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

joejccva71

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

Lyle says the same thing is his book. There are a lot of different methods.

Currently I do 20 mins of 90-110 cardio in the morning, fasted. Then I'll lift, and then do a 20 min medium intensity 130-140HR cardio after.

On leg day, I'll do 10x15x45 HIIT cardio, 5 min rest, then a steady 20 min 130-140HR. Both Alan and Lyle suggest this method of HIIT but only once or twice a week.

Too much high intensity cardio for too often DOES in fact have it's drawbacks. You'll burn fat but you'll also burn that other type of tissue as well. ;-)

albayin

Walking on a high incline will burn close to the same amount of calories as running.. But general walking will not burn more than running

This...

And also it has to do with distance...

marbly

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.

Definitely this.

Losing weight and maintaining weight loss is a lifelong challenge. There is no point working to the extreme over one or two months or figuring out the optimum weight loss method and then giving up your workout routine after that because you've overtrained or you get a burn out or you cannot find the necessary time anymore to fit in your exercise routine.

Find out what you are comfortable with over a long term period and stick to it. It does not have to be ONLY one method of exercise, you can do several. You can do walks, runs, ellipticals, weights, hiking, cycling, rowing and anything else that takes your fancy and mix up your routine but whatever it is, set aside at least 30 minutes (which I believe is the recommended timeframe) a day for some form of intentional exercise.

Remember that keeping off the weight is all about diet anyway.In the end, whatever exercise you do cannot fix a bad diet.

jonski1968

'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~

This goes for me too..

athensguy

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.

Fewer calories are generally burned per mile while walking than while running, unless you're walking over 5 mph.

It also doesn't really matter what source of energy storage is used during your exercise. If losing more is the goal, burning more calories is better.

Chipmaniac

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.

Fewer calories are burned per mile while walking than while running.

It also doesn't really matter what source of energy storage is used during your exercise. If losing more is the goal, burning more calories is better.

Can you quantify? There is some efficiency loss with running but the extent of which is rather murky and depends on a lot of factors.

lizzzylou

bump for reading later

meerkat70

Walking on a high incline will burn close to the same amount of calories as running.. But general walking will not burn more than running

Unless of course you're *running* on an incline....


Minute for minute, of course running burns more. You're travelling further. But there's also been studies looking at the effect of the differential impact involved in running, which also has an effect on calorie burn. So even mile for mile, running burns more.

And that's before we even start to factor in things like afterburn effects.

I'm afraid that suggesting the two are equivalent, or that walking is more efficient, is wishful thinking. Walking is excellent exercise. However, it isn't running....

meerkat70

Can you quantify? There is some efficiency loss with running but the extent of which is rather murky and depends on a lot of factors.

I don't understand your question.

meerkat70

"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.

albayin

Walking on a high incline will burn close to the same amount of calories as running.. But general walking will not burn more than running

Unless of course you're *running* on an incline....


Minute for minute, of course running burns more. You're travelling further. But there's also been studies looking at the effect of the differential impact involved in running, which also has an effect on calorie burn. So even mile for mile, running burns more.

And that's before we even start to factor in things like afterburn effects.

I'm afraid that suggesting the two are equivalent, or that walking is more efficient, is wishful thinking. Walking is excellent exercise. However, it isn't running....

I guess any exercise is better than no exercise. The problem for some people (at least for me) is that I cannot run much and I hate running. If running was the only way I had to burn calories, I probably won't be able to stick to it and end up not doing it at all. However, I enjoy walking and can't wait to get out and walk about. So? I do more often and over a long haul, I burn more. Am I on the right track?

meerkat70

Albayin, I'm not disputing whether walking is exercise, or indeed good exercise. (Hence my comment 'walking is excellent exercise'.)
If it makes you happy, who am I to quibble with that?

But for people to suggest it's an equally efficient calorie burner as running is simply untrue.

Peppychristian

I make no claims as to which is more effective, but I can say that my weight loss is from walking (& eating better, of course). I never run, but I love to walk and do it as often as possible.

This is me too!

albayin

Albayin, I'm not disputing whether walking is exercise, or indeed good exercise. (Hence my comment 'walking is excellent exercise'.)
If it makes you happy, who am I to quibble with that?

But for people to suggest it's an equally efficient calorie burner as running is simply untrue.

I don't disagree but ...my point is if I can walk 2 hours, 6 miles for example, would that burn the same amount of calories of running 20 minues, 2 miles? I am not sure. I need to compare the number.

meerkat70

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

Unfortunately, of course, in actual weight loss terms, it's been pretty convincingly demonstrated that the whole 'zone' idea is kind of hocum.

joejccva71

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

Unfortunately, of course, in actual weight loss terms, it's been pretty convincingly demonstrated that the whole 'zone' idea is kind of hocum.

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

Chipmaniac

Can you quantify? There is some efficiency loss with running but the extent of which is rather murky and depends on a lot of factors.

I don't understand your question.

Well, the question wasn't asked of you. However, if you must know the question was how much less efficient is running than walking over a set distance? In other words, how much more energy is it going to take for me to run that distance rather than walk that distance. Is it 10% more calories? Is it 50%? Having a number to work with would help quantify things.

Edit: I see that you gave an answer in a later response.

meerkat70

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

Unfortunately, of course, in actual weight loss terms, it's been pretty convincingly demonstrated that the whole 'zone' idea is kind of hocum.

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

Pardon? I'm not sure who you're talking to, or about what activity. (And if you think I've lost muscle, mate, you're welcome to come have a feel of my legs.... )

Does anyone continue at 90% for very long? Or is this another hypothetical maybe type scenario thrown in to muddy what are actually pretty clear waters?

Is anyone *seriously* disputing the idea that running offers a bigger cal burn, both over distance, and over time? Really, really, really?

meerkat70

Can you quantify? There is some efficiency loss with running but the extent of which is rather murky and depends on a lot of factors.

I don't understand your question.

Well, the question wasn't asked of you. However, if you must know the question was how much less efficient is running than walking over a set distance? In other words, how much more energy is it going to take for me to run that distance rather than walk that distance. Is it 10% more calories? Is it 50%? Having a number to work with would help quantify things.

Edit: I see that you gave an answer in a later response.

Well, I am sorry, I was under the impression that I was participating in a public discussion, not a private conversation. My apologies for intruding and asking for clarification.

As to the remainder of your explanation, have you read the Syracuse study?

litatura

I've actually stuck to walking on the treadmill vs. running because I burn way more calories walking than running. Now, I have the incline jacked up to 12% - believe me, it gets the heart rate up and the sweat flowing.