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

Options
13567…14

Replies

  • d2footballJRC
    d2footballJRC Posts: 2,684 Member
    Options
    Imagine how much I burn when I'm just moving my bowels!

    Man, can you keep the trolling to the Chit Chat. That is pretty much one of the unwritten rules of respect ;-)

    Trolls =

    Chit Chat
    Misc
    Etc sections.
  • Peta22
    Peta22 Posts: 377 Member
    Options
    is "fat burning zone" a real thing? It always seems like the weight loss programs on cardio machines are way easier than anything else. Doest it make you burn more fat to do a hard workout? I dont understand

    This ^ ... I've often wondered how the whole 'fat burning zone' vs 'fitness' works in relation to weight management...

    Although, maybe I answered the question myself when I lost nothing after 3wks of 30DS??? :ohwell:
  • sheryllamb72
    sheryllamb72 Posts: 163 Member
    Options
    'scuse me folks...walker here!
    I can walk at a rate of 4 mph (sometimes 3.7), for 60 minutes (or longer).
    MY "running" I can only manage at 5 mph for 30 minutes(at best).

    I ALWAYS burn more when I walk~

    *like*
  • GasMasterFlash
    GasMasterFlash Posts: 2,206 Member
    Options
    Imagine how much I burn when I'm just moving my bowels!
    But you burn more if you do it while running than while walking.
    Burns more when I eat red chile too.
  • prov31jd
    prov31jd Posts: 153 Member
    Options
    http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

    Loved this article. VERY interesting!
  • Peta22
    Peta22 Posts: 377 Member
    Options
    I burn a lot of calories thinking about how boring running is

    Lol... So true! :laugh:
  • dane11235813
    dane11235813 Posts: 684 Member
    Options
    please lock this thread down quick. there's so much bad info on here it's not even funny.
  • dunlunicor
    dunlunicor Posts: 189 Member
    Options
    Well, I'm more likely to walk at a decent pace for three hours than I am to jog, slowly, for 15 minutes. So it's about motivation, too. For me, walking burns more just because I don't despise it so much.
  • LilynEdensmom
    LilynEdensmom Posts: 612 Member
    Options
    I've lost 10 pounds and 90% of my work out is me walking while running and jogging burns more calories, walking burns some and is a great starting exercise, or if you are like me really really out of shape with a bad back.
  • Chipmaniac
    Chipmaniac Posts: 642 Member
    Options
    Same number of calories per mile whether you walk or run. But here's the thing. You can probably walk 2 miles in 30 minutes and run 3 or even more. So for 30 minutes of effort, you will burn more by running.

    This is a misconception. Do some research and you will see it's not true.
    Which part? When you are talking about the gross amount of energy required to propel a person of weight X Y number of feet, that number is the same no matter how you do it. However, efficiency does come into play. For instance, a bicycle increases a human being's efficiency many fold.

    We have a gate designed for walking, thus running is less efficient and uses more calories per unit distance than walking, but I think the difference isn't huge. For laymen's purposes, they can be thought of as equivalent.
  • Elzecat
    Elzecat Posts: 2,916 Member
    Options
    No idea where your article came from since there was no citation, so without knowing whether it is a reputable source...I don't know whether the "claims" are true. I can only give my personal experience-- that I burn more calories running than I do walking, (having worn a heart rate monitor while walking and running to compare the numbers) but when I first started running I could only run for 15-30 seconds, I could walk for a lot longer...so I burned a lot more calories walking at that point.

    When I run, I burn on average 100 calories every 10 minutes, more if I am doing speedwork (high intensity interval drills). Walking...quite a bit less. I prefer running to walking. However, a lot of people on this thread have obviously seen some great success by "just" walking...why not try both and see what you think? :)
  • manda1002
    manda1002 Posts: 178 Member
    Options
    My husband always tells me that the best thing is to walk fast enough that you feel like you want to run. Then walk that fast for awhile, then run, then slow down to the fast walk again.

    Either way, getting off the couch and doing ANYTHING is better than sitting on the couch. Do what you find less boring.
  • faithstephenson
    faithstephenson Posts: 280 Member
    Options
    I do not run. My knees just can not handle it. I walk as quickly as I can sustain for an hour to an hour and a half. Right now, if I'm outside walking a long trail, that's about 3.75-4 mph. I walk and do other aerobic workouts, as well as weights in the past (no longer a gym member). I figure as many different kinds of workouts as you can reasonably do with regularity is a good idea. If you like to run, and you just want to know what will burn the most fat, then the example of the math is correct (60% of 100 cals<40% of 200 cals), so go with running. If you would rather walk and are afraid it will be pointless, it's not. Just push yourself reasonably, so you don't get injured and can be consistent.
  • Chiclet26
    Chiclet26 Posts: 16
    Options
    It's all about the fat burning zone. Walking keeps you there longer but lower calories but more of those calories are fat. Running your heart rate is higher and you burn more calories but a % of those calories are fat is lower. That is why HIIT spurts is far superior than running or walking.


    Exactly!
  • ErikaNichele
    ErikaNichele Posts: 46
    Options
    It's all about the fat burning zone. Walking keeps you there longer but lower calories but more of those calories are fat. Running your heart rate is higher and you burn more calories but a % of those calories are fat is lower. That is why HIIT spurts is far superior than running or walking.

    This is the answer right here ^^^^^. Also as you lose weight and get more fit it takes more activity to raise your heart rate. The heart rate of someone 250 lbs walking 3 mph may just be the same as someone 120 lbs running at 6 mph. it depends on your body type and what your target heart rate is...
  • Nigerianebony
    Nigerianebony Posts: 182 Member
    Options
    I think the term "Fat Burning Zone" should be eliminated. What we should be saying is "fat utilization rate. For me, at a running pace (about 150 bpm), fat/sugar ratio is 60/40. I burn 6 calories of fat for every 10 calories I burn. So if i was walking, I would have to probably walk for 4-6 hour to burn the same amount if i ran for one hour. Even at around 180 bpm, i burn about 4 calories to every 10 calories. You can train your body to utilize more fat. This is why marathon runners are lean. So if you decide to start running, your body will adjust to "ütilize more fat at a higher heart rate.
  • CoffeeNBooze
    CoffeeNBooze Posts: 966 Member
    Options
    Well, I burn way more walking to be honest and I don't have pain in my joints from running anymore. Walking is way more effective for me personally. It's infuriating to me some "expert" on mfp aka someone who doesn't know any more than anyone else does, would tell you you'd be wasting your time walking. Find what works for you. Longevity is also key.
  • Serah87
    Serah87 Posts: 5,481 Member
    Options
    I walk and lost 39 pounds!!!!
  • dawnagetsfit
    dawnagetsfit Posts: 81
    Options
    There's really different types of walking so by "walking" comparison alone, it's not very accurate.

    I can walk on my treadmill for 60 minutes with my HR at the beginning of my zone, not even break a sweat and only burn about 300 calories. This is "casual" walking (I do on my off days) and during this time I can carry on conversations and drink from my water bottle with ease.

    Or I can walk for 60 minutes with my HR at the top of my zone, unable to really drink or talk more than a few words, sweat dripping off me and burn more than double the amount of calories.

    It's not just about "walking", it about HOW you walk and where your HR is.

    Incline walking is also phenomenal - helps to get your HR up there, as opposed to just walking faster, and really gives your muscles an awesome workout.
  • secretlobster
    secretlobster Posts: 3,566 Member
    Options

    We have a gate designed for walking, thus running is less efficient and uses more calories per unit distance than walking, but I think the difference isn't huge. For laymen's purposes, they can be thought of as equivalent.

    It's "gait". And your point about efficiency is true, but it doesn't really come into play here. When you consider a ratio of calories burned over time, running wins hands down. When you are doing an activity that takes more effort, you burn more calories when the TIME you spend doing it remains constant.

    It has nothing to do with distance and everything to do with time.

Categories