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

mmapags

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.

What you don't account for in your logic is the effect of EPOC, Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption. There is info on Lyle McDonald's website among other places. The lower your intensity of exercise the less EPOC and vice versa. Walking uses a higher % of fat for fuel. Running or another higher intensity exercise utilzes less fat and more glycogen during exercise. It also has higher EPOC so there continues to be calorie burn for a period afterwards. Both walking and running will burn roughly the same amount of calories per mile, again depending on intensity and fitness of the runner. Running will have high EPOC. Walking will have none. That doesn't make walking bad. It's a great low intensity steady state cardio workout.

For the reasons stated above, the whole "zone" training thing has basically been debunked. Bottom line is do what you like and will continue to gladly do. Just burn some calories and eat well. There are no magic tricks to weight loss and fitness nivana.

onawhymm

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

Great article - thanks!

Micahroni84

I've been doing a trekking routine on the treadmill starting at a 1 incline and a 3 pace and every minute upping my incline until I get to the highest, (15) and upping my pace to 3.9. It definitely burns fat. In 3 weeks I've lost 3 inches off of each of my legs and after tonights weigh in I think I'll have lost another 2pounds doing this routine 6 days a week for one hour each time. Once I get to a 15 incline I go back down 1 incline at a time until I'm back at zero, rest at a 3 pace there for 3 minutes then go again and get this in as many time I can within the hour. I sometimes get some jogging in at the lower paces and inclines too though but not nearly as much as the fast paced walking.

jodyw83

When you run, you will burn more calories since it's a more difficult activity and takes more energy. BUT sometimes if you go at it too hard your body will switch into what we call, anaerobic respiration.. meaning that your body does not have enough oxygen to burn your stored fat for calories, so you won't be losing that extra fat we all want to get rid of. The best way to burn fat with cardio is to do low impact and long duration. You should hit your target heart rate and keep at it for like 45 minutes. That way your body is oxygenated enough to burn that stored fat for energy. I know I mostly walk and I burn a TON of calories! You do have to walk more though!

alli_baba

"Thanks to the Syracuse researchers, we now know the relative NCB of running a mile in 9:30 versus walking the same mile in 19:00. Their male subjects burned 105 calories running, 52 walking; the women, 91 and 43. That is, running burns twice as many net calories per mile as walking. And since you can run two miles in the time it takes to walk one mile, running burns four times as many net calories per hour as walking."

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

an oldy but a goody.

That is super slow walking (barely above 3 mph?) vs. a relatively good pace running (6+ mph). It would be interesting if this study compared burns of a fast walker (@ 4.5 mph) vs. a jogger (@ 5.5 mph). I've been a long-distance runner for 20+ years (started competitively at 14) and have incorporated more fast walking as I have grown older (easier on the joints :-) I haven't noticed any big change in my fitness level as I have decreased running in favor of walking (same distance).

But thanks for posting the article link!

robpett2001

Which one will YOU do most regularly over the coming months and years?

That's the one that will burn more fat....

delco714

True but I guarantee you go at 90% or at full for long periods of time and you'll lose muscle too.

correct! that is your anaerobic zone.. best if done only for minimal periods of time just to help build speed (fast-twitch muscle fibres)...(lactic acid is ickyyy lol. (there are supplements to lower the level during workouts (like beta-alanine)!

you guys are still missing the point more or less.. heart rate is what is important (which is contingent on the overall stress put on your body... from the skeletal muscles, the cardiac muscles and the lungs (respiratory system)...

At a higher cardiac output you're burning more calories (and more from everywhere not just fat).. at lower HR you burn more from fat, but you burn less calories in general. Like I said, there is approx 3500 cal in a pound of fat... so in reality, what will burn the most calories the quickest would be better... but in all, any exercise is better than no exercise and everyone has an ideal cardio workout for their metabolism, athletic ability and so on and so forth (and remember walking at 4.0 mph for someone might put them into a fat burn state where it takes another to run 8.0 mph to get the same zone).. and zones aren't voodoo. They are markers for what is going on in your body on the physiologic level

ahsongbird

Different for everyone I think. Take me for example, I burn wayyy more calories walking fast than I would if I ran, why? Because I would die if I tried running and therefore would not burn anymore calories.

jenboyer

you burn the same amount of calories walking one mile as you will running one mile. Walking will just take you longer.
also, ill just share that my mother in law power walks 10-20 miles everyday (i have to jog next to her to keep up, even uphill) and shes still a big lady. Shes able to maintain her weight but does not lose. Its more social for her..and an addiction.
whatever you do, you have to mix it up.

serenetranquility

Haha, if you live in the hood no excuses, just strap on your vest and you'll get bonus calories for packing a 10lb load

Honestly though, you're right on. Just get moving people quit picking apart everything and just get out there and go.

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.

DannyMussels

I guarentee you if all the fat people that 'walk' around all day at work or at home, ran instead, they'd be a lot less fat.

I'd put $10,000 on it.

meerkat70

When you run, you will burn more calories since it's a more difficult activity and takes more energy. BUT sometimes if you go at it too hard your body will switch into what we call, anaerobic respiration.. meaning that your body does not have enough oxygen to burn your stored fat for calories, so you won't be losing that extra fat we all want to get rid of. The best way to burn fat with cardio is to do low impact and long duration. You should hit your target heart rate and keep at it for like 45 minutes. That way your body is oxygenated enough to burn that stored fat for energy. I know I mostly walk and I burn a TON of calories! You do have to walk more though!

evidence please?

paulasue145

but doesn't walking keep your hate rate during "fat burning zone?"

Freudian slip?

Walking, and exercise in general, lowers my hate rate. i'm Much less likely to lose control and hurt someone! hahahahaha

Shock_Wave

TOPIC

WALKING burns more fat than running?

You can call it Murphy’s Law, but the promise of greater fat oxidation seen during and in the early postexercise periods of lower intensity cardio disappears when the effects are measured over 24 hours. Melanson’s research team was perhaps the first to break the redundancy of studies that only compared effects within a few hours postexercise [5]. In a design involving an even mix of lean, healthy men & women aged 20-45, identical caloric expenditures of 40% VO2 max was compared with 70% VO2 max. Result? No difference in net fat oxidation between the low & high-intensity groups at the 24 hr mark.

Have a nice day. :drinker:

http://www.thebodygenesis.com/myths-under-the-microscope-part-1-the-low-intensity-fat-burning-zone/

labwalker

I do both walking and running. Running definately burns more calories.

Shock_Wave

I do both walking and running. Running definately burns more calories.

You mean running just burns calories faster than walking...But this is kind of obvious and off the topic question.

Hoakiebs

Most of my 50+ lb. loss came from walking, I just recently started running, but in 60-120 min. Sessions, usually around 90-100 mins.

snookumss

Seriously....

this is what the famous issue is with fat burning zones.

You need to burn 3500 calories extra to burn a pound of fat.

If you walk, you'll burn WAY fewer calories than you run but apparently a little bit less of a percentage of the calories you burn come from fat.

This makes people think they'll burn MORE fat by walking in general.
Nope.

BOLO4Hagtha

I guarentee you if all the fat people that 'walk' around all day at work or at home, ran instead, they'd be a lot less fat.

I'd put $10,000 on it.

You are comparing small space (home/work cubicle) as opposed to an endless loop that can be adjusted in speed and height (treadmill) or a park (could be hills, etc.). Also do you really have enough space to run in your house/work space?!

JoolieW68

Last night I used my HRM and walked 4.5-4.8mph at a 5.5% incline. My HRM said I burned 148 calories for 1 mile.

On the flip side, when I RUN at 6mph, I burn about 120 calories.

So..... walking DOES burn more calories than running IF YOU INCREASE YOUR INTENSITY when walking. Strolling does not count.

iplayoutside19

The amount of fat you burn during workout doesn't matter. 1. Unless you're an endurance person I doubt you went long enough to burn all the glycogen in your muscles for the body to start burning fat for fuel in the first place. 2. Even if you did, once you got done and ate something your body would put it back in 24 hours. 3. If you don't eat right this ceases to matter.

If you're skeptial do your own experiment: Here is what you do. Today go run a mile. Tomorrow go walk a mile. (outside, over the same mile) If you have an HRM even better. Then ask yourself which was the better workout?

Even though running is the better work out it's not for everyone. I know several people who reached their goals walking. There is no need for fitness snobbery, this process is difficult as it is.

kbanzhaf

I've lost -- and kept off -- all of my weight by walking. Upwards of 25-30 miles a week, but walking nonetheless. Never been a runner, probably never will be.
Kaye

JoolieW68

There is no need for fitness snobbery, this process is difficult as it is.

Amen.

dane11235813

Last night I used my HRM and walked 4.5-4.8mph at a 5.5% incline. My HRM said I burned 148 calories for 1 mile.

On the flip side, when I RUN at 6mph, I burn about 120 calories.

So..... walking DOES burn more calories than running IF YOU INCREASE YOUR INTENSITY when walking. Strolling does not count.

when are you publishing this study Doctor?

_Schatzi_

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

This was the article that I was going to recommend as well.

I would recommend determining your target heart rate zones. As the article explains- it's actually your oxygen consumption that determines how many calories you burn. But since there is not way to measure that without a lot of big expensive equipment, monitoring your heart rate is the next best thing.

Go here: http://www.freedieting.com/tools/target_heart_rate.htm
You will find out your maximum heart rate (220 minus your age) and your target heart rate zones.

You burn the MOST calories when operating at 90% of your maximum heart rate. This is the anaerobic zone, and the one you hit when you are working so hard that you are breathing heavy and couldn't have a conversation with someone. It's hard work, and a lot of people incorporate interval training into their cardio, working at a lower heart rate, then pushing up to 90%, then lowering the heart rate, then repeating.

So runners usually need more oxygen and have a higher heart rate- but it really depends on the level of exertion FOR THEM PERSONALLY. The more fit you become, the harder it is to get to 90%, because your body adapts over time.

This is how you can see runners going along chatting with one another. Their heart rate is below 90%. But if I tried to run, I would hit 90% really fast, because it's very difficult for me. So, even though we are both running, I would be burning more calories because my heart rate and oxygen consumption are higher than the runners who are acclimated to the effort.

So forget the runner/walker thing! Invest in a heart rate monitor with a chest strap and do what you can to increase your heart rate to sustain an elevated heart rate between 75% and 89%, and periodically bust out the 90% to turn your body into a calorie incineration machine!

For more info on the fat burning benefits of reaching 90% of your maximum heart rate, google High-Intesity Training (HIIT)!

cleavagefurrow

With light to moderate activity (such as walking), your body will use your fat reserves for energy. For high intensity activity (such as running), your body will use the calories you just ate as energy.

JoolieW68

Last night I used my HRM and walked 4.5-4.8mph at a 5.5% incline. My HRM said I burned 148 calories for 1 mile.

On the flip side, when I RUN at 6mph, I burn about 120 calories.

So..... walking DOES burn more calories than running IF YOU INCREASE YOUR INTENSITY when walking. Strolling does not count.

when are you publishing this study Doctor?

I just did. On the interweb. So it must be true.

cherbapp

I lost 53 pounds walking for 99% of my exercise. I can't run for more than 30 seconds without dying...lol...actually when I attempt to run, my distance is cut in half for that day.

That being said, this is not strolling...this is minimum 3.5 mph, outside and super hilly...always crazy windy here too. So it's quite a workout to go 3 miles.

Inside I walk at 3.8 or 4 on the treadmill at a minimum incline.

I read that distance is calories...generally a mile burns about 100 calories no matter how you do it on your feet...walk or run...and when you plug the numbers into MFP, for instance 20 min at 3.0 or 10 min at 6.0 they come out nearly the same in calories. So I go for distance over speed.

Still...someday I wanna be able to RUN 3 miles straight.

skippysells

Frank Shorter said regarding the Indy Mini, at least from a calory standpoint, you'll burn about 100 calories per mile if you run or walk.

Mrs16

I walk on a treadmill ( varying levels of incline and speed) I have lost 6 lbs since Apr 5.