walking you should burn about the same, if you for instance are doing speedwork over say 800m and calculate the calories for that half mile you'll probably see a big difference in your walking and running.

joehempel

I've seen this before....and acording to my calculations I burn about the same walking vs running. But to me a 30 calorie difference is pretty negligable.

I average right now at 191lbs about 130-140 per mile.

It all depends on the level of effort and consequently the intake of oxigen you have during the exercise. If your effort is consistent when running and walking you should burn about the same, if you for instance are doing speedwork over say 800m and calculate the calories for that half mile you'll probably see a big difference in your walking and running.

I've looked at it both ways...it doesn't make much of a difference. The calorie difference is not big enough to really make a difference.

corsayre8

Funny, I just went out with some of my friends this evening - they walked, I ran intervals. I ran away from them, turned around and ran back, walked with them a couple minutes and then did it again. They went four miles, I did closer to seven. So while 30 calories per mile may seem negligible, it adds up. Even assuming there was no difference per mile, I did three more miles. In the same time - at 130-140 cals per mile, that is 390-420 extra calories. Add it over a weeks worth of workouts, and it is pretty significant.

joehempel

No, I mean total, not per mile.

daddyratty

You'd need some sort of HRM to have a better idea. But it's not really debatable that there is a difference.

The theory used to be that running or walking burned the same number of calories. This was based on the technical definition of a calorie. (Also, what we call a calorie is actually a kilocalorie). The definition of a calorie is the amount of energy expended moving a mass of 1kg a distance of 1km. People assumed that moving a mile was moving a mile.

However, when you run, you're not *just* propelling your weight forward à la speed walking. If you consider the force with which your body hits the ground, and the energy required to the propel the body up *and* forward, you are expending much more energy to move the same distance.

For me, running a mile (at 245 pounds) currently burns about 190-205 calories. Walking a mile is closer to 120.