Running vs. Walking

2

Replies

  • Shadowsan
    Shadowsan Posts: 365 Member
    At the end of the day it's all calories that have to be replenished somewhere...

    ...It's more specifically how you feel at the time and afterwards that needs to be managed. Pretty hard to continue to exercise if you're aching like crazy because your muscles are full of lactic acid... And not only that but it'll more than likely put you off.

    A lot of people say no pain no gain, but the honest answer is a little pain is good - but past a certain point and you're only harming your progress.
  • Vansy
    Vansy Posts: 419 Member
    I would guess running.... but I have a question... pertaining to the same thing, sorta...

    I just recently started to run, (doing a version of "The Beginning Runner's Handbook: The Proven 13-Week Walk-Run Program by Ian MacNeill" program ) more like jogging at slow speeds... That being said, how is it possible to jog slower than you walk?

    I ask cause today, I timed myself for the first time. And a walk that normally takes 40 minutes for me to do, took me an hour :noway:


    Your body has to work differently/harder to jog than to walk. Not to mention different muscles are being used, so you need to condition them.
    I'm sure when you started walking you weren't as fast as you are today, or couldn't walk as far as you could today at that speed? -- Thinking of starting to jog/run as a brand-new exercise, you just have to start small and increase slowly and you'll be jogging faster in no time.
  • froeschli
    froeschli Posts: 1,292 Member
    I would guess running.... but I have a question... pertaining to the same thing, sorta...

    I just recently started to run, (doing a version of "The Beginning Runner's Handbook: The Proven 13-Week Walk-Run Program by Ian MacNeill" program ) more like jogging at slow speeds... That being said, how is it possible to jog slower than you walk?

    I ask cause today, I timed myself for the first time. And a walk that normally takes 40 minutes for me to do, took me an hour :noway:

    I did that program too - until i fell and had to quit for a while...
    anyhow, like the poster before me mentioned - you have to get used to using your running muscles. also, breathing is slightly different.
    as it once was explained to me: with walking, you have 2 feet on the ground - one pushes, and if you're efficient, the other actually pulls you forward at the same time. running, you have only one foot on the ground, so you have to propel yourself forward harder...
  • drgndancer
    drgndancer Posts: 426 Member
    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 :p
    If you're walking, you are not at running speed. It's relative to the individual. Running burns more calories for the same distance as walking.

    Obviously you've never seen really good walkers. The world class speed walkers can do 6 or 7 minute miles just walking. That's faster than my running pace and I'm considered an average runner with an 8 minute mile pace. I definetely finish in the top third of most races I do. Most people can't walk that fast of course, any more than most runner can manage a 4 minute mile at 5k, but it's definetely possible to walk very fast. Hell someone above you just posted that she walks faster than she runs, and finds it frustrating. The difference between walking and running is not speed. It's whether your feet ever completely leave the ground.

    A running gait means that you have a point in your stride where both feet leave the ground, you're essentially making a series of very small leaps. A walking gait means at least one foot is always on the ground. Granted, for most people it's easier to go faster by running, but you can get very fast with a walking gait. In the extreme cases faster than most of us will ever run. There's a substantial overlap between about 4 and 5 mph where it's probably questionable for a person of average size and fitness which gait is more efficient.
  • tragicpixie
    tragicpixie Posts: 71
    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.
  • I_wanna_live
    I_wanna_live Posts: 227 Member
    Hell someone above you just posted that HE walks faster than HE runs, and finds it frustrating.

    I fixed the mistakes
  • mfpcopine
    mfpcopine Posts: 3,093 Member
    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 :p

    To walk at a true runner's pace is extremely awkward. I generally can't walk on the treadmill at a speed of over 4.0 or 4.5.
  • Lleldiranne
    Lleldiranne Posts: 5,516 Member
    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 :p
  • alli_baba
    alli_baba Posts: 232 Member
    The world class speed walkers can do 6 or 7 minute miles just walking.
    After watching the Olympics race walking events and seeing the 7 mph speeds, I was motivated to give it a try. I've been running for over 20 years and I think I'm pretty fast and in good shape.

    I couldn't even race walk for one mile! It's super hard. It's a very inefficient movement (at least for me) as your front leg has to be straight, both feet can't leave the ground at the same time, and you strike from your heel. Granted I was trying to keep a 6 mph pace (probably not ideal for my first try), but I had to have running "breaks" just to give myself a rest.

    I wouldn't be surprised a bit if race walking burns more calories (due to the inefficiency of the movement) than running at the same speed.
  • drgndancer
    drgndancer Posts: 426 Member
    Mea culpa, but a picture would help :smile:
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    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 :p
    If you're walking, you are not at running speed. It's relative to the individual. Running burns more calories for the same distance as walking.

    Obviously you've never seen really good walkers. The world class speed walkers can do 6 or 7 minute miles just walking. That's faster than my running pace and I'm considered an average runner with an 8 minute mile pace. I definetely finish in the top third of most races I do. Most people can't walk that fast of course, any more than most runner can manage a 4 minute mile at 5k, but it's definetely possible to walk very fast. Hell someone above you just posted that she walks faster than she runs, and finds it frustrating. The difference between walking and running is not speed. It's whether your feet ever completely leave the ground.

    A running gait means that you have a point in your stride where both feet leave the ground, you're essentially making a series of very small leaps. A walking gait means at least one foot is always on the ground. Granted, for most people it's easier to go faster by running, but you can get very fast with a walking gait. In the extreme cases faster than most of us will ever run. There's a substantial overlap between about 4 and 5 mph where it's probably questionable for a person of average size and fitness which gait is more efficient.

    Yours is the proper definition of running vs walking--it's not defined by speed.

    You are also correct that there is more variation in gait among individuals when you get to the 4.0-5.0 mph range, which is why the ACSM metabolic equation for walking is not recommended for speeds > 4.2 mph and the one for running is not recommended for <5.0 mph.

    I usually avoid briniging racewalking into the discussion because it is such a specialized movement and so few people do it--I find it tends to confuse the discussion.

    For the average person in most cases, running is going to burn a higher number of calories per distance or per unit of time than walking. When you get to racewalking-type speeds, it is likely that at some point, walking will burn more calories than running at that specific speed. But that speed will be different for different people and hardly anyone will ever reach that level.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    The world class speed walkers can do 6 or 7 minute miles just walking.
    After watching the Olympics race walking events and seeing the 7 mph speeds, I was motivated to give it a try. I've been running for over 20 years and I think I'm pretty fast and in good shape.

    I couldn't even race walk for one mile! It's super hard. It's a very inefficient movement (at least for me) as your front leg has to be straight, both feet can't leave the ground at the same time, and you strike from your heel. Granted I was trying to keep a 6 mph pace (probably not ideal for my first try), but I had to have running "breaks" just to give myself a rest.

    I wouldn't be surprised a bit if race walking burns more calories (due to the inefficiency of the movement) than running at the same speed.

    It's hard at first because the movement is so different--and you have to keep your foot in dorsiflexion throughout the swing phase which is tough on the anterior tibialis.

    Long ago, when I was recovering from an injury I tried racewalking for awhile. My crowning achievement was 3 miles on a track in a shade under 29 minutes--during which I passed several joggers. For me, though, running was a lot more fun.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    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 :p

    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 B) the fuel substrate used during exercise has vitually no effect on fat loss.
  • glennstoudt
    glennstoudt Posts: 403 Member
    If you want to lose fat, get your heart rate in the 55-75% of maximum for as much time as you have to do so. Running, walking or whatever you do is irrelevant. It's about the heart rate conditioning zone, and it works. You will burn more fat in this range than you will in the >85% range. If you want to lose fat, do this.
  • PaleoRDH
    PaleoRDH Posts: 266
    I can easily run at walking speed. Even though I used to run endurance/long distance, I was a freaking turtle. Always the last. But I did it nonetheless so THERE :-) Running burns more calories. But you are likely to get more injuries, just ask my left ankle and right knee. :noway:
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html

    Is that a new page? Haven't seen it before.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html

    Is that a new page? Haven't seen it before.

    I noticed it about a month ago, I usually don't look over the site updates on the main page sadly. I've been missing a few things.

    I think it's wild I could either slow to 2mph, or speed up past 3.5 to burn the same, but my preferred speed is the most efficient, now I know why I gravate to it.
  • ixap
    ixap Posts: 675 Member
    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 :p

    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 B) 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.
  • Smrhoads
    Smrhoads Posts: 31

    Also - be aware of your HR. Once you go over a percentage that the number eludes me at this particular moment in time... 75% maybe? Your body stops burning calories aerobically (i.e. burning fat) and panics and goes into the anaerobic system/lactic acid system which will feel pretty uncomfortable. It'll burn off calories, but it's not targeting specifically fat.

    Edit - Spot the dude who studied sports science for 4 years :S

    Truth!!

Categories