Walking - fast or slow - which burns more?

Options
lmkuhn596
lmkuhn596 Posts: 17 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I have been noticing that people who walk slower and for less time than I do are burning more calories - is this really possible??? I walk at 4.0 which I was sure was the best for burning but now I am doubting myself.

Any comments or thoughts on this would be GREATLY appreciated!
«1

Replies

  • TimeWarp9
    TimeWarp9 Posts: 91
    Options
    Although it will vary based on a person's weight, generally one mile = 100 calories burned. A slow mile walking will take longer than a quick mile running so the speed/time even out over the same distance. What you said about walking slower and for less time burning more calories does not make sense. Is the other person heavier? Are there other factors involved (like a steep incline?) What source is being used to determine calorie burn? If it is a treadmill, they have a tendancy to be inaccurate when it comes to calorie calculations.
  • SteveTries
    SteveTries Posts: 723 Member
    Options
    If they are considerably heavier and/or less fit than you then their effort will correspondingly be greater, despite travelling less far or less quickly.

    Another factor will be the source for the burn. MFP seems way higher than a HRM which also vary and rely upon the data you give it when you set up.

    Every tool including a HRM is an estimate based on statistical averages. With calorie burn I'd advise going on the low side. If doing so ends up with too high a weight loss then you'll know you were underestimating burn and go can increase a bit next week.
  • SteveTries
    SteveTries Posts: 723 Member
    Options
    To your title question though; the answer is distance. The further you go the more you burn.

    Fast certainly burns more per minute and per mile (in my experience c.20%) but isn't as sustainable.
  • kariebo
    kariebo Posts: 101
    Options
    Not so sure that I really have an answer... but what about alternating ... kind of like how you would do during running... walk average, then speed walk, then average, then speed... I would think that that would burn a good amount although I cant be sure... generally when i walk for exercise I walk at a pace where I cannot keep a constant conversation (one of the physical fitness people at work said if you can talk and walk , you arent walking fast enough to call it exercise). just my thoughts.
  • kat5556
    kat5556 Posts: 164 Member
    Options
    It's all about what their weight, height, (and age to some degree) compared to yours along with being male or female. My husband and I can take the same walk, say at 3.5 mph for 30 minutes. I'll burn 112 calories and he'll burn 148 in that same walk.

    Maybe these other people you see burning more that you are heavier than you.
  • twelker878
    twelker878 Posts: 146 Member
    Options
    You may be speaking of me. I put all my exercises together at the end of the day and mfp groups them as one and says something like twelker burned 426 calories walking 2.0 mph for80 minutes. This includes maybe 30 minutes of walking, 30 minutes of zumba and 20 minutes of calesthenics but only labels them as walking,. I hate it that it does this, cuz I exercise my *kitten* off and it shows up as that SLOW after supper walk I took for the hell of it.
  • cheshirechic
    cheshirechic Posts: 489 Member
    Options
    It may come down to incline or hills. If the person who's walking slower is using a HRM and is doing steep inclines, or walking a hilly route, it's possible that she will burn more than someone walking faster and longer on an unvaryingly flat surface. I'm a fan of hills and inclines, since it also works by booty. ;D
  • Misslisat
    Misslisat Posts: 203 Member
    Options
    It may come down to incline or hills. If the person who's walking slower is using a HRM and is doing steep inclines, or walking a hilly route, it's possible that she will burn more than someone walking faster and longer on an unvaryingly flat surface. I'm a fan of hills and inclines, since it also works by booty. ;D

    ^^ This is true for me. I do a 15% incline on the treadmill and about 3.3 mph. The treadmill estimates my calories burned for 15 minutes at 225. I burn half of that if no incline.
  • marycmeadows
    marycmeadows Posts: 1,691 Member
    Options
    walking at a 15% incline at 3.0mph burns the same as running 6.0 on 0% incline.
    don't hold on to the rails, you burn MORE when you don't hold on because it makes your body work harder.
  • ShreddedTweet
    ShreddedTweet Posts: 1,326 Member
    Options
    You may be speaking of me. I put all my exercises together at the end of the day and mfp groups them as one and says something like twelker burned 426 calories walking 2.0 mph for80 minutes. This includes maybe 30 minutes of walking, 30 minutes of zumba and 20 minutes of calesthenics but only labels them as walking,. I hate it that it does this, cuz I exercise my *kitten* off and it shows up as that SLOW after supper walk I took for the hell of it.

    This!
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    I have been noticing that people who walk slower and for less time than I do are burning more calories - is this really possible??? I walk at 4.0 which I was sure was the best for burning but now I am doubting myself.

    Any comments or thoughts on this would be GREATLY appreciated!

    Calorie burns are mostly about intensity. So someone who has to work really hard to walk 2.5mph would burn more than someone who can easily walk 4mph.

    Try not to compare your burns to other people's... it'll only frustrate you. Compare your burns to your previous burns. As you make progress, you *should* notice that it gets harder to see bigger burns.
  • madmickie
    madmickie Posts: 221 Member
    Options
    distance is the deciding factor - all else being equal.

    Extend the debate to running v walking and it isnt so simple.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    I have been noticing that people who walk slower and for less time than I do are burning more calories - is this really possible??? I walk at 4.0 which I was sure was the best for burning but now I am doubting myself.

    Any comments or thoughts on this would be GREATLY appreciated!

    Calorie burns are mostly about intensity. So someone who has to work really hard to walk 2.5mph would burn more than someone who can easily walk 4mph.

    Try not to compare your burns to other people's... it'll only frustrate you. Compare your burns to your previous burns. As you make progress, you *should* notice that it gets harder to see bigger burns.

    Calorie burns are about intensity, but ABSOLUTE intensity, not relative. Two people who weigh the same will burn the same calories walkimg @ 2.5 or 4.0 mph, regardless of fitness level.
  • tadpole242
    tadpole242 Posts: 507 Member
    Options
    distance is the deciding factor - all else being equal.

    Extend the debate to running v walking and it isnt so simple.
    It is simple really, running burns more calories, Total calories almost twice as many, and when you subtract the Base calories and calculate the net calories burnt, it equates to four times the calories over the same distance. Runners World 2005
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    I have been noticing that people who walk slower and for less time than I do are burning more calories - is this really possible??? I walk at 4.0 which I was sure was the best for burning but now I am doubting myself.

    Any comments or thoughts on this would be GREATLY appreciated!

    Calorie burns are mostly about intensity. So someone who has to work really hard to walk 2.5mph would burn more than someone who can easily walk 4mph.

    Try not to compare your burns to other people's... it'll only frustrate you. Compare your burns to your previous burns. As you make progress, you *should* notice that it gets harder to see bigger burns.

    Calorie burns are about intensity, but ABSOLUTE intensity, not relative. Two people who weigh the same will burn the same calories walkimg @ 2.5 or 4.0 mph, regardless of fitness level.

    So really it just comes down to physics then? How much energy it takes to move a certain amount of weight a certain distance at a certain speed? Relative exertion has nothing to do with it?
  • RancidPolecat2
    RancidPolecat2 Posts: 46
    Options
    I have been noticing that people who walk slower and for less time than I do are burning more calories - is this really possible??? I walk at 4.0 which I was sure was the best for burning but now I am doubting myself.

    Any comments or thoughts on this would be GREATLY appreciated!

    Calorie burns are mostly about intensity. So someone who has to work really hard to walk 2.5mph would burn more than someone who can easily walk 4mph.

    Try not to compare your burns to other people's... it'll only frustrate you. Compare your burns to your previous burns. As you make progress, you *should* notice that it gets harder to see bigger burns.

    Calorie burns are about intensity, but ABSOLUTE intensity, not relative. Two people who weigh the same will burn the same calories walkimg @ 2.5 or 4.0 mph, regardless of fitness level.

    It's a little more complicated than that. Exercise also stimulates extra calorie burning after the exercise is completed. How much depends on the intensity of the workout. Sprinting a mile will have a higher benefit than jogging a mile. You'll spend less time at it as well.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    I have been noticing that people who walk slower and for less time than I do are burning more calories - is this really possible??? I walk at 4.0 which I was sure was the best for burning but now I am doubting myself.

    Any comments or thoughts on this would be GREATLY appreciated!

    Calorie burns are mostly about intensity. So someone who has to work really hard to walk 2.5mph would burn more than someone who can easily walk 4mph.

    Try not to compare your burns to other people's... it'll only frustrate you. Compare your burns to your previous burns. As you make progress, you *should* notice that it gets harder to see bigger burns.

    Calorie burns are about intensity, but ABSOLUTE intensity, not relative. Two people who weigh the same will burn the same calories walkimg @ 2.5 or 4.0 mph, regardless of fitness level.

    It's a little more complicated than that. Exercise also stimulates extra calorie burning after the exercise is completed. How much depends on the intensity of the workout. Sprinting a mile will have a higher benefit than jogging a mile. You'll spend less time at it as well.

    True, but the after burn is low enough that people shouldn't spend a whole lot of time focusing on it.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    I have been noticing that people who walk slower and for less time than I do are burning more calories - is this really possible??? I walk at 4.0 which I was sure was the best for burning but now I am doubting myself.

    Any comments or thoughts on this would be GREATLY appreciated!

    Calorie burns are mostly about intensity. So someone who has to work really hard to walk 2.5mph would burn more than someone who can easily walk 4mph.

    Try not to compare your burns to other people's... it'll only frustrate you. Compare your burns to your previous burns. As you make progress, you *should* notice that it gets harder to see bigger burns.

    Calorie burns are about intensity, but ABSOLUTE intensity, not relative. Two people who weigh the same will burn the same calories walkimg @ 2.5 or 4.0 mph, regardless of fitness level.

    So really it just comes down to physics then? How much energy it takes to move a certain amount of weight a certain distance at a certain speed? Relative exertion has nothing to do with it?

    For the most part, no. The only significant difference is body weight. At any given workload level, the energy cost for steady-state aerobic activity is relatively fixed. A person with a higher fitness level will find the workload easier and will be able to sustain it longer, but the VO2 values (and hence the calorie burn) will be pretty much the same.

    At some point, a larger body will require qualitatively more energy to perform a certain workload, in addition to the fixed cost of the activity itself (i.e. in the case of the morbidly obese). Also, over time, mechanical efficiency will play a role as well, but that is a fairly small effects (3%-6%), much smaller than most people think and it occurs over a period of years, not days.

    It is slightly less straightforward for what I call "nonlinear" activities, such as group exercise classes. The more complicated the movement, the more differences you will see between individuals due to their mastery of the skills required to do the activity. The concept is still the same (exercise of the same intensity results in same calorie burn) however, there will be more variety in 'intensities" among people doing the same class.
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    Options
    I have been noticing that people who walk slower and for less time than I do are burning more calories - is this really possible??? I walk at 4.0 which I was sure was the best for burning but now I am doubting myself.

    Any comments or thoughts on this would be GREATLY appreciated!

    Performing any activity faster always Always ALWAYS burns more. A lot more.

    /ends thread
  • sunshinesquared
    sunshinesquared Posts: 2,733 Member
    Options
    You may be speaking of me. I put all my exercises together at the end of the day and mfp groups them as one and says something like twelker burned 426 calories walking 2.0 mph for80 minutes. This includes maybe 30 minutes of walking, 30 minutes of zumba and 20 minutes of calesthenics but only labels them as walking,. I hate it that it does this, cuz I exercise my *kitten* off and it shows up as that SLOW after supper walk I took for the hell of it.
    [/quote

    ^^This EXACTLY!!! I will log 30 mins of strength training and 30 mins uphill walking and it puts them both together. I've even tried logging the strength training firs, then the walk, but it still lumps them together. HATE this!!!!

Categories