Is running better for burning calories than walking?

Options
24

Replies

  • NormInv
    NormInv Posts: 3,302 Member
    Options
    OK so maybe some of my numbers were off. But I did read this online I think on runner's world that fast walking is tougher than slow running. at the same speed.
  • ThisGirl2013
    ThisGirl2013 Posts: 220 Member
    Options
    Interval.
    Also, work your way in to it so you don't burn out and/or get discouraged.
  • THINMED
    THINMED Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    Thank you all very much!
  • sz8soon
    sz8soon Posts: 816 Member
    Options
    I just tried it on my treadmill. It is impossible for me to walk 10 mph.

    :laugh: :laugh: that literally made me almost spit water!

    Me too- I'd say anything over 4.5 is getting tough to walk at. :noway: :noway: :noway:
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,080 Member
    Options
    I call Shenanigans. You can't walk 10MPH. :angry:
  • culuriel
    culuriel Posts: 11 Member
    Options
    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.
  • sz8soon
    sz8soon Posts: 816 Member
    Options
    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.
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    Options
    What about sitting? Does sitting burn more calories than walking?
  • Ultragirl2374
    Ultragirl2374 Posts: 390 Member
    Options
    Doesn't matter. Losing fat is a result of having a caloric deficit.

    But if you burn more calories while running than you do while walking you would therefore have a bigger caloric deficit with running would you not?????
  • Ickle_Star
    Ickle_Star Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    Walking and running the same distance burn roughly the same amount of calories. NOTE, you're doing the same distance! So it'd take you a lot longer to walk the distance. But if you only have say 30 minutes to work out, then run, it will burn more.
  • desogorman
    desogorman Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    not sure if that is true ickle star. it is not a linear scale where distance is equivalent to calories. to answer the question, running without question will burn more calories. also, running will use more muscle groups
  • JeneticTraining
    JeneticTraining Posts: 663 Member
    Options
    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.
  • neilvv
    neilvv Posts: 146 Member
    Options
    Delete please, double post.
  • neilvv
    neilvv Posts: 146 Member
    Options
    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 !
  • lacroyx
    lacroyx Posts: 5,754 Member
    Options
    I call Shenanigans. You can't walk 10MPH. :angry:
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1qv3izIYEwtjw99Vos7QPY6CayKPoQ32itb6ti-XjYyHXcswGrCfPrA
  • witchy_wife
    witchy_wife Posts: 792 Member
    Options
    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 :)
  • Brian_VA
    Brian_VA Posts: 125
    Options
    Running may burn more calories in the same time, but a person just learning will be hard presses to run sufficient distance for that to matter. You could walk far further and more frequently and burn many more calories in the first month or 2 than running alone.

    If you want to learn to run I think it is an awesome experience and as a byproduct a great weight maintenance tool, but to learn to run because it is the best way to lose weight, I don't agree.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options

    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!)
  • contingencyplan
    contingencyplan Posts: 3,639 Member
    Options
    In general when it comes to cardiovascular exercise the more effort the activity requires the more effective it is, even if you don't do it for as long.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options
    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