Who burns more?

Dory_42

OK, here is a scenario, two people walk the exact same route from Point A to Point B (so distance, hills etc is all equal), they are exactly the same height & weight & fitness level (it is hypothetical and this removes additional variables). One walks the distance in an hour, while the other takes two hours.

Who burns more calories?

waldo56

The same. Unless the person walking faster was working hard enough to get into the inefficient walking part of the curve.

Walking calories vary quite linearly with speed until you get into speedwalking, where the mechanical inefficieny of the movement begins to incur a significant calorie cost.

If the faster person was speedwalking, they burned more calories. If the faster person was doing a brisk walk and slower just doing a leisurely stroll, they burned about the same number of calories.

DavPul

The mets will be about the same, but the person moving faster will have a great effect on body recomposition. Theoretically, anyway. Both of your examples were moving so slow they probably have the same net effect

drgndancer

They're probably pretty close to equal, but the person walking faster will burn very slightly more in effort, all other things being exactly equal. The person walking slower will burn a greater percentage of their BMR. So it mostly depends on what you mean by "who burns more?" The slower walking person will burn more calories during their walk, but the faster person will catch up during the hour following the walk (since both people presumably have the same BMR). The faster person will burn more actual exercise calories, but likely a tiny amount more (like single digits). Realistically unless this walk were done on a treadmill in a lab, with sensors all over both of their bodies, no one would be be able to tell the difference either way.

Mostly, distance determines calories burned not time. The primary advantage for the faster person is that they could choose to walk further and still use the same or smaller chunk of their day. In the real world time is generally easier to plan for than distance; I usually have 45 minutes to run, but I burn a lot more calories if I run 6 miles in that time than if I run 3.

ETA: Why yes, I can be incredibly pedantic about math. Why do you ask?

Dory_42

Don't worry, I like maths!

I asked because I was trying to figure out if I burned more if I walked faster (I am doing a walk this weekend so distance is set).

If calories burned is more dependent on distance than time, why do all the calculators online I can find only take time into account? Even those that ask you to specify distance, don't use it (I tested and the calories burned only changed when time was changed, regardless of distance!!)

rogerbosch

Well, while your 'slow walker' is walking his 2nd hour, the other one must be burning calories doing another activity mustn't he? And since even sleeping is an activity, the question is not WHAT he is doing but HOW MUCH TIME there is to do it.

JustJennie1

Why would it take someone two hours to reach the same goal? Like if you're walking say 2 miles that's a really, really slow walk.

In answer to the question I'd say the person walking faster would burn more.

drgndancer

Don't worry, I like maths!

I asked because I was trying to figure out if I burned more if I walked faster (I am doing a walk this weekend so distance is set).

If calories burned is more dependent on distance than time, why do all the calculators online I can find only take time into account? Even those that ask you to specify distance, don't use it (I tested and the calories burned only changed when time was changed, regardless of distance!!)

Usually the calculators take pace and time into consideration. Pace and time give you what need to figure out distance. If the calculator you're using doesn't consider pace as well as time, then it's not a very good calculator. Basically pace (or speed, they're different numbers but equally useful), distance, and time are all a function of each other. With any two you can figure out the third, and figure out estimated calorie burn. Now, as I mentioned, a faster pace will burn (very, very) slightly more calories per mile than a slower pace, but the difference is insignificant. The real advantage to going faster is doing a longer distance in the same time.

You really need to know how far you went to get an accurate measure of calories burned. That means two of: pace (or speed), distance, time.

Why would it take someone two hours to reach the same goal? Like if you're walking say 2 miles that's a really, really slow walk.

In answer to the question I'd say the person walking faster would burn more.

It was a an example using really simple easy to work with numbers. It's easier to say half as fast than 2/3's as fast or .856182 as fast. She's just interested in whether speed is a factor in calorie burn.

bagge72

I don't think you should judge it by distance, but by time. Sure the two will burn about the same amount of calories for that distance, but the person who finished quicker is going to burn more calories on top of that in the next hour with whatever they do, so in that two hour time frame if ther person who walks a mile in an hour, and then goes and cleans the house, or just walks around work they are going to burn more calories than that person who used that whole two hours just for the mile walk.

drgndancer

I don't think you should judge it by distance, but by time. Sure the two will burn about the same amount of calories for that distance, but the person who finished quicker is going to burn more calories on top of that in the next hour with whatever they do, so in that two hour time frame if ther person who walks a mile, and then goes and cleans the house, or just walks around work they are going to burn more calories than that person who used that whole two hours just for the mile walk.

Afterburn on walking is pretty minimal. Lifting has a significant afterburn, intense cardio like running or swimming less so, low intensity stuff like walking pretty much nothing unfortunately.

allthenamesaretaken1

I would say the one who finished first.

Why? Because the person who finished first would have a higher heart rate. Higher heart rate means more calories burned.

karensoxfan

OK, here is a scenario, two people walk the exact same route from Point A to Point B (so distance, hills etc is all equal), they are exactly the same height & weight & fitness level (it is hypothetical and this removes additional variables). One walks the distance in an hour, while the other takes two hours.

Who burns more calories?

I've wondered this about marathons. Do people burn more calories running a marathon in 3 hours than I did walking it in 9 hours (Boston, I burned approx. 4500 calories walking it per HRM).

iWaffle

If you're walking at a pace at or near 5 mph you're going to be burning nearly the same amount of calories as someone jogging. The main factor in calories burned is distance. I can do 5 miles and get a shower withing an hour's time. Walking the same distance would take nearly twice as long. If you can't or don't like running then walk. If you're not a runner you just need to invest more time to get the same calorie burned benefit so if that works for you then do that.

The afterburn effect mentioned is real. When I run in the morning, unless it's really cold outside I need a shower and 30 minutes to cool down enough to get dressed for work. My body's metabolism is cranked up through the roof which is why I'm still sweating even after a shower with nothing but cold water.

drgndancer

I've wondered this about marathons. Do people burn more calories running a marathon in 3 hours than I did walking it in 9 hours (Boston, I burned approx. 4500 calories walking it per HRM).

Completely different scenario. Running burns more calories than walking, so the runners will burn more calories. The nature of running as a series of shot, rapid hops makes it burn significantly more calories than the smoother walking gait. iWaffle is actually right that someone walking 5mph is burning nearly as many calories as a runner, but only because walking at that speed requires speed walking for most people and that's a different gait again (closer in calories burned to running than walking, because it's unnatural) So at a normal walking gait 1 miles worth of calories is more or less the same no matter how slow you go. At a speed walker's gait, you'll burn more calories per mile than a normal walking gait, but still about the same regardless of how fast you go (Most people have to switch gaits between 3 and 4.5 mph) . Jogging is more again per mile mile than the other two, but still about the same per mile regardless of how fast you go.

So the same person walking might burn say 75 kcal per mile (for any speed between say 1 and 4 mph), 95 kcal per mile speed walking (for walking at speeds above 4 mph), and 110 kcal per mile running (regardless of whether they go 5 mph or 8 mph). They'll get a very slight bump from walking or running faster, but only a very slight bump. The only way to significantly increase burn per mile is to change gaits.

Dory_42

OK, so does anyone know any good online calorie counters that take into account distance to work out more accurately how much I burn?

I don't have money for a heart rate monitor, and when I save up I would rather spend it on a kayak, yet I can use apps on my phone to work out distance.

mlb929

I got a HRM for about $15 seems to work just fine and compares accurately to the online HR calorie calculator.

keeleyfmcd

If you are down for an iPhone app, the mapmyride app is really great at checking your time, distance, pace and speeds. Its done by GPS so it will also give you elevation. It also will let you input your height and weight, so it can give you a pretty accurate calorie count for your exercise as well. I use it for walking, running, biking etc. It will let you record any activity you do. So far its been really accurate for my biking and walking. And, its free... I'm not sure if its available for Android, but worth checking out.

drgndancer

OK, so does anyone know any good online calorie counters that take into account distance to work out more accurately how much I burn?

I don't have money for a heart rate monitor, and when I save up I would rather spend it on a kayak, yet I can use apps on my phone to work out distance.

The MFP calculator uses pace and time (which gives distance), so there you go.

xiofett

If you are down for an iPhone app, the mapmyride app is really great at checking your time, distance, pace and speeds. Its done by GPS so it will also give you elevation. It also will let you input your height and weight, so it can give you a pretty accurate calorie count for your exercise as well. I use it for walking, running, biking etc. It will let you record any activity you do. So far its been really accurate for my biking and walking. And, its free... I'm not sure if its available for Android, but worth checking out.

For Android phones, check out My Tracks. It's a Google product (meaning they bought the company that originally made it), works pretty well as long as it can talk to the GPS satellites.

Dory_42

For Android phones, check out My Tracks. It's a Google product (meaning they bought the company that originally made it), works pretty well as long as it can talk to the GPS satellites.

I use My Tracks, but the elevation is screwy! I walk on the beach and it varies (20-100m above sea level - my feet are normally wet so I am at sea level.)

I want a online calculator (other than the MFP one so I can compare) that I can use that takes distance into account. The ones I tried only alter calories if i change time, not distance. In other words, if I say I walk 5km in 30 mins it has a lower calories than if I did 5km in 45 mins. However 5km in 45 mins is the same as 10km in 45 mins.

iWaffle

OK, so does anyone know any good online calorie counters that take into account distance to work out more accurately how much I burn?

I don't have money for a heart rate monitor, and when I save up I would rather spend it on a kayak, yet I can use apps on my phone to work out distance.

Runkeeper app does a pretty fair job of tracking calories. It's normally under what my Polar FT7 says by a bit but it's not a terribly drastic difference. Even if you don't have a smart phone you could use the map to add the location of your route and it would give a better idea than just a text box calculator. This app tracks your pace as well as altitude so the speed sort of simulates your heart rate a bit I guess.

runrogerrun

this is what MFP states based on my weight and age
4mph @ 2 hrs = 8 miles 826 Calories
8 mph@ 1 hr = 8 miles 1,114 Calories

But this is running comparing to walking so all not that fair maybe

vogt4mat

This study answers the question. The answer is that you burn the same. If you get to the point where you are actually jogging, you burn a good deal more. But walking will burn the same calories per mile no matter how fast you do it. The research backs it up. There's also a couple formulas at the bottom that will help you find calories burned and net calories burned per mile for both walking and running.

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

yoovie

the dude. Its not a medical fact- i just think their bodies found a way to cheat.

safarigirlelka

My Garmin watch (with a wrist HR) always awards me more calories when I run slower but spend more time running. On days when I'm Miss Speedy and run the same distance very fast (and feel I deserve a chocolate treat) I'm always disappointed with the relative low calorie burn.

lorrpb

CaptainBoing wrote: »

OK, here is a scenario, two people walk the exact same route from Point A to Point B (so distance, hills etc is all equal), they are exactly the same height & weight & fitness level (it is hypothetical and this removes additional variables). One walks the distance in an hour, while the other takes two hours.

Who burns more calories?

Who burns more calories in one hour or two? They were walking different amounts of time, so what amount of time are you wanting to compare? While person 2 is still walking, person 1 is still burning calories.

TR0berts

Holy Zombiethread, Batman!

_Bro

Read the post..
Yawned
Glanced at the nickname, I first misread as -- Captain Boring... ;0

GiddyupTim

Here's an article that appears to actually have some facts in it -- not to dis the broscience, but ......
http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn
I believe I read something recently -- an actual investigation -- that suggested that, in order to burn as many calories walking as you do running, you have to speed-walk at a 12 minute per mile pace. But I cannot find it now.

StaciMarie1974

CaptainBoing wrote: »

OK, here is a scenario, two people walk the exact same route from Point A to Point B (so distance, hills etc is all equal), they are exactly the same height & weight & fitness level (it is hypothetical and this removes additional variables). One walks the distance in an hour, while the other takes two hours.

Who burns more calories?

Wouldn't it depend on what the person who travels from A to B was doing in their 2nd hour?

Theo166

CaptainBoing wrote: »

OK, here is a scenario, two people walk the exact same route from Point A to Point B (so distance, hills etc is all equal), they are exactly the same height & weight & fitness level (it is hypothetical and this removes additional variables). One walks the distance in an hour, while the other takes two hours.

Who burns more calories?

The faster walker will burn a little bit more, but over the same two hr period. A car analogy may better illustrate why

Car A drives somewhere and back in two hours, but is gentle at acceleration and stopping. Car A gets better gas mileage.

Car B driver has a lead foot and does the same course in one hour. It has more rapid starts and stops (momentum shifts, friction) plus a bit more air resistance. It all combines to reduce efficiency and thus gas mileage. Then Car B had to sit idling in the driveway until Car A returned.