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

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.

albayin

OP, just do whatever you enjoy the most and keep doing it.

delco714

the 24hr mark? what about 1,2,3,4,5 hours? plus that's icing on the cake. We're talking Point-of-exercise time anyway. All that research shows (if it's even recent) is that running doesnt have a longer-term effect on fat burn per day of exercise than walking

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/

meerkat70

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

I run on the ground. I've lost 115lb... :-)

It doesn't really *prove* anything, does it?

delco714

evidence? read a journal!

If you go b/w 80-90% of your max heart rate you enter the anaerobic exercise zone where you basically catabolize (eat your own) muscle and produce insane amounts of lactic acid.. What this MFPer said is 100% factual and supporting by peer-reviewed scientific research that has been known for many many years.

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?

auntiebabs

I read a article a while back...
that basically said your body works more efficiently (burning LESS for distance traveled) when walking SLOWLY or running QUICKLY.

But less efficiently (burning MORE for distance traveled) when walking QUICKLY or running SLOWLY.

So the trick is to find the sweet spot halfway between walk and run.

Any who, I can't do high-impact anything so running is not an option for me.

bm99

I have heard that speed walking is better than walking or running because it takes so much effort to walk at that pace (over 4mph) and not start jogging.

Shock_Wave

the 24hr mark? what about 1,2,3,4,5 hours? plus that's icing on the cake. We're talking Point-of-exercise time anyway.

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/

Reading links is hard?
"Point-of-exercise time"?
I thought the topic was " Whoa.. what? WALKING burns more fat than running?"
OP Q: "Is it true that WALKING burns more fat than running?"

mmapags

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/

Great link and expanation backed by research. I hope more people, especially those who are stating thier own anecdotal experience as fact in this thread, read it!

mmapags

Deleted. Duplicate post.

monty619

... to me this is like one of those "yes and no at the same time" answers.