walking vs. running

cjw6

Hi guys, I need you to settle a disagreement for me.

In terms of calorie burn, my hubbie argues that walking 5k, and running 5k will burn the same amount of calories given that the same amount of mass is being moved across the same distance. The 5k walk will of course take longer.

Now this kind of makes sense from my recollection of high school physics, but it really doesn't feel that way when I'm doing it! I feel the effects of a run for a lot longer than if I've walked the same distance. I wonder whether raising my HR by running means a greater calorie burn in the hours afterwards?

Any thoughts?

chubbyandawkward

I'd think so, because you're not breathing heavily when you're walking, do you? And running makes you sweat.

BeautyFromPain

running burns more calories as it gets your heart rate higher, and will generally fasten your metabolism for the next hour or so as well

Grimmerick

yes you will burn more running than walking because your HR is up and you are exerting more energy causing you to burn more calories during your run and after, compared to walking.

russelljclarke

Depends on how strenuous the walk is - I get up to 4 mph and it certainly gets my heart pumping and results in wet T shirts.

KyleB65

Sounds like a logical argument.
However, I think that the running raises the heart rate more than walking and would thus burn more calories. Also, and this part I am not certain, would the run also raise the body's metabolic rate so that there will still be calories being consumed long after the run. As opposed to a walk where the calories would stop being consumed almost as soon as the walk was over?

amberlilies

From what I've read, it's just not that simple. Your heart rate has a lot to do with how you burn fat, and getting your heart rate up to at least 140 bpm has benefits for burning fat instead of the sugar from your last meal (making you hungry again). Would you burn the same amount of calories? I'm not sure, but you can use a calorie counter to check that.

Where the calories come from is really important too. Like if you're a jogger, I know that the body starts to burn muscle instead of fat after you've been running for 15 minutes, which is why so many joggers do interval training (15 minute sprint followed by 15 minute walk).

YMTaylor

Taken from an article from runner's world:
"Thanks to the Syracuse researchers, we now know the relative NCB of running a mile in 9:30 versus walking the same mile in 19:00. Their male subjects burned 105 calories running, 52 walking; the women, 91 and 43. That is, running burns twice as many net calories per mile as walking. And since you can run two miles in the time it takes to walk one mile, running burns four times as many net calories per hour as walking. "

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html September 2005 edition.

She also does a great job explaining Net Calories Burned (NCB) vs. Gross Calories Burned but that's a whole different argument.

erickirb

Hi guys, I need you to settle a disagreement for me.

In terms of calorie burn, my hubbie argues that walking 5k, and running 5k will burn the same amount of calories given that the same amount of mass is being moved across the same distance. The 5k walk will of course take longer.

Now this kind of makes sense from my recollection of high school physics, but it really doesn't feel that way when I'm doing it! I feel the effects of a run for a lot longer than if I've walked the same distance. I wonder whether raising my HR by running means a greater calorie burn in the hours afterwards?

Any thoughts?

Running burns more as less of the energy being produced from running goes into forward motion. Walking burns less per km as your body is more efficient at walking than it is at running.

rml_16

I used to think that, too. But when I really got into running (I wear an HRM), I realized this is incorrect. Running does burn more calories over the same distance.

AddA2UDE

Now, take it a step further. Google "HIIT" and read the studies you find. I am in total agreement with those who are touting the higher HR argument.

BerryH

In running, both the feet are off the ground so a lot of energy is wasted providing up-and-down force rather than forward motion.

BerryH

I'd also add in the long run whichever you can stick with burns the most calories. If you give up on a 5K run that you just can't face but would happily walk briskly for 45 minutes, you're on a winner!

Personally I'm big on including walking breaks in my long runs so I can keep going for longer and even average out a faster speed. Here's my blog on the subject:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/BerryH/view/why-walk-breaks-could-make-you-a-better-runner-140138

cjw6

Thing is, I think it is about physics.
A calorie is a unit of energy. Energy used = mass x distance unless my physics is very rusty.
And although you are sweaty and breathing hard when you are running, you take much less time to do the same distance -i.e are working harder for a shorter time.

Is working hard + shorter time > or < than working less hard for a longer time?

cjw6

Hi guys, I need you to settle a disagreement for me.

In terms of calorie burn, my hubbie argues that walking 5k, and running 5k will burn the same amount of calories given that the same amount of mass is being moved across the same distance. The 5k walk will of course take longer.

Now this kind of makes sense from my recollection of high school physics, but it really doesn't feel that way when I'm doing it! I feel the effects of a run for a lot longer than if I've walked the same distance. I wonder whether raising my HR by running means a greater calorie burn in the hours afterwards?

Any thoughts?

Running burns more as less of the energy being produced from running goes into forward motion. Walking burns less per km as your body is more efficient at walking than it is at running.

Is it true that your body is more efficient at walking than running? I thought the whole point of running was that it was more efficient at covering distances quickly? Would we not all have evolved to speed walk towards our prey if that was more efficient?

cjw6

Taken from an article from runner's world:
"Thanks to the Syracuse researchers, we now know the relative NCB of running a mile in 9:30 versus walking the same mile in 19:00. Their male subjects burned 105 calories running, 52 walking; the women, 91 and 43. That is, running burns twice as many net calories per mile as walking. And since you can run two miles in the time it takes to walk one mile, running burns four times as many net calories per hour as walking. "

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html September 2005 edition.

She also does a great job explaining Net Calories Burned (NCB) vs. Gross Calories Burned but that's a whole different argument.

Aha- now thats what I was after. Hubbie will have to eat his words!

erickirb

Hi guys, I need you to settle a disagreement for me.

In terms of calorie burn, my hubbie argues that walking 5k, and running 5k will burn the same amount of calories given that the same amount of mass is being moved across the same distance. The 5k walk will of course take longer.

Now this kind of makes sense from my recollection of high school physics, but it really doesn't feel that way when I'm doing it! I feel the effects of a run for a lot longer than if I've walked the same distance. I wonder whether raising my HR by running means a greater calorie burn in the hours afterwards?

Any thoughts?

Running burns more as less of the energy being produced from running goes into forward motion. Walking burns less per km as your body is more efficient at walking than it is at running.

Is it true that your body is more efficient at walking than running? I thought the whole point of running was that it was more efficient at covering distances quickly? Would we not all have evolved to speed walk towards our prey if that was more efficient?

If you were efficient at running your would not get so tired from doing it. Running is more effective at getting somewhere quicker but less efficient. It is an efficient use of time it you have a short distance to travel, but it is not an efficient use of your body or your energy.

Plus, as Berry said, a lot of the energy in running goes into upward motion, whereas a higher % of the energy from walking goes into forward motion.