Is running better for burning calories than walking?

Exercise is better than no exercise. Walking takes longer to burn the same amount of calories as running. But, for health benefits, it is preferred that one does aerobic exercise. Therefore, running is better.

For now, I would walk. Running at 200 lbs will put enormous strain on your knees and ankles, and start causing constant knee and foot pain. Running will eventually burn more calories per minute, but walk (or do another low impact exercise) until you're down to 165 lbs.

I could run a Half Marathon at 200 lbs without injury !

You know I got so caught up with wanting to run. But for me, I was just too unfit and heavy. I was getting crazy out of breath and just hurting everywhere.

So I gave up. Now I walk as fast as I can (which is still only around 3.5 mph with my little legs) for as long as I can. I am almost up to 5 miles, 4 times a week. I burn around 500 calories for that. And in my humble opinion, 500 calorie burn is great for something where I only get up a slight sweat and can actually enjoy (especially walking around a pretty park).

And although my legs ache after it and the next day, my joints don't kill me like when I tried running.

I might try jogging again after about another 20lbs gone

here is some information that is not just opinion.
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn

Thank you! I get so tired of people saying one mile burns the same amount regardless of speed. It's just not true (as evidenced by this article, my HRM, and well, common sense!)

To the OP, running is definitely better for burning calories. It's also harder. A LOT harder. I started out walking, and started running about 5 months later to get a better burn.

If you're concerned about it being too hard (I personally don't think 200 lbs. is too large for running - just get the RIGHT shoes, fitted at a specialty running store) look into the Galloway method. It's a run/walk interval program that greatly reduces injury. I do this program after having hip injury issues.

www.jeffgalloway.com

Doesn't matter. Losing fat is a result of having a caloric deficit.

Agree

Using pure math, it's pretty much a toss up. 300 calories walking 3 miles, or 300 running 1.

Physiologically speaking, true "cardio" is getting the heart rate up into higher zones. Most experts agree that that is higher than 120 beats per minute (BPM) and some over 130 BPM. You'll be hard pressed to do that while walking at 3 miles per hour. It's hard at 4 mph. And most folks can't walk at 5 mph.

Intervals IE: C25K is a good way to get started, and then you can do running intervals. Those seem best for weight loss. I would add in some strength training too.

Details on heart zones here:
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/hrm1.htm

The other thing you will not get from walking are as follows:
- An endorphin high
- The satisfaction doing what a lot of people can't
- The self esteem and self confidence that comes with succeeding.

Everyone can't run, but if you can, I suggest it.

For now, I would walk. Running at 200 lbs will put enormous strain on your knees and ankles, and start causing constant knee and foot pain. Running will eventually burn more calories per minute, but walk (or do another low impact exercise) until you're down to 165 lbs.

I'm 200+ and ran 9 miles last Friday night. Who said the magic number is 165?

Actually if you walk on an incline you'll burn a lot more calories than running on a flat surface in the same amount of time and it's much easier on the joints.

And if I run on an incline, I will burn more calories than I do if I walk on an incline. Compare to apples to apples.

If I walk a mile or run a mile, I will burn the same amount of calories. I will get there faster if I run.

The answer is that running burns more calories per minute than does walking.

The answer is that running burns more calories than walking. Per minute AND per mile. It's a myth that you burn the same amount walking a mile as running a mile.

For me, I was putting too much pressure on myself to be a runner and felt "ashamed" of "just walking." The fact is, the best exercise is the one that you can and will do and that you enjoy. I didn't love running. I did some races, etc. but I kept just burning out (even at my very low rate of training comparatively speaking). Finally, I have embraced power walking or just brisk walking.. I enjoy it a lot. I can do it and not feel pressured. I love when I got faster or farther but ultimately, I want to do what I can do regularly and not have to force myself to do it. I mostly use my treadmill at it is easier on my joints (which did indeed take a hard hit when I was "jogging")) and I can do incline intervals, speed intervals, and listen to my iPod without having to pay attention to traffic.

Bottom line is- of course more effort burns more calories. But there is no shame in walking and of course you should ease into running. If you do only walking, you are still burning calories. Lots of hard core folks on here think you are somehow less of a person if you don't run. Do what you love and love what you do. That is what will make you a better person and help you keep the weight off.

The simple truth is: it doesn't matter.

As YoungDoc2B noted - calorie deficit is what burns fat.

Even if you burned 100 extra calories from running the same distance as you walk, what of it? A piece of toast without butter is 100 calories. People need to get it into perspective.

If you enjoy running, run. If you enjoy walking, walk. However, if you want to lose fat, just make sure you are in deficit of your TDEE.

It's really that simple.

PS for people who are going to say "but what about cardiovascular health?". What of it? You can get your heart pumping doing any exercise (including walking/hiking), or you can mosey along and not get your heart pumping like mad. But then that wasn't the OP's question.....

That is completely tru.... i cant run but the incline get my calories alot higher. u can decrease the speed and u STILL GET A GREAT SWEAT

For now, I would walk. Running at 200 lbs will put enormous strain on your knees and ankles, and start causing constant knee and foot pain. Running will eventually burn more calories per minute, but walk (or do another low impact exercise) until you're down to 165 lbs.

what about 168? Should I wait until I lose another 3 pounds?

I call BS- I can run just fine at 195 pounds.

Me too, I ran fine at over 300lbs

The higher the heart rate the less calories burned come from the fat depots. This is because of the fact that when you burn fat oxygen is needed. When you train with high HR you're closer to the anaerobe zone where fuel comes from glycogen (carbs) stored in the muscles.When I walk 60 mins for 5K I burn a bit less than when I run the same distanc,e but when I am walking between 25 and 45% of the calories come from fat whereas when I am running this distance only 14-18% come from fat, the rest from glycogen stored in my muscles. When I started running more my craving for carbs went up. I am just back from a sports medical and was told to mix up things properly to avoid the craving for too many carbs and to make sure I build muscle as well. I got a training plan and now I am training according to heart rate zones :running 3xweek, resistance+weights 2x week.
I find running hard on my knees and feet and will definitely always mix in the odd decent long walk. As long as we;re moving it's fine:drinker:

You burn the same amount of calories per mile. It just depends on how long it'll take you to finish the mile.