Is running better for burning calories than walking?

Options
13

Replies

  • teez52
    teez52 Posts: 104 Member
    Options
    I would say that running was more efficient as you can burn more calories over a shorter time. But really as long as you are getting out there and doing something, it will be better than sitting on the couch. If you can run 1 minute, then walk 1 minute, then run 1 minute, etc. you'll burn more calories than just walking for 3 minutes. It's all about the effort. However, some people can't run for some reason or another and walking will burn calories, but you'll just have to do it for a longer period of time.
  • Griffin220x
    Griffin220x Posts: 399
    Options
    Doesn't matter. Losing fat is a result of having a caloric deficit.

    Agree
  • Matt_Wild
    Matt_Wild Posts: 2,673 Member
    Options
    For me its relative to whether I can do it every time I do cardio. I don't like running, I prefer a fast walk. I'll stick it on 10-15% incline, 4.2km/h and and walk for 40 mins.

    Just do what you are comfortable at doing and you can form into a habit :o))
  • dsjohndrow
    dsjohndrow Posts: 1,821 Member
    Options
    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.
  • PurpleTina
    PurpleTina Posts: 390 Member
    Options
    I just tried it on my treadmill. It is impossible for me to walk 10 mph.

    possibly because Olympic Racewalkers generally reach about 9mph max.........
  • PurpleTina
    PurpleTina Posts: 390 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'm 200+ and ran 9 miles last Friday night. Who said the magic number is 165?
  • jeffrodgers1
    jeffrodgers1 Posts: 991 Member
    Options
    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.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options
    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.
  • TAsunder
    TAsunder Posts: 423 Member
    Options
    Running burns more unless you are somehow walking extremely fast. At some point (5mph? 6mph? Something like that) it is actually physically more challenging to walk at a given speed than to run. Pretty sure it's not 10mph though :)

    I suspect that if Olympic walkers go about 9mph they are burning WAY more calories than someone running at 9mph.
  • MelissaGraham7
    MelissaGraham7 Posts: 403 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Runninglibrarian13
    Runninglibrarian13 Posts: 57 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've done two half marathons and weigh about 216... now granted I did not run the entire distance -- did run-walk intervals, but it all depends o the person. With the proper shoes, training, and the common sense to listen to your body, it can be done.

    That said, running isn't necessarily better than walking. The best exercise of all is one you enjoy and are likely to keep doing.
  • jimmmer
    jimmmer Posts: 3,515 Member
    Options
    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.....
  • HonoriaLucasta
    HonoriaLucasta Posts: 24 Member
    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.

    ^ What he said.
  • MsJackson5
    MsJackson5 Posts: 9
    Options
    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
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    Three reasons I prefer running...

    1) More calories burned in less time and less distance (check the article someone linked to on page one; science backs this up on both counts)

    2) Easier to intersperse a little HIIT by picking up the pace for a stretch (sprinting between streetlights, for example) which will give you a longer period of increased metabolism after exercise

    3) Endorphins... :)
  • bagge72
    bagge72 Posts: 1,377 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.

    Me too, I ran fine at over 300lbs
  • michellekicks
    michellekicks Posts: 3,624 Member
    Options
    I don't think anyone is saying running and walking burn the exact same number of calories by distance... obviously there are no exacts in this thing... they're not too far off though. For me to walk 5k in 60 mins burns about 250 calories. To run 5k in 30 mins burns about 350 calories. So no, they're not exactly the same... but not far off. Those are my Garmin burns that subtract my BMR burn from the equation. If that were to be factored in there would be a proportionately larger BMR burn added to the walking (over an hour) than there would be over the running (half hour). So it all is pretty close.
  • CnocNaCu
    CnocNaCu Posts: 536 Member
    Options
    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:
  • weatheredcheese
    weatheredcheese Posts: 112 Member
    Options
    If anyone is looking to start running and are scared of aching joints and having never run before, browse the web and you will find there are loads of programmes out there for beginners. When I statrted in January I weighed 280lbs, having never run a great distance in my life and had found out I had got my asthma back from when I was a kid.
    This didnt stop me, I found an app on my phone which has taken me from running nothing to running 5km, and it has taken me about 6 weeks. The trick is to listen tou your body, push yourself where you can but if your body really does start causing you pain slow it down. THe programme I am in the midst of does a combination of running and walking, I have gone from running 1 minute and walking one minute (repeated a few times) to running solidly for 20 minutes taking 3 minutes to get my breath and then running the last 10 minutes to complete 5km.
    Ran my first event at the weekend :) As well as phone apps I believe the NHS do a pod cast which you can download and use.
  • mnishi
    mnishi Posts: 422 Member
    Options
    You burn the same amount of calories per mile. It just depends on how long it'll take you to finish the mile.

Categories