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

sirabe

I've read somewhere that you burn the same amount of calories per the distance. ( ie walking 1 mile burns the same amount of calories as walking 1 mile) just the amount of time it takes to do it is longer

sunnyday789

I believe the rule of thumb is 100 calories burned per mile - walking or running. It's just that you burn it a lot faster if you run.,

Wrong. Running averages approximately 7-10 calories per minute depending on your effort. Walking is about half that.

You will usually get further in the same amount of time if you run, so yes you're right you will burn more per minute.

But energy(calories) expended is mostly a function of mass(weight) X distance. So, the first poster is correct in saying walking or running one mile burns about the same.

And a person that weights 200 pounds will burn more calories walking a mile than a person that weights 150 pounds.

LynneWyre

I think I need to read this ten times to understand it.

malins2

I believe the rule of thumb is 100 calories burned per mile - walking or running. It's just that you burn it a lot faster if you run.,

Wrong. Running averages approximately 7-10 calories per minute depending on your effort. Walking is about half that.

You will usually get further in the same amount of time if you run, so yes you're right you will burn more per minute.

But energy(calories) expended is mostly a function of mass(weight) X distance. So, the first poster is correct in saying walking or running one mile burns about the same.

And a person that weights 200 pounds will burn more calories walking a mile than a person that weights 150 pounds.

I don't agree, because running and walking is not using the same technique and muscles
this is from runnersworld.com
"When you walk, you keep your legs mostly straight, and your center of gravity rides along fairly smoothly on top of your legs. In running, we actually jump from one foot to the other. Each jump raises our center of gravity when we take off, and lowers it when we land, since we bend the knee to absorb the shock. This continual rise and fall of our weight requires a tremendous amount of Newtonian force (fighting gravity) on both takeoff and landing.

Now that you understand why running burns 50 percent more calories per mile than walking, I hate to tell you that it's a mostly useless number. Sorry. We mislead ourselves when we talk about the total calorie burn (TCB) of exercise rather than the net calorie burn (NCB). To figure the NCB of any activity, you must subtract the resting metabolic calories your body would have burned, during the time of the workout, even if you had never gotten off the sofa.

You rarely hear anyone talk about the NCB of workouts, because this is America, dammit, and we like our numbers big and bold. Subtraction is not a popular activity. Certainly not among the infomercial hucksters and weight-loss gurus who want to promote exercise schemes. "It's bizarre that you hear so much about the gross calorie burn instead of the net," says Swain. "It could keep people from realizing why they're having such a hard time losing weight."

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. "

BrianSharpe

I've read somewhere that you burn the same amount of calories per the distance. ( ie walking 1 mile burns the same amount of calories as walking 1 mile) just the amount of time it takes to do it is longer

Sorry, that's mistaken.....see the post above re: net calories burned.

meerkat70

I believe the rule of thumb is 100 calories burned per mile - walking or running. It's just that you burn it a lot faster if you run.,

Wrong. Running averages approximately 7-10 calories per minute depending on your effort. Walking is about half that.

You will usually get further in the same amount of time if you run, so yes you're right you will burn more per minute.

But energy(calories) expended is mostly a function of mass(weight) X distance. So, the first poster is correct in saying walking or running one mile burns about the same.

And a person that weights 200 pounds will burn more calories walking a mile than a person that weights 150 pounds.

I don't agree, because running and walking is not using the same technique and muscles
this is from runnersworld.com
"When you walk, you keep your legs mostly straight, and your center of gravity rides along fairly smoothly on top of your legs. In running, we actually jump from one foot to the other. Each jump raises our center of gravity when we take off, and lowers it when we land, since we bend the knee to absorb the shock. This continual rise and fall of our weight requires a tremendous amount of Newtonian force (fighting gravity) on both takeoff and landing.

Now that you understand why running burns 50 percent more calories per mile than walking, I hate to tell you that it's a mostly useless number. Sorry. We mislead ourselves when we talk about the total calorie burn (TCB) of exercise rather than the net calorie burn (NCB). To figure the NCB of any activity, you must subtract the resting metabolic calories your body would have burned, during the time of the workout, even if you had never gotten off the sofa.

You rarely hear anyone talk about the NCB of workouts, because this is America, dammit, and we like our numbers big and bold. Subtraction is not a popular activity. Certainly not among the infomercial hucksters and weight-loss gurus who want to promote exercise schemes. "It's bizarre that you hear so much about the gross calorie burn instead of the net," says Swain. "It could keep people from realizing why they're having such a hard time losing weight."

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. "

There's an echo in here.

REET420

My doctor said it's good for belly fat. I was exercising and doing lots of cardio and I couldn't lose my gut so I asked her and she told me to keep exercising but go for a walk every day.

mmapags

My doctor said it's good for belly fat. I was exercising and doing lots of cardio and I couldn't lose my gut so I asked her and she told me to keep exercising but go for a walk every day.

I'd get a new doctor, with all due respect. There is nothing, not 1 single thing that target belly fat as opposed to the rest of the fat on your body, The way to get rid of belly fat is to reduce overall body fat %. Plain and simple. I would hope any competent MD would know that!! The whole reduce belly fat thing is a ridiculous myth whenever you hear it.

waldo56

Running is a more efficient use of your time, however walking is low enough impact that you can do a ton of it, absolutely blowing away every other form of exercise when it comes to the amount you can do in a single session if time doesn't matter. Also because of this, you can walk, a lot, every single day with no adverse effects.

Even though I run, strength train, and do yoga, I still find the time to walk 10-15 miles a week. Mostly on my lunch breaks, a way to get out of the office, get some fresh air, and move my legs. Before I could handle a higher workload with more intense exercise, I was walking closer to 30-40 miles a week.

sunnyday789

I don't agree, because running and walking is not using the same technique and muscles
this is from runnersworld.com
"When you walk, you keep your legs mostly straight, and your center of gravity rides along fairly smoothly on top of your legs. In running, we actually jump from one foot to the other. Each jump raises our center of gravity when we take off, and lowers it when we land, since we bend the knee to absorb the shock. This continual rise and fall of our weight requires a tremendous amount of Newtonian force (fighting gravity) on both takeoff and landing.

Now that you understand why running burns 50 percent more calories per mile than walking, I hate to tell you that it's a mostly useless number. Sorry. We mislead ourselves when we talk about the total calorie burn (TCB) of exercise rather than the net calorie burn (NCB). To figure the NCB of any activity, you must subtract the resting metabolic calories your body would have burned, during the time of the workout, even if you had never gotten off the sofa.

You rarely hear anyone talk about the NCB of workouts, because this is America, dammit, and we like our numbers big and bold. Subtraction is not a popular activity. Certainly not among the infomercial hucksters and weight-loss gurus who want to promote exercise schemes. "It's bizarre that you hear so much about the gross calorie burn instead of the net," says Swain. "It could keep people from realizing why they're having such a hard time losing weight."

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. "
[/quote]

Thanks for sharing this. This is why I like MFP, sometimes I learn something!

I had thought that there would be a slight increase with the running but not as much as the Syracuse study showed.

When I started running though it took me about 45 min to run 5k and about 50 min to walk the same 5k. I would think that for people than run slower than 9 1/2 minute miles and walk faster than a 19 min mile, the difference would not be as great?

(edit to add:sorry screwed up on quote thingy, last few parts only is mine)

heybales

My doctor said it's good for belly fat. I was exercising and doing lots of cardio and I couldn't lose my gut so I asked her and she told me to keep exercising but go for a walk every day.

I'd get a new doctor, with all due respect. There is nothing, not 1 single thing that target belly fat as opposed to the rest of the fat on your body, The way to get rid of belly fat is to reduce overall body fat %. Plain and simple. I would hope any competent MD would know that!! The whole reduce belly fat thing is a ridiculous myth whenever you hear it.

The only thing that might make that comment go together is if the Dr was thinking running would be more stressful, more chance for cortisol release, more belly fat held on to.
Compared to walking being gentle enough not to do that.

And then Dr failed to explain what they meant or how things tied together.

heybales

Running is a more efficient use of your time, however walking is low enough impact that you can do a ton of it, absolutely blowing away every other form of exercise when it comes to the amount you can do in a single session if time doesn't matter. Also because of this, you can walk, a lot, every single day with no adverse effects.

Even though I run, strength train, and do yoga, I still find the time to walk 10-15 miles a week. Mostly on my lunch breaks, a way to get out of the office, get some fresh air, and move my legs. Before I could handle a higher workload with more intense exercise, I was walking closer to 30-40 miles a week.

Another great reason. While you can accomplish more in 30 min compared to 1 hr perhaps walking, if it hurts the joints and keeps knocking you for injuries, what was the use of it overall. If it makes it such you can only do every other day, compared to every day walking, not really an overall benefit then.

Depends on the stage of the journey.

meerkat70

heybales, that's what cross training is for. It's not an argument for not running (and realistically, no, it doesn't actually hurt much at all, but your legs tire), it's an argument for a varied training schedule. I run. I cycle. I walk. Among other things.

heybales

Interesting info on study of energy consumption during the walk to running range. Nice chart still on site.
So if you want more calorie burn per mile, do NOT walk 3.5 mph on avg, faster or slower is more inefficient.

http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html




Walking approximately 5.6 km/h (3.5 mph) is the most efficient speed. Running efficiency appears to taper off at higher speeds.

Transitioning from walking to running requires an increase of energy unlike once speculated. The primary stimulus for the transition from walking to running [Preferred Transition Speed (PTS)] is prompted by the perceived or imminent fatigue and discomfort in the tibialis anterior and other dorsal flexion muscle of the ankle (Hreljac 1995, Prilutshy et al 2001).

Usain Bolt was the fasted human on record during the 100 meter sprint at 44.72 km/h (27.79 mph). That was the average speed between the 60th and the 80th meter.

Calories calculated from regression formulas adapted by ACSM (ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription). See Walk/Run Metabolic Calculator based on these formulas.

peggymenard

Is it true that WALKING burns more fat than running? Someone on MFP had told me "walking" wasn't even a real form of cardio exercise and that i'd get no where with walking. I recently just bought a treadmill since I am a mom and busy after work, I was speed walking at 4.6 for the first week and started running at 5.7.

What is more effective? Have any of you lost weight while WAL

I walk at 3.4 mph which is fast for me. I can tell you it works for me.

violetsue

Running burns more calories and boosts your metabolism even after you are done.

DaughterOfTheMostHighKing

you will burn more cals running. walking will give you different results in your core if you work on it! for me, anyway, walking helped strengthen my core because I can focus more on sucking it in. in running, the focus is on moving my legs and breathing... depends on what you want to focus on.

Sheila1968

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. I can't run due to various issues, but walk quite a bit at a very fast clip. It has kept my weight at reasonable levels for 44 years.

FrugalMomsRock75

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/busting-the-great-myths-of-fat-burning.html


My favorite article.

Pspetal

I don't know about that article but I didn't lose any fat or weight when I was walking everyday for an hour and a half. When I started running everyday, not only did I burn 4 times the calories in less than an hour and saved time, I also starting losing weight a lot faster!

carrieo888

My understanding is that you burn based on mileage. You burn the same amount walking a mile as you would running a mile, you just do it faster when you run. I could be wrong.

That said, yes, I lost my first 20 lbs strictly through walking. About 20 miles a week.

songbyrdsweet

Interesting info on study of energy consumption during the walk to running range. Nice chart still on site.
So if you want more calorie burn per mile, do NOT walk 3.5 mph on avg, faster or slower is more inefficient.

http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html




Walking approximately 5.6 km/h (3.5 mph) is the most efficient speed. Running efficiency appears to taper off at higher speeds.

Transitioning from walking to running requires an increase of energy unlike once speculated. The primary stimulus for the transition from walking to running [Preferred Transition Speed (PTS)] is prompted by the perceived or imminent fatigue and discomfort in the tibialis anterior and other dorsal flexion muscle of the ankle (Hreljac 1995, Prilutshy et al 2001).

Usain Bolt was the fasted human on record during the 100 meter sprint at 44.72 km/h (27.79 mph). That was the average speed between the 60th and the 80th meter.

Calories calculated from regression formulas adapted by ACSM (ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription). See Walk/Run Metabolic Calculator based on these formulas.

Haha, how do you WALK 5MPH?? I can barely run that for long distances! :laugh:

_Amy_Budd

I believe that OP's question is has anyone lost weight by walking... and yes. Absolutely yes. I walked for months before I was able to run, and I lost quite a lot of weight doing so.

As others here have mentioned, it's about duration. Go for LONG walks. I've spent many a weekend day with a good friend, both of us with our dogs on leashes, walking around Central Park and talking - for hours. Literally 3 or 4 hours each time. Now, obviously I don't have that kind of time every day, but I can find the time for that once every couple of weeks. Otherwise, on walking exercise days (which I still do at least twice weekly), I go for about an hour. Sometimes 53 minutes (like today), sometimes an hour and 15... I just really want to spend somewhere around an hour with my heart rate up. And I don't power walk - I walk at an easy, moderate pace. (The Primal Blueprint - which I follow - calls it Moving Frequently at a Slow Pace, and recommends that you get 3-5 hours of it a week.)

Really, walking is a great group activity. I do it with friends, with my kids, with my boyfriend... We talk, sometimes take photos... It's great for the mind and spirit as well as the body.


Amy

Taylerr88

diet will burn fat. not cardio...

if you need a small amount of energy burned to get a deficit then walking.. if you have mad munchies everyday.. then running.

firesoforion

Higher percent of fat burned, less overall fat burned, that said, walking is *awesome.* Personally for me, I find that I can maintain my heart rate better at the exact optimal rate when walking, too, whereas running will take it up very high, and I'll have to walk to let it come down again, which I'd assume causes a difference in calories burned. Plus you can go up hills and have an intensity boost, or just lift your knees a little higher and cause a serious increase in intensity. The best weight loss I've ever experienced was using walking, and I maintained it doing walking, simply out of necessity but it was great.

So yeah, running burns more fat and calories, but phooey on anyone who thinks walking isn't a real form of exercise, certainly you have to do serious walking and not just a leisurely stroll, but walking is great.

FrugalMomsRock75

When I walk, I walk at a pace that keeps my HR somewhere between 75% and 80% of my MHR. I also mix it up a lot--I do elliptical, arc, stationary biking, swimming, walking, running, and heavy lifting. As far as walking ALONE--I don't know. I just use it to boost and/or vary my current regimen.

PrincessMom08

I've been doing a little reading on zones and here's what I can understand so far. Being 60-80% of your max heart rate burns a higher percentage of fat than anaerobic exercise which is 90-100% of your max heart rate. Being in anaerobic zone you tend to burn more calories, but less from fat. Staying in the aerobic zone burns more calories from stored fat. Not sure if I quoted this right but in my head it makes sense lol

BrianSharpe

My understanding is that you burn based on mileage. You burn the same amount walking a mile as you would running a mile, you just do it faster when you run. I could be wrong.

No, you burn way more calories running. When you consider "net" calories it's close to double.

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

I've been doing a little reading on zones and here's what I can understand so far. Being 60-80% of your max heart rate burns a higher percentage of fat than anaerobic exercise which is 90-100% of your max heart rate. Being in anaerobic zone you tend to burn more calories, but less from fat. Staying in the aerobic zone burns more calories from stored fat. Not sure if I quoted this right but in my head it makes sense lol

The fat burning zone is about 60 to 70% of your maxHR and burns a higher proportion of calories from fat but burns way fewer calories than in the training zone (70% to 80%) or higher (and you still burn fat for fuel). The fat burning zone is best forgotten.

jsuaccounting

You will burn more calories running but walking has some special advantages with reducing stress hormones. Many people have lost a ton of weight just walking.

thelovelyLIZ

Walking and running burn a similar amount of calories per a mile, running is simply more time efficient. I can cover three miles in 30 minutes running, whereas it takes me about half an hour to walk a mile.

I have heard walking burns more fat, but I'm not sure how true it is. Something with lower stress on your body of muscle breaking down less than when you're doing high intensity aerobic exercise. Not sure how much truth there is to that. Walk can definitely be a great for of exercise though.