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

Jellyphant

please lock this thread down quick. there's so much bad info on here it's not even funny.

Please enlighten us, o great one.

Seriously. I want to know the answer.

Fubar_Bill

Whatever you choose, make sure it is something that you can keep up.

The more time you put into it the better.

If you only have 30 minutes, then run.

If you have a couple of hours, then walk.

If you don't feel like doing either, then promise yourself 20 minutes of walking and then increase either the speed or the time as you feel more comfortable.

Like the add says, "Just Do It!'

SuffolkSally

Of course running for 1/2 hour burns more than walking for 1/2 hour.

It depends on what you enjoy and what you are capable of, different things suit different people.

I walk at least a couple of miles every day, often five, and it does burn calories and increase fitness. It certainly isn't a waste of time - try walking ten miles on rough terrain and then saying you don't feel you've done any exercise...

Nowhere near as fast as running, but it's good enough for me and helping me lose weight. When I've tried running or jogging outside I haven't enjoyed it - I'm building up little bits of treadmill/cross trainer use in the gym to burn some extra calories but at the moment I can only manage 10 mins or so!

amj3303

I have read that walking is just as good as running but with running you do cover more distance and will burn a bit more I think..
EITHER WAY.. Before I had my daughter I started working on losing weight. I lost 20 lbs from just WALKING!!!!! and of course changed my eating just a bit actually not even counting calories.. and so you CAN lose weight with walking at a very fast pace.. I still do it now as part of my cardio and I am losing plenty of weight but I do other things as well because well after sometimes I had to change it up!

KellyKAG

Wearing HRM on my treadmill I burn as much walking as quickly as I can maintain (4.0) on an incline for 30 minutes than running a steady jog (5.5) for 30 minutes.

Chipmaniac

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.

Yes, when you are normalizing for time. However, some people are talking about distance. Normalizing for distance, they are roughly equivalent with running still burning more due to inefficiencies in the human pelvis.

weighlossforbaby

I walk all the time. There is NO way I will ever run in my life! :P

heybales

What's great about the walking too, since it's mainly fat burning, is it doesn't need to be totally eaten back.

Isn't that where the deficit is created? By not feeding activities that are drawing from fat.

Keep it slow enough, it's just more daily activity, which you aren't feeding anyway probably.

Unless you are doing incline and totally getting the HR up there, which you can easily match running HR then.

secretlobster

Yes, when you are normalizing for time. However, some people are talking about distance. Normalizing for distance, they are roughly equivalent with running still burning more due to inefficiencies in the human pelvis.

But normalizing for distance doesn't make sense if you're looking at an efficient way to burn calories.

TexanThom

You don't "Burn" fat. You shrink the fat cells is all you do.

Perisylpha

A friend of mine walks her dogs two or three times a day and she's lost over 80lbs in the past nine months from doing that...but then where we live is very hilly.

chuisle

Read this: http://members.rachelcosgrove.com/public/The_Final_Nail_in_the_Cardio_Coffin.cfm


"But They Call It The "Fat Burning Zone"

During a steady-state workout (when you move at the same pace for a certain amount of time), your body does burn a higher percentage of calories from fat. This is where that "fat burning zone" myth comes from. On the surface, it sounds like you're burning more fat calories.

There are two big problems with this.

1: As I explained earlier, you burn fewer total calories as your body adapts. So even if you're burning a higher percentage of fat, you aren't burning as many calories overall. It's like winning 80% of a Lotto jackpot. It sounds good until you realize that the jackpot is just fifty bucks.

2: Your body actually becomes efficient at storing fat. Since you're now burning fat as your primary source of fuel, your body adapts and becomes very good at storing fat. Blame it on a dumb self-preservation mechanism built into the body's operating system."

carld256

Of course running burns more calories than walking for the same amount of time. That's a given. But the idea that lower intensity walking causes the body to burn more fat while higher intensity running burns more sugar does make some sense.

In the end it probably doesn't make that much difference how you burn your calories as long as you burn them, though I expect intense cardio, if you can do it, has heart benefits just walking does not.

michelle_00

Your article pretty much says it.... Walking is great exercise IMO but running burns more calories, doesn't matter if they are calories from fat or calories from carbs....

joejccva71

I suggest a lot of you read this as well as getting Lyle's "The Stubborn Fat Solution" book. You might pleasantly surprised.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/fasted-cardio-and-fat-loss-qa.html

SofaKingRad

Walking burns a higher percentage of fat calories than running; however, you burn more when running. Why? Because let's use simple math. Say you walk for an hour and burn 300 calories and say 60 percent of them were fat. That is 180 fat calories burned. Now, lets say you ran for 60 minutes and burn 800 calories, but only 40 percent of them were fat. You end up burning 320 calories of fat. So in one hour, you burned more fat calories running than you did walking.

Those are just example numbers to show how you burn more running. I have no clue what the actual numbers would be.

debzeeU2

*read later*

Chipmaniac

Yes, when you are normalizing for time. However, some people are talking about distance. Normalizing for distance, they are roughly equivalent with running still burning more due to inefficiencies in the human pelvis.

But normalizing for distance doesn't make sense if you're looking at an efficient way to burn calories.

That's how a lot of people think about it. Don't like it? Take it up with them.

Personally, my favorite treadmill routine is to do walking/running intervals. I walk on the flat at 4.5 MPH for 2 minutes followed by 2 minutes of running at 6.5 - 7.0 MPH on a 3 degree incline. I keep this up for an hour and I burn 850 - 920 calories in that hour. In the hard interval, my heart rate gets up to 165 to 170 and on the easy interval it's back down to 120 or even lower. The gap between my max and lowest HR on this routine has increased over time as my fitness has improved. I have no hard evidence but I think this has done more to improve my overall fitness than the other steady-state exercises I do.

Edit: Corrected a typo before the typo police catch it.

runfatmanrun

It's all about time typically. Walking a mile burns roughly the same amount of calories as running a mile does, just in a shorter period of time. Nothing is wrong with walking just remember you get out of it what you put into it. Strolling, unless medically that is all you can do, will not be as beneficial as maintaining a 4mi/hr pace.

carld256

You don't "Burn" fat. You shrink the fat cells is all you do.

Which means you "burned" the fat that was in the cells.