DO NOT JOG ON THE TREADMILL

kak2m4

How strange...I agree...RUN don't WALK out of that gym!!!!

Anthonydaman

Running on a treadmill breaks them down faster than walking. The toll running takes on those machines is tremendous. That sign is there because the gym owner probably just spent a bunch of money repairing the machine.
It's not about rights, it's about the ever shrinking dollar we all face.

wk9t

Yeesh... if all I was going to do was walk on a treadmill, I'd just as soon walk laps at the mall and not have to pay a membership fee.

I totally agree!

SabrinaJL

You're also far less likely to get injured sitting on the couch. Maybe they should install a bunch of those and have a SUPER safe gym!

:laugh: I'd go to that gym.

TluvK

It's actually best to walk, then jog, then walk, then job...the change in pace increases your metabolism and burns more calories.

??????

Would I be correct in assuming you're comparing walk / run to straight walking? Minor point - it increases your heart rate (not metabolism) which burns more calories. You increase your RMR by increasing you lean muscle mass.

Yes to the above. And to another point - although walk, jog, walk is a good way to train your body if you are a beginner runner, you more than likely aren't getting your heart rate up high enough for it to be that much of a benefit in terms of calorie burning. I think what you're referring to is HIIT - interval running which is very different than just a walking/jogging combination.

Azdak

Technically, he is right about the first. You burn more calories walking at an uncomfortably fast pace than jogging at a slow pace.

however, that rule is just stupid. Treadmills are made for running.

No, you don't. Not until you get to a "race walking" pace of 5.5-6.0 mph. The problem is that, if you have the fitness level to race walk at that pace, you also have the fitness level to run even faster, and thus still burn more calories.

Someone who runs at a slow pace can't walk at a fast enough pace to reach the level you describe.

So, for about 98% of the population, it's a moot point--running on level ground will burn more calories than walking on level ground.

jenn26point2

I'd advise:
RUN DON'T WALK OUT OF THAT GYM!!!

This.

Azdak

It's actually best to walk, then jog, then walk, then job...the change in pace increases your metabolism and burns more calories. I'm doing the C25K with my hubby, and we have a 1 mile route mapped out in our neighborhood, and we just use that. We don't have to pay any gym fees! Since I started doing C25K two weeks ago, I've lost about 5 pounds (with eating better, too.)

No, it doesn't do that either. Walk/jog programs are excellent for improving fitness, increasing endurance, and helping newbies improve their ability to run. But walk/jog programs do not "increase metabolism" any more than any other type of exercise and do not burn more calories than continuous running.

Banks01

funny thing - my HRM goes crazy with climbing numbers when I'm running on the dreadmill and stays the same at a brisk walk.

That sign - not so accurate. The second part is ok though

Now if you had an iFit Dreadmill that constantly changes speeds and inclines over the course of the workout, that'll burn a ton more than just the walk, but still wont be close to running.


Run forrreesssstttttt

sjohnny

Unrelated to the treadmill thing but all this walking/running/walkrunning got me curious so I looked back over my stuff. As someone who has recently gone from walking, through an 8 week walking/running to 5k program and am now running three days a week I have records of all my workouts throughout all of this stuff.

11/10/11 - Walking - 3.07 miles, 43 minutes, 321 Cal
12/7/11 - Run/Walk - 3.05 miles, 35 minutes, 433 Cal
3/3/11 - Run - 3.1 miles, 26 minutes, 478 Cal
3/5/11 - Run - 4.62 miles, 43 minutes, 735 Cal

For me, at a given distance, I burn more calories running for a shorter period of time than I do walking or running/walking. In a given time, I burn a lot more calories running a longer distance than I do walking.

I'll take the more calories for shorter time.

Azdak

There is some sense in the advice. It's very hard to walk at say 5mph and feels more natural to jog at that pace. This is because it's more energy efficient to run at 5mph than walk 5mph. There is a crossing point where running or walking at a certain pace will burn the same number of calories per unit time.

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

There is both truth and untruth in that article. Unfortunately it is sloppily written and bases its conclusions on a 1-person "study" performed by someone who has shown in his 40 years of writing about running that he is not the most perceptive guy in the world.

For every individual, there is a "break point" at which the oxygen cost of walking begins to exceed the oxygen cost of running at the same speed. That is indeed because walking at very fast speeds is mechanically less efficient than running at the same speed.

The actual speed will be different for each person and depends on a number of factors. Because of this variability, there are no energy prediction equations for walking speeds faster than 4.2 mph--you can't come up with an equation that is applicable to the entire population.

The biggest problem with Burfoot's little "test" that he uses for his "conclusions" is that he does not account for his lack of habituation with fast-walking or racewalking technique. He concludes that walking at 5.0 burns more calories than running at 5.0 mph because his heart rate was higher. However, he does not account for the fact that he has been running for decades but has only tried fast walking once. Duh--of course heart rate will initially be higher. Fast walking requires a certain proficiency in technique. Until you have mastered that technique, you cannot compare one style to the other--the difference in calorie burn is not due to differences in intensity, it is a transient effect due to being mechanically efficient in one form of movement and not in the other.

The more fundamental problem is something I mentioned earlier. The ability to walk fast is dependent on technique, but also on fitness level. And, there is a physical limit as to how fast one can walk, whereas running has a much higher "ceiling". If one has the fitness level to tolerate, say, walking at 5.5 or 6.0 mph, they almost certainly have the ability to run even faster. Faster than they could ever walk. By running faster, they will burn even more calories and improve fitness level even higher.

Obviously, not everyone wants or needs to run. Some people find that speedwalking or incline walking meets their needs--for both fitness and weight loss. So I am not being negative about those activities. I am also in complete agreement that if you are going to walk, you need to push it to the limit to get the best results. But some of the statements being made about fast walking vs running are (unintentionally) inaccurate.

Azdak

Running on a treadmill breaks them down faster than walking. The toll running takes on those machines is tremendous. That sign is there because the gym owner probably just spent a bunch of money repairing the machine.
It's not about rights, it's about the ever shrinking dollar we all face.

For a quality commercial treadmill, it doesn't really make any difference.

Azdak

This is the problem with private ownership of businesses. If ALL gyms were owned and run by the government we would have standardized rules across all the gyms and no one would be trasumatized by such awful owners!

I HOPE that was sarcasm
:huh:

Your coment, attitude and IP address have been duly noted by the National Security Agency's Re-Education Directorate. Once martial law is declared in 2014 your kind will be made to pay for your your insolence!!

:yawn:

icericcy

I believe for someone that is not used to running and or jogging, walking is the best way to go. Start slow and let your body get used to it as you increase your speed by 0.5 every week or so. Also the owner is right, straight jogging burns less calories then walking with heart rate control and inclines. But only in the beginning.

If I were you I would take a minute to study the machine, it might have a Weight loss program button on it. These alternate between various levels. Each level increases speed and the incline. The best way to go about it is switching every 2 week between levels till you reach level 5. Then wait longer as the incline gets a lot steeper after level 5.

agentscully514

do these calories come from a HRM or from the treadmill?

Unrelated to the treadmill thing but all this walking/running/walkrunning got me curious so I looked back over my stuff. As someone who has recently gone from walking, through an 8 week walking/running to 5k program and am now running three days a week I have records of all my workouts throughout all of this stuff.

11/10/11 - Walking - 3.07 miles, 43 minutes, 321 Cal
12/7/11 - Run/Walk - 3.05 miles, 35 minutes, 433 Cal
3/3/11 - Run - 3.1 miles, 26 minutes, 478 Cal
3/5/11 - Run - 4.62 miles, 43 minutes, 735 Cal

For me, at a given distance, I burn more calories running for a shorter period of time than I do walking or running/walking. In a given time, I burn a lot more calories running a longer distance than I do walking.

I'll take the more calories for shorter time.

sjohnny

HRM. I only run outside. I can't stand treadmills, they bore the *kitten* out of me.

ncole3

Exactly right Jackie Chan.....WHAT????

agentscully514

HRM. I only run outside. I can't stand treadmills, they bore the *kitten* out of me.

just asking because those calories seem high for the distance you're running.

sjohnny

HRM. I only run outside. I can't stand treadmills, they bore the *kitten* out of me.

just asking because those calories seem high for the distance you're running.

I'm 6'4" and 200 pounds. It takes a lot of gas to move a big car.

agentscully514

HRM. I only run outside. I can't stand treadmills, they bore the *kitten* out of me.

just asking because those calories seem high for the distance you're running.

I'm 6'4" and 200 pounds. It takes a lot of gas to move a big car.

ah, ok.
Still I am surprised to see such a significant difference between calories for the same distance.