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

mfpcopine

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.

I love to walk, but i don't lose weight from walking. One summer, I walked home almost every day from work, a distance of over two miles. I lost no weight and my calves didn't even get firm. If I need to lose weight and firm my calves, I run or do calf lifts with dumbbells.

RobinvdM

I have lost 66 pounds (so far) and all I do is walk.

An article I read recently indicated that walking 1 mile burns the same calories as running 1 mile. True or not, I can't be sure- but I know walking causes less stress to my knees and upper chest, which also means my back

When I started back at the end of January, all I did was walk my dog, for 1 hour. Every day. I pushed myself as fast as I could go (which back then wasn't very fast.) I have since managed to get my speed to an average of 3.7mph, depending on terrain and was putting in 20k steps regularly on my FitBit pedometer. Now I am back up to 6 miles a day(had to have surgery 3 weeks ago- really crimps your mileage.)

I think running is overrated. If you want to invest an hour into walking, pushing yourself to go at a fast pace then do so. If you like the idea of jogging, then go for it! It's your workout you are doing. The more important thing is watching what you eat, paying attention to keeping your body fueled up, without drowning it in junk. Also. Drink loads.

Good luck!!:flowerforyou:

meerkat70

In what sense is running 'overrated', and on what evidence are you basing such a claim?

meerkat70

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.

And again with the echo....

CassieReannan

I have only walked for my exercise since started MFP and have lost 8kg.. So yes, it can.

Articeluvsmemphis

just move your body, all exercise is effective. diet is more important for weight loss anyway

Marks281172

Walk till you can run.... then do both for fun

BeautyFromPain

You burn more calories running flat down but more fat walking because of the oxygen being pumped through the body properly. Whereas high intensity exercise burns more carbs

BrianSharpe

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.

The OP was also questioning the assertion that one burns more fat walking than running which, judging by many of the ill-informed responses, is something that's fundamentally misunderstood by a great many people.

meerkat70

You burn more calories running flat down but more fat walking because of the oxygen being pumped through the body properly. Whereas high intensity exercise burns more carbs

If you read through the thread, you'll find the reasons this is oversimplified and inaccurate explained several times...

leslturn8

i lost 21 kilos by walking and changin half the fat out of my diet, i am a poor eater and you could tell i was unhelathy

BeautyFromPain

You burn more calories running flat down but more fat walking because of the oxygen being pumped through the body properly. Whereas high intensity exercise burns more carbs

If you read through the thread, you'll find the reasons this is oversimplified and inaccurate explained several times...

Okay so this is why all 4 of my Personal Training teachers have explained it to us students??

WaterBunnie

I think it depends how fit you are because for me I could perhaps run for 2 mins tops but I can walk for an hour no problem - so for me it's better to walk and have a constant lower burn rather than giving up in a heap after a short burst of running that's probably doing my heart more harm than good. Walking over a longer time you can burn as many calories without so much risk of injury.

For the fitties out there half an hour running will burn more than half an hour of walking of course!

london_running

The best exercise is, ultimately, the one that you'll actually do. If you prefer walking, then walk. If you prefer running, then run.

Trying to calculate which activity burns more calories per distance and time makes little difference if you're doing something you don't like and can't maintain it in the long run.

SewingLynx

For ME, running is the best cardio EVER. Nothing else leans me up quite like it. As for walking, I don't really FEEL like I'm getting an awesome workout and I never really have tried only walking as a form of cardio. I walk a lot (we live in Seattle) and honestly--I think running is better if you want fitness and leanness.

RobinvdM

In what sense is running 'overrated', and on what evidence are you basing such a claim?

My sentence said:
"I think running is overrated..."

Thus my evidence is exclusively my opinion and nothing more. My opinion is based on my observations, and current experiences to date. Specifically where some folks think running is the only way to get in shape, when walking works just as well- walking in this context is something above casual strolls, and more like hitting a good fast pace of above 3mph - (I usually aim for 3.7-3.8 terrain providing.) The point of working out isn't so much HOW you do it, it's getting your heart rate up. You can do so both by running, or by walking. I rate walking over running. It's a personal preference, thus again why I said "I think.."

Nothing to get upset about, though you are welcome to do so if you want.

meerkat70

I'm not 'upset' (what a strange idea... are you upset?). I'm bemused. And it's interesting that you follow up your strange claim with another. That wakling 'works just as well'. Just as well as *what*?


I'm not sure quite what rhetorical value you imagine that the term 'I think' holds, but in a discussion, you're still really expected to support your thoughts with some kind of evidence base - what that be through argumentation, anecdote, or more 'academic' evidence. You've not done any of those - simply repeated the same point, whilst saying 'I think' several times.

An interesting discussion tactic, really.


I just came back from a 40 minute walk with my dogs. I burned just under 70 cals, walking an average of 3.5mph (which is, realistically, as fast as most people routinely walk for exercise - though I understand that a small number of people go faster, and much faster than that.... ) , and I'm not even out of breath. Heart rate back to my resting rate of 48 within a minute or so of sitting down. Yesterday I ran for 40 minutes (and I'm not a particularly fast runner). I burned more than 400 cals, and it took an hour for my heart rate to come down to resting.

I'm not even sure the question of 'what burns more' is open to date, based on *my experience*. I'd be curious to know what alternative evidence you can offer to support your claims of it being 'overrated'. (Particularly since you've yet to explain overrated in what sense, by whom, and for what.... )

RobinvdM

Meerkat, do you bother reading what I write or are you just bored?

I clearly stated that my prev comments were exclusively my opinion, and I explained what my opinion was based on. Thus the NON rhetorical essence of the introductory phrase "I think." (That predisposes the intelligent reader to infer the following commentary is an opinion, not a scientific study.)

As far as your question "walking works just as well" For what?" Read the whole sentence:
"Specifically where some folks think running is the only way to get in shape, when walking works just as well" (if you need me to be even more verbose I could, I suppose, add "just as well to get in shape." Not a very strange claim at all considering it is working for more than just myself based on the previous posters in this thread.

And my claim is very sincerely based on my own experiences to date. I use a heart rate monitor every walk I go on, which feeds the data to my Endomondo phone app, which records my speed as well as the kCals burned and distances I go on and the time it takes me. I walked an hour a day most days lately, and burn on average 500 calories each walk - according to data provided by Endo and my HRM. If you managed to only burn 70 calories on a 40 minute walk then I feel bad that you think you were walking 3.5mph


I explained the overrated comment. You can choose to be oblivious or not. Thanks for making my morning less boring.

Amy_Lynn74

I've lost 43 pounds since January 7th using walking as my primary form of exercise. I tried running for awhile but I found it too hard on my body. Sometimes I will jog on the down hills when I'm walking but I've found that when I keep a brisk pace I actually burn more calories then when I try to jog then end up slowing down from being tired. Walking is a lot easier on your joints and knees.

skybird455

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 is correct. I do HIIT on the treadmill, nothing burns more than interval training to my knowledge in a runnning/walking routine

PlunderBunneh

I love running, but I don't think I would have enjoyed it as much if I had started it while I was still in the morbidly obese bmi category.
Now, I love pushing myself in a run. It's no longer about calories burned, although I do find it the most soothing way to buy some extra calories if I need them, it's more about the calm it brings to my mind. It shuts down the worries. I cannot stress and overthink while running, and for a momma of two little ones with some possible control issues, that's a pretty big deal. I still stress in my head while on the elliptical, during hard walks, and on bike rides. Running is the only thing that requires so much focus on my breathing, my steps, my path, that I can't worry.

skybird455

you also need to remember that cardio (elevating your heart rate) is EASIER the heavier you are....when I was 240 walking elevated my heart rate enough to by in the fat burn zone....the more weight I lose the harder I have to work to get my heart to that fat burn zone. Its called conditioning.......that is what we strive for. When walking wasnt enough, I started jogging and by then it didnt hurt because I was in the 190s, then I started running and doing inclines on 5 mph, now in the 160s I interval train to get my heart rate in the fat burn, and max zone.

Everyone is at different places in the weight. We are here to help each other, not get catty and pick on people for one thing they say. Please be gentle with each other....being over weight has made us all super sensitive and we all need each others love.

God bless you all for all your hard work and willingness to share! Please do so kindly.

Huffdogg

If your primary goal is FAT LOSS, not CALORIE CONSUMPTION, then walking is a better exercise, particularly when performed in conjunction with heavy weight training. Higher-intensity cardio activity is going to more naturally tap into carbohydrates as an energy source, whereas lower-intensity cardio more readily sources fat stores. There are other issues at play here, also, such as the highly catabolic nature of long-term running on the average person, etc.

This is primarily academic anyhow, though, as people concerned about these things are almost always Calorie Total Arithmetic Junkies.

WEIGHT loss is triggered by functioning in a caloric deficit.

WEIGHT loss =\= FAT loss necessarily.

Without stimulating muscle growth, weight loss will almost always be at least partly muscle loss. This makes perfect sense from a physiological standpoint.

Skinnyfat people are not healthy and don't look good.

Adding lean body mass increases your BMR, and the stimulation of muscle growth helps, at the very least, to prevent catabolism during the weight reduction process.

If you want to reduce FAT, train to build MUSCLE. This means heavy weight training and (if you really feel the need), LISS (or low intensity steady-state) cardio activity.

meerkat70

"If your primary goal is FAT LOSS, not CALORIE CONSUMPTION, then walking is a better exercise, particularly when performed in conjunction with heavy weight training. "

Could you perhaps look at the posts that dispute this, using research studies, and explain on what grounds you disagree.

nsblue

hey... as long as your moving your doing something...everyone needs to find what works for them. I started walking a year ago in march...i pushed myself in time distance and speed. IMO yes i did get my cardio up. in a nine month time frame of my walking I lost 200 pounds...went off blood pressure pills and insulin... did walking help burn fat? you betcha for me it did.

smexyaddie

Walking can help you lose some but definitely running helps you burn a lot more. I recently read from women's health that 30 minutes of running has the same effect as about 3 hours of walking. So for someone who is busy with work running would be your best bet

Huffdogg

"If your primary goal is FAT LOSS, not CALORIE CONSUMPTION, then walking is a better exercise, particularly when performed in conjunction with heavy weight training. "

Could you perhaps look at the posts that dispute this, using research studies, and explain on what grounds you disagree.

I went through the first 5 pages of this threadcrime without finding a single article that contradicted anything my post said, and then I lost interest. Sorry. If you are really interested in knowing my position rather than just trying to prove a point, most of the studies I've read on the benefits of weight training + LISS vs higher-intensity cardio come from the Leangains and Starting Strength web communities.

Keep in mind I am not at all saying that walking burns more calories. That is categorically untrue. I'm saying that cardio is a crappy way to burn fat, period.

MeeshKB

I'd be curious to know what alternative evidence you can offer to support your claims of it being 'overrated'. (Particularly since you've yet to explain overrated in what sense, by whom, and for what.... )

This wasn't directed at me, but I'm a glutton for punishment...I'll jump in.

I too think of running as being overrated. I think this because so many tout it as the holy grail of cardio, and ignore/discount/poopooh the value of other cardio excercises. In my case, it is definitely not the only way to get my HR up significantly.

For me, it's about intensity and duration. Many people in this thread have generalized running as high intensity (I agree this is usually the case) and walking as low intensity. I disagree that walking is necessarily low intensity. I do a HIIT walking program on the treadmill and keep my HR at or above 75% for 40 mins or more, usually averaging around 80%. I occasionally spike into the 90% range. At my current fitness level, I could not maintain that intensity for more than 2 minutes while running, and my recovery periods would be extensive. So for me, walking is a more efficient way to burn calories.

Also, because of my inexperience, my running attempts often result in mild injuries. I understand that this can be true of pretty much any form of activity, but I believe that running carries more chance for injury (particularly to the joints) than walking.

I will never argue that running is not a more efficient way to burn calories than leisure walking. That's pretty much a foregone conclusion. But I'd hate to see folks shunning a serious walking workout for an inefficient (maybe even injurious) running one, if that's their fitness level/preference.

meerkat70

But your post is riddled with red herrings isn't it?

For your point about intervals to be valid, you'd need to be comparing like with like - a walker walking in intervals, with a runner running intervals. Realistically, a runner running intervals is still going to burn way, way more, and the afterburn will remain higher.

Secondly you appear to be assuming that levels of fitness remain constant, and of course, they don't. And of course, your fitness gains from running a programme like C25k would be massive, compared to getting out and walking and only walking, on a daily basis.

Of course you're less likely to be injured running than walking. And you're less likely to be injured sitting on the couch than walking. Does that mean everyone should stay on the couch? No... it means that if you want to train to run, you should do it sensibly and appropriately.

Your point about not being able to maintain longer than a 2 minute run... well, most people can't at first. That's why beginner runners start with intervals. And if you look at the calories burned for someone running C25k, they're going to match / outstrip most walkers walking fast slow intervals - because obviously the 2 minutes of running remain higher intensity than most people can manage when they walk.

No-one has claimed anywhere in this thread that running is a holy grail - so that's another red herring, isn't it?
I'm by no means suggesting (and I've said this several times) that walking is not a great thing to do for your fitness and general wellbeing. Walking is absolutely how I got started - and it's what I'd suggest to any seriously overweight person who's getting into exercise. If that's all that people want to do, more power to them. Nothing wrong with that. But whether walking is valuable in its own right is not really the point I'm disputing. The original question was whether walking burns more than running. And of course, the answer to that is no. I'm genuinely astonished that so many people seem to think that that is disputable. And then of course I get annoyed when people who've never really tried running with any seriousness describe it as 'overrated'... without even bothering to qualify their terms....

meerkat70

"If your primary goal is FAT LOSS, not CALORIE CONSUMPTION, then walking is a better exercise, particularly when performed in conjunction with heavy weight training. "

Could you perhaps look at the posts that dispute this, using research studies, and explain on what grounds you disagree.

I went through the first 5 pages of this threadcrime without finding a single article that contradicted anything my post said, and then I lost interest. Sorry. If you are really interested in knowing my position rather than just trying to prove a point, most of the studies I've read on the benefits of weight training + LISS vs higher-intensity cardio come from the Leangains and Starting Strength web communities.

Keep in mind I am not at all saying that walking burns more calories. That is categorically untrue. I'm saying that cardio is a crappy way to burn fat, period.

god bless you. Could you explain, without reference to all that zone nonsense (and those are the posts I'm referring to) quite how your point about fat loss is sustained? With, you know, the evidence I asked for?

I run and I lift. It seems to be shifting my weight just fine....

And of course, the thread isn't about lifting. So, you know, thanks, but is there a reason you're trying to drag us off topic?