Running vs. Walking

juicygurl1

I don't like this thread..since I am unable to run or jog and speed walking agravates and strains my knees I have no answer. boooo

Shadowsan

Assuming you are going the same speed for the same amount of time, which is better for fat loss? And which burns more calories?

Generally, walking at slow speeds. This changes as the speed goes up to running, because of more muscle contractions.

Running predominantly requires faster twitch muscle fibres to fire - even when going slowly. Fast twitch muscle fibres predominantly use ATP stores and/or lactic acid system to provide energy... Whereas walking at the same speed is primarily a slow twitch muscle fibre contraction, which predominantly uses the aerobic system for energy.

I thought the ADP/ATP cycle was aerobic. Must find my old notes

Poster is (I think) referring to glycolysis, which rapidly breaks down ATP without oxidation. In any case, the description is wrong because: A) running can be a steady-state aerobic exercise--it depends on the person's fitness level and the fuel substrate used during exercise has vitually no effect on fat loss.

Yes to this.
Running is usually a steady-state aerobic exercise. Unless you are sprinting (at whatever speed a "sprint" is for you, at your fitness level), the activity is completely or mostly aerobic, not anaerobic.
But I also agree that it doesn't much matter anyway; you'll still burn plenty of calories doing a more anaerobic sprint workout and lose fat if eating at a deficit.

That's not _entirely_ true is it?

You've got to consider not only the energy system being used, but the fact that a lot of people quite simply don't enjoy pain. The energy system being used at that particular time is a big part of that. Even though the calories to fuel the motion have to come from somewhere and will be found from somewhere, the other physiological effects of it coming from the lactic acid system (or if we're getting technical, the lactic acid fermentation process) for instance are undesirable for most people wanting to lose weight - as that build up of lactic acid within the muscles can leave you in a state where you feel like you don't want to do anything the next day, or day after that in some cases. Training within a particular range that is suitable for you, then as your fitness improves progressing this, is the only way to avoid that happening.

That's not to say that training anaerobically isn't good for you... In fact because the lactic acid route is so inefficient at breaking down glucose to create ATP it will actually burn off more calories per motion - but the reason it's so inefficient is because your body kind of treats it as a last resort before moving to aerobic respiration. You'd not be able to keep the amount of effort up long enough due to lactic acid build up. However.... This is a big factor in interval training but now we're getting into a whole new discussion

Suffice to say that if you're wanting to do steady fat loss without the pain, find a range that is comfortable for you, track your HR, and then work upwards slowly as your fitness improves. If you fancy shaking things up? Do a little interval training/speedplay/fartlek/whatever you want to call it.

raystark

I walk at running speeds because I used to be a professional canvasser - if you're going to hit 120 houses a day in rural NH you better learn to hustle.

However I remember a coach in high school making a big point that women runners have to work on form to get good speeds. It has to do with how women's hips are curved and we tend not to make the most efficient running movements. However, when walking I use my glutes a lot more than I do running - and my glutes are pretty strong.

So, the whole "You run like a girl," meme has a basis in fact?

SammieDe1

and yes you can walk at running speed, i do it all the time on the treadmill. which is why i'm wondering which is better

What running speed do you walk at?

5.0

km/h or mph?

If that's mph... That's 12 min mile pace. How can women walk that fast?!?!? It only ever seems to be women who can do it. It's like an innate talent that women have - especially when they're angry at something. I don't get it.

Ha must be tru, i walk as fast as that sometimes lol

tragicpixie

I walk at running speeds because I used to be a professional canvasser - if you're going to hit 120 houses a day in rural NH you better learn to hustle.

However I remember a coach in high school making a big point that women runners have to work on form to get good speeds. It has to do with how women's hips are curved and we tend not to make the most efficient running movements. However, when walking I use my glutes a lot more than I do running - and my glutes are pretty strong.

So, the whole "You run like a girl," meme has a basis in fact?

Yes actually though, it's not hard for women to correct it. Of course, some women's hips don't really curve that much and it never causes a problem too.
But, for those of us ladies with "child bearing hips", it's worth it to get a little coaching for running form to increase speed. I don't know if women are more or less likely to develop injuries if you never correct it. In a sense, for most women, the natural inclination is for knees to be slightly knocked together structurally: so when women run they bring their leg around rather than knees up. It's hard to explain, but easy to demonstrate in person....

heybales

However I remember a coach in high school making a big point that women runners have to work on form to get good speeds. It has to do with how women's hips are curved and we tend not to make the most efficient running movements. However, when walking I use my glutes a lot more than I do running - and my glutes are pretty strong.

Huh, I remember reading over 20 years ago that women have a more efficient stride method up to about 7 min/miles, and then men's normal method is more efficient at faster speeds.

Since I was never going to go faster than 7 min/miles for long distance, I figured why not get more efficient, and retrained. At the time, I could still do a 5 min/mile for a mile, but had different method when doing longer distance and slower pace.

Worked for me. And actually, a lot of the barefoot running techniques had some of these same principles used there.

I'd investigate that again, not saying a high school coach isn't going to be keeping up with leading edge studies and knowledge. Then again, what was the coach's primary education focus in the schools? Ours was the German language teacher. Cross country was secondary to even track/field training.

ixap

Suffice to say that if you're wanting to do steady fat loss without the pain, find a range that is comfortable for you, track your HR, and then work upwards slowly as your fitness improves. If you fancy shaking things up? Do a little interval training/speedplay/fartlek/whatever you want to call it.

I mostly agree with you, actually. I'm always on here telling new runners to take it SLOW. And telling intermediate runners to save the hard intervals for the race prep stage, not to just do them indiscriminately all the time.

My point was more that for most people, most runs will in fact be entirely or mostly aerobic. Unless you are really sprinting, your run is probably 90-100% aerobic. Many people do "intervals" without even getting out of the aerobic stage. You don't have to avoid running in favor of walking to burn fat and have an aerobic workout, which was what your first post seemed to suggest (unless I misunderstood).

It just depends how you define them. In the Tabata literature, "high intensity" intervals are at 170% of VO2MAX - seriously painful and obviously well into anaerobic territory. But most people don't push themselves to anywhere near those levels on their own. Other literature I've seen on "interval training" defines "high intensity" as 80% of VO2MAX and "low" as 50% of VO2MAX. These are in fact intervals of different intensity, so I think it's fine to call it interval training. But the entire workout will remain within the aerobic threshhold, and this type of workout is appropriate to do for fat loss on a regular basis.

Shadowsan

Suffice to say that if you're wanting to do steady fat loss without the pain, find a range that is comfortable for you, track your HR, and then work upwards slowly as your fitness improves. If you fancy shaking things up? Do a little interval training/speedplay/fartlek/whatever you want to call it.

I mostly agree with you, actually. I'm always on here telling new runners to take it SLOW. And telling intermediate runners to save the hard intervals for the race prep stage, not to just do them indiscriminately all the time.

My point was more that for most people, most runs will in fact be entirely or mostly aerobic. Unless you are really sprinting, your run is probably 90-100% aerobic. Many people do "intervals" without even getting out of the aerobic stage. You don't have to avoid running in favor of walking to burn fat and have an aerobic workout, which was what your first post seemed to suggest (unless I misunderstood).

It just depends how you define them. In the Tabata literature, "high intensity" intervals are at 170% of VO2MAX - seriously painful and obviously well into anaerobic territory. But most people don't push themselves to anywhere near those levels on their own. Other literature I've seen on "interval training" defines "high intensity" as 80% of VO2MAX and "low" as 50% of VO2MAX. These are in fact intervals of different intensity, so I think it's fine to call it interval training. But the entire workout will remain within the aerobic threshhold, and this type of workout is appropriate to do for fat loss on a regular basis.

That's a fair point, well made. My definition in itself is more about perceived effort as it is about energy systems if i'm being honest. If someones perceived effort of doing something is "god i'm flogging myself here" then they are much more likely to be put off by it - which is why starting slow and working upwards as your body adapts works better than saying "go running - walking is no good for weight loss" when really, it's still good for fat loss as it's all deficit generating, without necessarily putting people off.

There is also the definition that if someones aerobic system isn't well trained (which in the beginning most peoples isn't) then the body will resort to the lactic acid system for energy which will become painful pretty quickly. This all relates to VO2 Max. Low VO2 Max = Faster onset of lactic acid at a particular level of energy requirement (of which running at 5mph may trigger vs walking) which will become painful.

So all in all, we're both right, it's just the circumstances.

Low VO2 Max = Potential that walking may be better with slightly faster intervals to help increase your VO2 Max without experiencing pain.

Medium/High VO2 Max = Running would probably be better.

tragicpixie

However I remember a coach in high school making a big point that women runners have to work on form to get good speeds. It has to do with how women's hips are curved and we tend not to make the most efficient running movements. However, when walking I use my glutes a lot more than I do running - and my glutes are pretty strong.

Huh, I remember reading over 20 years ago that women have a more efficient stride method up to about 7 min/miles, and then men's normal method is more efficient at faster speeds.

Since I was never going to go faster than 7 min/miles for long distance, I figured why not get more efficient, and retrained. At the time, I could still do a 5 min/mile for a mile, but had different method when doing longer distance and slower pace.

Worked for me. And actually, a lot of the barefoot running techniques had some of these same principles used there.

I'd investigate that again, not saying a high school coach isn't going to be keeping up with leading edge studies and knowledge. Then again, what was the coach's primary education focus in the schools? Ours was the German language teacher. Cross country was secondary to even track/field training.

I don't know... our coaches have to be sports medicine people in that school district, and they have to keep up their training. They also only teach PE, sex ed, and health courses. It's a decent system - unless of course you get stuck with a coach who doesn't like teaching girls. We had a really good girls soccer team (US Catholic school culture) but the coach was just mad he didn't get the boys team. Even if he didn't respect us, he had to do well coaching otherwise they'd never move him to the boys: my friends on the team said it sucked though. I think it's a little bit much, but they take sports seriously. Or they are just really afraid of getting sued... Possibly that one since they don't have a girls lacrosse team anymore after my class graduated. (We were pretty good, but we had a lot of injuries the last two years.)
The running thing is related to bone structure, it's something you can tell looking at skeletons though. Women are often more efficient walkers (well, "naturally" speaking, not necessarily depending on posture habits) because they tend to use their glutes for more. But running, instinctively for women will involve pulling the leg around rather than up - again, some women it will bother more than others because their hips may curve more or less outwards. Also, I've seen some people run using

tragicpixie

Sorry hit the wrong key: I've seen some people using a really strange looking technique that looks super "leap-y" to me. I wonder if that's what your'e talking about with the barefoot things?

I've been curious but haven't looked into that. I'm doing good to actually run a mile at this point but I'm excited to get back to the point I used to be at.

heybales

Sorry hit the wrong key: I've seen some people using a really strange looking technique that looks super "leap-y" to me. I wonder if that's what your'e talking about with the barefoot things?

I've been curious but haven't looked into that. I'm doing good to actually run a mile at this point but I'm excited to get back to the point I used to be at.

Oh, the barefoot is definitely not leapy, less impact the better.

The part of the womans run was the glute use, but for sure not the side swing. Also not leaping as far into the air as men tend to do, and usually faster turnover compared to men at similar speed.

And I've watched that at the gym lately on treadmill lineup.

I'll see some of the numbers are the same speed, but the women have faster turnover, shorter strides, less foot lift, men are doing 70-75 rpm and long strides, more heel strike, all the things associated with that.

But I do recall the side swing, while women tend to do that - was NOT one of the beneficial things. Just learning not to lift the food more than needed. And shorter more frequent steps allowed that easier.

The barefoot, midfoot strike method is even better honed shorter step and more frequent almost out of necessity - you won't land on that heel more than a couple times before learning the lesson.

michellekicks

Sorry hit the wrong key: I've seen some people using a really strange looking technique that looks super "leap-y" to me. I wonder if that's what your'e talking about with the barefoot things?

I've been curious but haven't looked into that. I'm doing good to actually run a mile at this point but I'm excited to get back to the point I used to be at.

Oh, the barefoot is definitely not leapy, less impact the better.

The part of the womans run was the glute use, but for sure not the side swing. Also not leaping as far into the air as men tend to do, and usually faster turnover compared to men at similar speed.

And I've watched that at the gym lately on treadmill lineup.

I'll see some of the numbers are the same speed, but the women have faster turnover, shorter strides, less foot lift, men are doing 70-75 rpm and long strides, more heel strike, all the things associated with that.

But I do recall the side swing, while women tend to do that - was NOT one of the beneficial things. Just learning not to lift the food more than needed. And shorter more frequent steps allowed that easier.

The barefoot, midfoot strike method is even better honed shorter step and more frequent almost out of necessity - you won't land on that heel more than a couple times before learning the lesson.

I've read in a few places that the fastest runners usually have a turnover rate of about 90-100 or 180-200 steps per minute. I've deliberately increased mine by shortening my stride some... now I'm pretty consistent about 89-91 rpm and if I want to go faster I'm just lengthening my stride slightly. Turnover is barely changed.

lisab0864

I know it is an old topic but...................one that I am interested in so I answered.

"They" (that would be the "experts") say that at speeds over 5mph - walking burns more calories than running at the same speed...
Not only that but it does wonders for your midsection (waist and belly) -- that bit of "wisdom" is from personal experience...

Azdak

I know it is an old topic but...................one that I am interested in so I answered.

"They" (that would be the "experts") say that at speeds over 5mph - walking burns more calories than running at the same speed...
Not only that but it does wonders for your midsection (waist and belly) -- that bit of "wisdom" is from personal experience...

There is a "crossover" point where the inefficiency of a walking style means that "walking" at that speed will result in a higher VO2 (and thus greater calorie expenditure) than running at the same speed.

However, that fact has little practical value for the average exerciser.

1) the actual "crossover" speed is different for each person. It depends on the individual biomechanics of walking vs running. There is no "set" speed (i.e. 5 mph) that is applicable to everyone.

2) the type of "walking" required to hit the "crossover" point requires a racewalking style, not a normal walking gait. It's not something the average person will do naturally.

3) the effort level at the "crossover" point is going to be fairly high--i.e. in excess of 7 METs. In almost every case, anyone who can "walk" at that level of effort could also run more comfortably, and they would likely be able to run even faster, thus burning even more calories.

There are many reasons why walking can be a very effective exercise--and if one prefers to walk, then walking as fast as possible will help to maximize benefits. So this reply is not meant to downgrade the effectiveness of walking or of fast walking.

heybales

I know it is an old topic but...................one that I am interested in so I answered.

"They" (that would be the "experts") say that at speeds over 5mph - walking burns more calories than running at the same speed...
Not only that but it does wonders for your midsection (waist and belly) -- that bit of "wisdom" is from personal experience...

There is a "crossover" point where the inefficiency of a walking style means that "walking" at that speed will result in a higher VO2 (and thus greater calorie expenditure) than running at the same speed.

However, that fact has little practical value for the average exerciser.

1) the actual "crossover" speed is different for each person. It depends on the individual biomechanics of walking vs running. There is no "set" speed (i.e. 5 mph) that is applicable to everyone.

2) the type of "walking" required to hit the "crossover" point requires a racewalking style, not a normal walking gait. It's not something the average person will do naturally.

3) the effort level at the "crossover" point is going to be fairly high--i.e. in excess of 7 METs. In almost every case, anyone who can "walk" at that level of effort could also run more comfortably, and they would likely be able to run even faster, thus burning even more calories.

There are many reasons why walking can be a very effective exercise--and if one prefers to walk, then walking as fast as possible will help to maximize benefits. So this reply is not meant to downgrade the effectiveness of walking or of fast walking.

Here's one of the studies on it with nice graphic. Sadly they stopped at 5mph. But I think I see which way it's going.

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


Doesn't the race walking style also require ankle warmers in bright colors and tights with shorts?

I think that's another major reason the average person won't do it naturally. Ha!

kdub67

and yes you can walk at running speed, i do it all the time on the treadmill. which is why i'm wondering which is better

What running speed do you walk at?

5.0

km/h or mph?

If that's mph... That's 12 min mile pace. How can women walk that fast?!?!? It only ever seems to be women who can do it. It's like an innate talent that women have - especially when they're angry at something. I don't get it.

LOL...I can do a long, sustained walk at 5.0, too. Maybe it is a woman thing, haha! I can also "sprint" walk at 7.0 but can't do it for more than 45 seconds because for one thing, I'm deathly afraid I'm going to trip and wipe out on the treadmill:)

KimJohnsonsmile

Another alternative: I had to give up running due to a knee injury (just can't have the jarring impact anymore). Now when I walk I wear ankle weights (2.5lbs on each leg). I usually walk 3-4 miles at a consistent 4 to 4.5 mph... and that's outside, not on a treadmill. I think on a treadmill I could get up to 5 pmh. Judging by how I feel when I'm done, I think it's comparable to a slow jog.

seabee78

I thought if you think about it in terms of distance, you will get the same benefits from walking as from running.

Say we were setting a goal of 5 miles. If you ran, say, 5 mph you would complete the 5 miles in one hour.
If you walked a leisurely 1.5 mph it would take you 3+ hours to do the 5 miles.

I guess I'm saying 3 hours of walking = 1 hour of running.

drgndancer

I thought if you think about it in terms of distance, you will get the same benefits from walking as from running.

Say we were setting a goal of 5 miles. If you ran, say, 5 mph you would complete the 5 miles in one hour.
If you walked a leisurely 1.5 mph it would take you 3+ hours to do the 5 miles.

I guess I'm saying 3 hours of walking = 1 hour of running.

Not quite. While there is little difference in the amount of calories burned per mile at a walk regardless of speed, and little difference in the number calories burned per mile at a run regardless of speed, there's a significant difference in the number of calories per mile at a walk or run. In other words, the gait change from walking to running increases the number of calories burned per mile and you generally cover more miles in the same time.

So as an example, for a given person of a given weight: let's say Person "A" burns 90 cals a mile walking 1.5 miles an hour. Upping that walk to 3 mph might only increase the calories per mile by a trivial amount, lets say 91 cals a mile. The only real advantage "A" get from upping his speed is that he can cover twice as many miles in the same time. So in a one hour walk he burns 135 cals at 1.5 mph, and 273 cals at 3 mph. The extra 3 cals are, as you imply, pretty meaningless. When "A" switch his gait though, the whole calculation changes. "A" probably burns around 120 cals per mile at a slow run (say 5 mph), and maybe 124 at a fast run (say 8 mph). Again, the difference in speed primarily benefits him by letting him cover more miles in the same time, but any run burns more calories than any walk of the same distance.

So "A" doing the same 3 miles that he did for 273 cals at a walk, he can do for 360 cals at a run. That's pretty noticeable difference. Plus he's doing the miles in almost half the time, allowing him to either spend time doing something else, or run another couple miles.