Whoa.. what? WALKING burns more fat than running?

carrieo888

My understanding is that you burn based on mileage. You burn the same amount walking a mile as you would running a mile, you just do it faster when you run. I could be wrong.

That said, yes, I lost my first 20 lbs strictly through walking. About 20 miles a week.

songbyrdsweet

Interesting info on study of energy consumption during the walk to running range. Nice chart still on site.
So if you want more calorie burn per mile, do NOT walk 3.5 mph on avg, faster or slower is more inefficient.

http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html




Walking approximately 5.6 km/h (3.5 mph) is the most efficient speed. Running efficiency appears to taper off at higher speeds.

Transitioning from walking to running requires an increase of energy unlike once speculated. The primary stimulus for the transition from walking to running [Preferred Transition Speed (PTS)] is prompted by the perceived or imminent fatigue and discomfort in the tibialis anterior and other dorsal flexion muscle of the ankle (Hreljac 1995, Prilutshy et al 2001).

Usain Bolt was the fasted human on record during the 100 meter sprint at 44.72 km/h (27.79 mph). That was the average speed between the 60th and the 80th meter.

Calories calculated from regression formulas adapted by ACSM (ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription). See Walk/Run Metabolic Calculator based on these formulas.

Haha, how do you WALK 5MPH?? I can barely run that for long distances! :laugh:

_Amy_Budd

I believe that OP's question is has anyone lost weight by walking... and yes. Absolutely yes. I walked for months before I was able to run, and I lost quite a lot of weight doing so.

As others here have mentioned, it's about duration. Go for LONG walks. I've spent many a weekend day with a good friend, both of us with our dogs on leashes, walking around Central Park and talking - for hours. Literally 3 or 4 hours each time. Now, obviously I don't have that kind of time every day, but I can find the time for that once every couple of weeks. Otherwise, on walking exercise days (which I still do at least twice weekly), I go for about an hour. Sometimes 53 minutes (like today), sometimes an hour and 15... I just really want to spend somewhere around an hour with my heart rate up. And I don't power walk - I walk at an easy, moderate pace. (The Primal Blueprint - which I follow - calls it Moving Frequently at a Slow Pace, and recommends that you get 3-5 hours of it a week.)

Really, walking is a great group activity. I do it with friends, with my kids, with my boyfriend... We talk, sometimes take photos... It's great for the mind and spirit as well as the body.


Amy

Taylerr88

diet will burn fat. not cardio...

if you need a small amount of energy burned to get a deficit then walking.. if you have mad munchies everyday.. then running.

firesoforion

Higher percent of fat burned, less overall fat burned, that said, walking is *awesome.* Personally for me, I find that I can maintain my heart rate better at the exact optimal rate when walking, too, whereas running will take it up very high, and I'll have to walk to let it come down again, which I'd assume causes a difference in calories burned. Plus you can go up hills and have an intensity boost, or just lift your knees a little higher and cause a serious increase in intensity. The best weight loss I've ever experienced was using walking, and I maintained it doing walking, simply out of necessity but it was great.

So yeah, running burns more fat and calories, but phooey on anyone who thinks walking isn't a real form of exercise, certainly you have to do serious walking and not just a leisurely stroll, but walking is great.

FrugalMomsRock75

When I walk, I walk at a pace that keeps my HR somewhere between 75% and 80% of my MHR. I also mix it up a lot--I do elliptical, arc, stationary biking, swimming, walking, running, and heavy lifting. As far as walking ALONE--I don't know. I just use it to boost and/or vary my current regimen.

PrincessMom08

I've been doing a little reading on zones and here's what I can understand so far. Being 60-80% of your max heart rate burns a higher percentage of fat than anaerobic exercise which is 90-100% of your max heart rate. Being in anaerobic zone you tend to burn more calories, but less from fat. Staying in the aerobic zone burns more calories from stored fat. Not sure if I quoted this right but in my head it makes sense lol

BrianSharpe

My understanding is that you burn based on mileage. You burn the same amount walking a mile as you would running a mile, you just do it faster when you run. I could be wrong.

No, you burn way more calories running. When you consider "net" calories it's close to double.

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

I've been doing a little reading on zones and here's what I can understand so far. Being 60-80% of your max heart rate burns a higher percentage of fat than anaerobic exercise which is 90-100% of your max heart rate. Being in anaerobic zone you tend to burn more calories, but less from fat. Staying in the aerobic zone burns more calories from stored fat. Not sure if I quoted this right but in my head it makes sense lol

The fat burning zone is about 60 to 70% of your maxHR and burns a higher proportion of calories from fat but burns way fewer calories than in the training zone (70% to 80%) or higher (and you still burn fat for fuel). The fat burning zone is best forgotten.

jsuaccounting

You will burn more calories running but walking has some special advantages with reducing stress hormones. Many people have lost a ton of weight just walking.

thelovelyLIZ

Walking and running burn a similar amount of calories per a mile, running is simply more time efficient. I can cover three miles in 30 minutes running, whereas it takes me about half an hour to walk a mile.

I have heard walking burns more fat, but I'm not sure how true it is. Something with lower stress on your body of muscle breaking down less than when you're doing high intensity aerobic exercise. Not sure how much truth there is to that. Walk can definitely be a great for of exercise though.

mfpcopine

I believe that OP's question is has anyone lost weight by walking... and yes. Absolutely yes. I walked for months before I was able to run, and I lost quite a lot of weight doing so.

I love to walk, but i don't lose weight from walking. One summer, I walked home almost every day from work, a distance of over two miles. I lost no weight and my calves didn't even get firm. If I need to lose weight and firm my calves, I run or do calf lifts with dumbbells.

RobinvdM

I have lost 66 pounds (so far) and all I do is walk.

An article I read recently indicated that walking 1 mile burns the same calories as running 1 mile. True or not, I can't be sure- but I know walking causes less stress to my knees and upper chest, which also means my back

When I started back at the end of January, all I did was walk my dog, for 1 hour. Every day. I pushed myself as fast as I could go (which back then wasn't very fast.) I have since managed to get my speed to an average of 3.7mph, depending on terrain and was putting in 20k steps regularly on my FitBit pedometer. Now I am back up to 6 miles a day(had to have surgery 3 weeks ago- really crimps your mileage.)

I think running is overrated. If you want to invest an hour into walking, pushing yourself to go at a fast pace then do so. If you like the idea of jogging, then go for it! It's your workout you are doing. The more important thing is watching what you eat, paying attention to keeping your body fueled up, without drowning it in junk. Also. Drink loads.

Good luck!!:flowerforyou:

meerkat70

In what sense is running 'overrated', and on what evidence are you basing such a claim?

meerkat70

My understanding is that you burn based on mileage. You burn the same amount walking a mile as you would running a mile, you just do it faster when you run. I could be wrong.

No, you burn way more calories running. When you consider "net" calories it's close to double.

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

I've been doing a little reading on zones and here's what I can understand so far. Being 60-80% of your max heart rate burns a higher percentage of fat than anaerobic exercise which is 90-100% of your max heart rate. Being in anaerobic zone you tend to burn more calories, but less from fat. Staying in the aerobic zone burns more calories from stored fat. Not sure if I quoted this right but in my head it makes sense lol

The fat burning zone is about 60 to 70% of your maxHR and burns a higher proportion of calories from fat but burns way fewer calories than in the training zone (70% to 80%) or higher (and you still burn fat for fuel). The fat burning zone is best forgotten.

And again with the echo....

CassieReannan

I have only walked for my exercise since started MFP and have lost 8kg.. So yes, it can.

Articeluvsmemphis

just move your body, all exercise is effective. diet is more important for weight loss anyway

Marks281172

Walk till you can run.... then do both for fun

BeautyFromPain

You burn more calories running flat down but more fat walking because of the oxygen being pumped through the body properly. Whereas high intensity exercise burns more carbs

BrianSharpe

I believe that OP's question is has anyone lost weight by walking... and yes. Absolutely yes. I walked for months before I was able to run, and I lost quite a lot of weight doing so.

The OP was also questioning the assertion that one burns more fat walking than running which, judging by many of the ill-informed responses, is something that's fundamentally misunderstood by a great many people.

meerkat70

You burn more calories running flat down but more fat walking because of the oxygen being pumped through the body properly. Whereas high intensity exercise burns more carbs

If you read through the thread, you'll find the reasons this is oversimplified and inaccurate explained several times...