Walking 4 mph vs. running 4 mph

Options
bidwhist
bidwhist Posts: 40 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I know running 4 mph is not great, but I have never been a great runner, and I need to start off somewhere. My question is, do they burn the same amount of calories?

Replies

  • missy5277
    missy5277 Posts: 88 Member
    Options
    good question, i run at 4mph!
  • techymum
    techymum Posts: 168
    Options
    i'm curious to see other replies here - I am a very slow runner. But I find that the movement of running is much more aerobic for me than the movement of walking. My gut says the calorie burning will be the same, but that the cardio building is much better.

    When running at that pace (now up to 4.2 mph), I will work up a good sweat and a very pink face. Walking at that speed, no sweat, no pink face!
  • lannlynn
    lannlynn Posts: 72 Member
    Options
    I do not and I use a HRM. I burn more calories running and I just discovered that I can run or jog as I call it. I've been doing it for a couple of months and I love it. I improve (or get faster) every week. I am wanting to run a 5K in May.
  • MissFit0101
    MissFit0101 Posts: 2,382
    Options
    The bouncing up and down from running is going to burn more calories than the walking will, even though it's at the same speed.
  • MissFit0101
    MissFit0101 Posts: 2,382
    Options
    The bouncing up and down from running is going to burn more calories than the walking will, even though it's at the same speed.
  • itsmevic
    itsmevic Posts: 1
    Options
    I guess this would completely depend on the length of your stride. Typical stride length is roughly 2.5 feet but this varies due to different leg lengths. Your one full stride might be two of my strides. I would equate 4.0mph (for me) to a very brisk walk almost speed walk but that's just me. I'm only 5'8". What I do on the treadmill is boost it up to 4.5 - 4.8mph, there's no way i can walk this (comfortably and sustained) so I'm forced to jog. This jog speed (for me) is a comfortable pace and gets the heart rate up into the fat burning/cardio zone.
  • Rikki444
    Rikki444 Posts: 326 Member
    Options
    The real test is in your heart beat per minute.... running will be more cardiovascular than fat burning - even if you burn more calores... where walking is more likely to get you to the 'fat burning' zone.
  • czechsmate
    czechsmate Posts: 556 Member
    Options
    I walk 2 miles everyday at 4mi per hour....I sweat and get pink in the face, although it could be because I am walking a mile long bridge with an incline and I live in FL so its still very warm at 5:30 in the afternoon :blushing:
  • marywilsoncline
    marywilsoncline Posts: 301 Member
    Options
    i'm curious to see other replies here - I am a very slow runner. But I find that the movement of running is much more aerobic for me than the movement of walking. My gut says the calorie burning will be the same, but that the cardio building is much better.

    When running at that pace (now up to 4.2 mph), I will work up a good sweat and a very pink face. Walking at that speed, no sweat, no pink face!

    :happy: You and I must think alike. I think running is so much better than walking b/c you sweat more. And I associate sweating with burning calories.
  • kevin3344
    kevin3344 Posts: 702 Member
    Options
    Running burns slightly more than walking. It's usually 100 calories per mile if you wish to ballpark it.

    http://walking.about.com/od/calorie1/a/calorieswalkrun.htm

    If I run 3 miles I know I've burned about 280-300 calories, give or take. It's probably 250-280 if you walk....still pretty good.
  • grannygethealthy1111
    grannygethealthy1111 Posts: 422
    Options
    In "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," published last December in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, a group of Syracuse University researchers measured the actual calorie burn of 12 men and 12 women while running and walking 1,600 meters (roughly a mile) on a treadmill. Result: The men burned an average of 124 calories while running, and just 88 while walking; the women burned 105 and 74. (The men burned more than the women because they weighed more.)
  • Alee4nia
    Alee4nia Posts: 168 Member
    Options
    It's about the intensity...you are doing a more intense workout with running....heart rate is up...showing you are working out more intensely...thus running at 4 mph is better.
  • bidwhist
    bidwhist Posts: 40 Member
    Options
    Running at 4 mph, my heart rate gets to about 160
  • degobah
    degobah Posts: 55 Member
    Options
    I have worn a heart rate monitor for both.

    I burn more calories and build more muscle running at 4mph as compared to walking because there is more effort lifting your body up and down with your quads, as compared to walking which is more flat paced.

    Get yourself a HRM. If you want to lose fat, then you want to keep your beats per minute (BPM) low (90-120). Walking will burn fat. A slow jog (120-150) will improve your heart. Doing both (called intervals) is the best. Intervals is good for your heart, burns fat, and builds muscle and stamina.
  • kfitz10103
    kfitz10103 Posts: 354
    Options
    I believe that your burn .75 calories, per pound you are, per mile if you run. For instance, I weigh 160lbs x .7 = 120 calories per mile. The formula is .53 if you walk so 84.8 calories per mile if you walk. This article below explains why running burns more. http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html
  • 1nsands
    1nsands Posts: 27
    Options
    I concur with everyone here.

    However, there are some benefits to walking instead of running. And different benefits to running instead of walking.

    Walking will keep you in the fat burning zone. Which means that a higher percentage of the calories that you burn will be from fat that is stored on your body instead of calories that you've eaten throughout the day. Other benefits, walking does help to build up certain muscles which shape and tone your legs in what I would think of as a more "yoga body" sort of way = long and lean. Also... especially for me... I can walk for a much longer period of time than I can run for - regardless of the pace. I can walk 4.6mph longer than I can jog 4mph. So, I will do a much longer workout if I'm walking than if I'm running. So I might burn fewer calories within a certain time frame... but I'm likely going to burn more calories because I'll go a lot further.

    Running is very cardiovascular. If you're looking to improve your breathing and blood circulation, this is the better exercise for you. It will usually keep you above the fat burning zone, so a smaller percentage of the calories burned will be from fat stored on your body. On the other hand, if you're burning a lot more calories, then you may still burn the same number of fat stored calories. If that makes sense. Running will build muscle in different ways. Long slow running will still build mostly long and lean muscles, but you'll notice a little more bulk in the calves. Sprinting (which 4mph isn't) will probably build more bulk all over. Also, running is a really good workout for your core as well.

    Personally... I combine the two. I walk the majority of my workout, but I do some slower jogs (I try and make sure I'm at least going faster than my walking pace - but you should build up to that) and some faster runs. Most of the weight that I've lost, though, has been from walking. I've just gotten thin and fit enough for running.

    good luck!
  • KeriA
    KeriA Posts: 3,275 Member
    Options
    I just completed C25K this summer but never really got very fast at running. So now I am doing intervals. 2 minutes of running and 1 minute of walking. It actually makes you a faster runner. I am finding this quite challenging. I do it for an hour. So I am getting the benefits of both walking and running. I was going to run longer every other time but for now this seems to be enough of a challenge for me. So I guess I would nix the vs and do both.

Categories