brisk walking vs. jogging for weight loss

Hartmowen

I started couch to 5k 5 weeks ago. During the first 3 weeks where there is more walking time than jogging, I lost ten pounds. During week 4, where there is more jogging, I lost no weight. Last week I got sick and decided to walk at a brisk pace instead of running, well i lost two more pounds!

So my question is...is there a certain heart rate range for weight / fat loss? Am I going out of that range when I am jogging?

Peeeeeeeeeej

There is supposedly a heart rate percentage that you would like to be in for optimal fat loss. I believe anywhere from 50%-65% of your HRM (heart rate maximum) is the best percentage to be at. 65%-85% would be considered Cardio work.

Basically what I believe the difference to be is whether which exercise is Anaerobic and Aerobic. Aerobic exercise is defined as an exercise in which the muscles involved has an ample supply of oxygen, and an anaerobic exercise is defined as an exercise in which the muscles involved are lacking oxygen (Basically Low Intensity versus High Intensity).

What determines anaerobic exercising versus aerobic exercising in people vary on their own cardiovascular health. To someone else jogging maybe considered a light low intensity activity in which the body has ample oxygen (aerobic), but to you it maybe a more moderate-to-strenous activity (anaerobic).

How does this all effect weight loss? To me it really doesn't matter what you do as long as you're doing something and eating right. I bet if you continued to jog you would see weight loss too. Who knows why you hit that little plateau, and it may not have been related to your jogging/walking exercise, but as long as you stay on track you will reach your goals.

emrichs1

I am just starting the couch to 5K as well. I am only on the second week, so I am still very much so in the brisk walking > jogging phase and I already see a weight loss of 2lbs! I am very curious to see what people have to say

DonPendergraft

Let me give you my $.02 on it. Walking briskly, percentage wise, burns more fat than running. This is often used by some walkers to tell me I should walk instead of run to burn fat. The percentage thing is true, however, it does not tell the whole story. If you walk for one hour and I run for one hour, who burns more fat? I do! While I burn less efficiently, the total number of calories burned far exceeds that of walking and the percentage advantage is overwhelmed by the sheer number of calories burned by the running. OK, let me make up some numbers for illustration. If I run at a pretty good pace for an hour and burn 1,000 calories with a 25% fat burn rate (remember, I'm making up these percentages because I'm too lazy to look them up right now) then I have burned 250 fat calories. If I walk briskly for an hour and burn 300 calories with a higher 50% fat burn rate, you only burned 150 calories. See my point? If the option is to run for 20 minutes or walk for an hour, by all means walk for the hour. Much better burn. But if someone tells you that you will burn more fat by walking the same amount of time as running, then they probably have something to sell.

Hartmowen

Thanks for all of your posts guys!