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

indiepops

well ive been doing leslie sansone walking the lbs off and im losing quite nicely, i suppose it depends what you want from your workout. walking, or power walking is great for your heart and less impact on your knees, docs even promote 30 mins of walking a day for fitness x

pholbert

I have lost weight walking. I have a job that I do alot of walking and I take an evening walk. I am 55 yrs old, I am not planning on turning into an athlete. Moving burns calories. So do what is right for you.

secretlobster

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

Thanks for your... petulant response, but I'm talking about the original post, not people who decided to talk about something else.

Sarauk2sf

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.

Actually, you burn calories more running - but you are more likely to be more efficient at 'burning fat' walking.

SuffolkSally

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.

I might be wrong because there are so many posts on MFP... but I do recall quite recently a lady posting saying the best she could do (she was quite a bit over her goal weight and had serious health problems) was to walk every day, and her husband/ partner had told her it was a waste of time as she'd never lose weight that way. Cue the obvious angry and supportive messages in return. I think it's likely this is where that's come from - lord knows some MFP members can be complete *~~~?**?!!!***& ^^^^~~***~" at times, but I can't believe that anyone who was signed up to this journey themselves would dismiss walking as a waste of time.

Nigerianebony

We should not get fat calories and total calories (fat and sugar) confused. All people are different. Some people burn more "fat"calories with walking and some burn just as much with running. It is how you train your body to utilize fat.

SassyCalyGirl

a lower heart rate= fat burning mode (should be 60%-70% )

chris1816

This entire thread and all the unnecessary responses.

F*cking physics, jesus christ.

If a metabolic function demands more energy to be executed what the flying *kitten* do you think happens?

GasMasterFlash

The “Fat Burning Zone” On Trial: http://alanaragon.com/myths-under-the-microscope-the-fat-burning-zone-fasted-cardio.html

MissMollieD

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 correct. Work = energy expenditure = kilocalories burned. Not duration, not speed. So if you walk a mile or run a mile, you should burn about the same amount of calories. Except if you run, you will do it a lot faster!

Chipmaniac

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

Thanks for your... petulant response, but I'm talking about the original post, not people who decided to talk about something else.

You responded to me, not the OP. You thought that was petulant? You haven't seen me petulant.

I'll make it simpler:

Walking (on the flat): Burns less calories than running per unit time, burns a little bit less calories than running per unit distance
Running (on the flat): Burns more calories than walking per unit time, burns a little bit more calories than running per unit distance

If you want the most calorie burn for a set period of time, then either run or walk and crank up the incline if on a treadmill. If you don't care about the amount of time it takes, then you can walk slower/less incline for a longer period of time and burn the same amount of calories you would have burned running for a shorter time. Either way, fat burn percentage doesn't really matter.

SuffolkSally

This entire thread and all the unnecessary responses.

F*cking physics, jesus christ.

If a metabolic function demands more energy to be executed what the flying *kitten* do you think happens?

Like I just said;

"lord knows some MFP members can be complete *~~~?**?!!!***& ^^^^~~***~" at times"

Couldn't you go and read something that annoys you less, or are you just trying to raise your heart rate?

Cliffslosinit

This entire thread and all the unnecessary responses.

F*cking physics, jesus christ.

If a metabolic function demands more energy to be executed what the flying *kitten* do you think happens?

^^^well let's just throw logic into the mix!!

Sidesteal

Worrying about how much fat you burn while running is like worrying about how much muscle you built while lifting weights.

^^^By this I mean results come from the cumulative effect of training and diet over days/weeks/months, rather than what might be going on while you're training.

Bumping this answer.

fieldsy4life

I don't think any of us should be concerned with what burns more fat and what spares more muscle until we get to lower body fat percentages.

Here's what I recommend to my friends.

Do you love running? Great! Do it and do a lot of it. Just make sure you EAT MORE CARBS to fuel your endurance training sessions and give your muscles the glycogen needed to refuel so you can continue running regularly.

But what if you're like me and hate running? Does this mean I'll never hit single digit bodyfat percentage? Most people on MFP think you need some crazy 2000 calorie a day deficit by combining running, a fitness DVD, and cleaning your house with a 1,000 calorie a day diet. That's bananas if you ask me.

Do what you enjoy doing because you'll be more consistent. Most people set ridiculous goals like waking up at 4am to go for a 5 mile run - that lasts 2 days.

But what about eating healthier and going for an evening stroll while enjoying some music after a long day in the office - that is what I would recommend. It's the summertime, and unless you live in the hood, it'll be a great way to get outside, get some fresh air, and relax. Who cares how many calories it burns - if you're not eating garbage, the weight will drop slowly, steadily, and sustainably.

Or you could run; but if you're gonna run, eat like a runner!

Just my two cents.

chris1816

This entire thread and all the unnecessary responses.

F*cking physics, jesus christ.

If a metabolic function demands more energy to be executed what the flying *kitten* do you think happens?

Like I just said;

"lord knows some MFP members can be complete *~~~?**?!!!***& ^^^^~~***~" at times"

Couldn't you go and read something that annoys you less, or are you just trying to raise your heart rate?

Yes.

nikkiprickett

definitely running!
it all depends on heart rate--the higher your heart rate the more cals you burn...your heart rate gets higher running than
walking therefore you burn more

vabchloser

Yes, you can lose weight with walking. I've lost 80 lbs over the last 5 years and the first 40 came off with just walking and diet. I could not run at that point, nor could I jog.

Now that I can run, I choose to do both. Walking one day, running the next. The walking days keep me from hating my workouts. The running days burn calories and that's the only reason I do it.

delco714

you need to get your heart rate up to 60-80% of max for an extended period of time to really burn..

So if we want to compare walking to running, what's going to get your heart rate up and burn calories faster?

remember 3500cal in a 1 of fat.

Maybe that person who told you confused how walking is better for your joints