Walking vs Jogging

Lyn_Matthews

As far as a cardio workout I'm wondering what the benefits are to jogging vs walking. I can get my HR in the zone by just walking and if I jog it goes over the zone. Don't get me wrong I love jogging but it seems I get the same calorie burn walking 4 miles as I do jogging 4 miles.

Can someone please convince me to keep jogging!?!?
Thanks

cmriverside

As far as a cardio workout I'm wondering what the benefits are to jogging vs walking. I can get my HR in the zone by just walking and if I jog it goes over the zone. Don't get me wrong I love jogging but it seems I get the same calorie burn walking 4 miles as I do jogging 4 miles.

Can someone please convince me to keep jogging!?!?
Thanks

Are you sure you have your heartrate figured correctly? Unless you are very out of shape, that scenario you describe just shouldn't be true. If you have figured your HR correctly, then increase your distance and/or speed on your running. You shouldn't be 'too' comfortable. :laugh:

Good luck!

EKarma

If you can jog, then jog. I wish I could jog, but it's really hard on my knees. If it's not killing you then it's making you stronger. lol :glasses:

CrystalT

I just found an article that says that jogging burns up to 25% more calories than walking for the same distance.

erickirb

You may burn close to the same over 4 miles but walking would take you twice as long. So calories per hour are much less when walking.

tabbydog

I just found an article that says that jogging burns up to 25% more calories than walking for the same distance.

And even if it didn't burn more calories for the same distance, if you are moving faster, you can cover MORE distance, so more calories that way too! Definitely more calories in the same amount of time. Time is money, ha ha! I have just started running again, and am taking baby steps for my knees, and can't wait to be able to run 3 miles. So far so good! :drinker:

msarro

Jogging burns more, walking is easier on the knees. I personally would choose jogging if your body can handle it. It *will* put you above your target heart rate until your body gets more used to it. That's because your body can't supply all the oxygen it needs, so your heart has to beat faster (your cardiovascular system hasn't gotten used to jogging - yet!). It becomes an anerobic exercise because of this. However, it means you're also going to see pretty awesome results rather quickly.
As your system gets more used to it, your heart rate will get lower and lower doing the same exercise, and it will become more and more of an aerobic activity.

1Corinthians13

As far as a cardio workout I'm wondering what the benefits are to jogging vs walking. I can get my HR in the zone by just walking and if I jog it goes over the zone. Don't get me wrong I love jogging but it seems I get the same calorie burn walking 4 miles as I do jogging 4 miles.

Can someone please convince me to keep jogging!?!?
Thanks

Are you sure you have your heartrate figured correctly? Unless you are very out of shape, that scenario you describe just shouldn't be true. If you have figured your HR correctly, then increase your distance and/or speed on your running. You shouldn't be 'too' comfortable. :laugh:

Good luck!

Not necessarily true. I used to run (my knees recently started giving me trouble). I am in good shape according to the doctor and blood tests. Yet, my HR always went over when I ran. If I walk fast, my HR is in the heart zone or whatever they call it. The doctor said that what indicates your heart health is actually how quickly your HR comes back down when you rest - and also obviously if your resting HR is too high.

cmriverside

As far as a cardio workout I'm wondering what the benefits are to jogging vs walking. I can get my HR in the zone by just walking and if I jog it goes over the zone. Don't get me wrong I love jogging but it seems I get the same calorie burn walking 4 miles as I do jogging 4 miles.

Can someone please convince me to keep jogging!?!?
Thanks

Are you sure you have your heartrate figured correctly? Unless you are very out of shape, that scenario you describe just shouldn't be true. If you have figured your HR correctly, then increase your distance and/or speed on your running. You shouldn't be 'too' comfortable. :laugh:

Good luck!

Not necessarily true. I used to run (my knees recently started giving me trouble). I am in good shape according to the doctor and blood tests. Yet, my HR always went over when I ran. If I walk fast, my HR is in the heart zone or whatever they call it. The doctor said that what indicates your heart health is actually how quickly your HR comes back down when you rest - and also obviously if your resting HR is too high.

Yes, your HR WILL go over the "targeted" HR - at first... That is why you ease into running, and also to let your muscles and tendons adjust to the added stress and different movement your body makes when running as apposed to walking.

If you go to the "Couch to 5K" free program online you can follow a safe beginner's (or returning runner's) program to build your cardiovascular and muscle/tendon flexibility and strength.

I think you will agree that as you increase your activity your HR will be high at first, then it will become slower at rest.

Re-read msarro's post above yours. That is what I am trying to say, just didn't want to get that technical. I think we agree, 1Corinthians13! Just saying it differently!

Lyn_Matthews

Thanks for all the input. I will look into Couch to 5K. I jog at a slow pace....my hubby calls it a "shag" rather than a jog but whatever. But I have increased from 1 mile to 3 miles in a short amount of time so I am seeing improvements. I do have a bad knee but jogging hasn't had any effect on it yet THANK GOODNESS. I will keep jogging and I will keep an eye on my heart rate and make sure that over time it is slowly coming closer and closer to my cardio zone.
Thanks again!

Azdak

[/quote]

Not necessarily true. I used to run (my knees recently started giving me trouble). I am in good shape according to the doctor and blood tests. Yet, my HR always went over when I ran. If I walk fast, my HR is in the heart zone or whatever they call it. The doctor said that what indicates your heart health is actually how quickly your HR comes back down when you rest - and also obviously if your resting HR is too high.
[/quote]

Actually, that's not true at all. Heart rate recovery after exercise can be a vague estimate of relative fitness improvement (i.e. if YOUR HR after the same workout slows down more quickly, it may be a sign of YOUR increased fitness), but it is NOT indicative in any way of "heart health". Actually some diseased hearts can beat pretty slowly.

theresefulford

Thanks for all the input. I will look into Couch to 5K. I jog at a slow pace....my hubby calls it a "shag" rather than a jog but whatever. But I have increased from 1 mile to 3 miles in a short amount of time so I am seeing improvements. I do have a bad knee but jogging hasn't had any effect on it yet THANK GOODNESS. I will keep jogging and I will keep an eye on my heart rate and make sure that over time it is slowly coming closer and closer to my cardio zone.
Thanks again!

Try using an elliptical at the gym. You can get the results of jogging with little impact on the joints.

shinybonnie

probly a dumb question, but how do you determine your target heart rate?

Azdak

Walking and running exist more or less on the same intensity continuum- walking is on one end and running at the other.

Walking is a less intense activity. Walking speeds from 2.0 mph up to about 4.2 mph follow a very predictable intensity curve. Above 4.2 mph, differences in walking style make the intensity estimations less predictable.

Running speeds of 5.0 mph and above follow a similarly predictable intensity curve.

At speeds less than 4.2 mph, walking is a low-intensity activity, about 4-4.5 METs maximum. That would mean that only those individuals with a VO2 max of 8-9 METs and lower are going to get to a training threshold. For adults under 40, that VO2 max level is consider "Fair" or "Poor".

Because of the nature of the activity, running, even at slower speeds, is much more intense than walking. Running at 5.0 mph has an energy cost of about 8.5 METs. The relatively large jump in intensity is why many people must start out with a walk/jog program when they start running, esp if they have not been exercising before.

The idea with any cardio fitness program is to match the intensity of the activity with your fitness level. To improve cardiovascular fitness, one needs to work at a minimum intensity of 50% of VO2 max (which corresponds to about 60% of HR reserve).

Walking has limitations for young, healthy adults in that the overall intensity is so low. The average adult under 40 will often have or develop a high enough fitness level that they will "outgrow" a walking program. Now running has a downside in that it is a high-impact activity and more associated with injury. Also, because of its high-intensity nature, some people do not find it a pleasant activity. While it is difficult to reduce the intensity of running below the 8+ MET threshold, the intensity of a walking program can be increased to make it more effective: 1) walking up inclines (more suitable for treadmill walking); 2) speed walking or race walking (requires learning some technique but can boost the intensity level up to 7-8 METS or more); 3) big arm swings (hand must reach level of the shoulder in front). Walking while holding hand weights wearing weighted vests adds almost nothing to the intensity (Unless the vest has a LOT of weight, in which case there are other problems, and still there is little return).

Now caloric burn is another issue entirely. Many of you know that it is possible to burn significant calories during a workout session without achieving a cardiovascular training level--in other words, you can increase caloric expenditure without improving fitness level. The main advantage for running is that you burn a lot more calories per unit of time.

One "rule" that has always been thrown around is the the caloric cost for going one mile is the same, regardless of speed--the reasoning being that the faster person covers the mile in less time, so that offsets the difference in caloric burn rate. That's still an OK approximation, but it only holds true for relatively speeds WITHIN each activity--e.g. Walking 2.0 mph vs walking 4.0 mph or Running 6.0 mph vs running 8.0 mph--it does not hold when comparing walking to running.

To summarize: running is more effective at improving cardiovascular fitness and burning more calories per unit of time, BUT ONLY if your fitness level is high enough to tolerate the increased intensity.

If you are older than 40, and reaching a true training intensity while moving at walking speeds, then you are probably not ready yet for a running program (although, if health issues are not a problem, you might be able to attempt a walk/jog routine if desired).

If you are younger than 40, or have a higher fitness level, then at some point, you will likely find that you cannot continue to improve your cardiovascular fitness level without either taking up a running type of program, or modifying your walking as described above.

If you enjoy walking, hate running, are looking primarily burn calories, and are happy with your cardiovascular fitness level, then enjoy your walking program and don't worry about changing--just be prepared to put in a lot more exercise minutes to assist in weight loss.