Running vs Walking

Options
2

Replies

  • bpotts44
    bpotts44 Posts: 1,066 Member
    Options
    Cardio is designed to increase your heart rate to a zone that trains your heart. I'd be interested to see which one elevates your heart more. Some would have to do with how efficiently you are walking versus running. I think I would be able to run more efficiently at 5 mph. That is a very fast walk.
  • jaygreen55
    jaygreen55 Posts: 315 Member
    Options
    According to this website http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php calories burned per 1 mile for me (177 lb male)
    would be

    Walking 3 MPH for 20 minutes I would burn 88 calories
    Walking 4 MPH for 15 minutes I would burn 100 calories
    Walking 5 MPH for 12 minutes I would burn 128 calories
    Running 6 MPH for 10 minutes I would burn 134 calories

    If this is accurate you can conclude that brisk walking burns more than leisurely walking and that walking at a a 5 MPH pace is
    almost as strenuous as running
  • terri0527
    terri0527 Posts: 678 Member
    Options
    I'm gonna say there's not one, but can you actually sustain a 5 mph walk for 3 miles?

    Yes I can.

    That is awesome because no way could I do that....my legs are too short..lol I'm only 5'4....:bigsmile:
  • CMGoodie
    CMGoodie Posts: 93 Member
    Options
    A calorie burned is a calorie burned.
    The difference in burning calories in one mile of jogging vs a calorie burned in one mile of walking is the amount of time it takes to burn it: The faster you move the faster you burn it.

    I walk 3 miles at work at a 3.5 mph pace, I burn about 350 calories. If I interval the same 3 miles....walk/jog/walk/jog backwards.... I can burn up to 375+ calories in the same exact 3 miles.
  • Msjay2blue
    Msjay2blue Posts: 26 Member
    Options
    I am 196 lbs, but I can move pretty good. I typically burn 10-12 cals a min just walking. I can burn the same amount at a lower mph if I add an incline, so for me, the difference is not just speed, which I agree makes a difference, but incline can help you reduce the speed and get same results.
  • Msjay2blue
    Msjay2blue Posts: 26 Member
    Options
    Atleast this is what I've found. Not to say the actual cals are accurate, but when I don't feel like walking fast, I just add incline.
  • lwagnitz
    lwagnitz Posts: 1,321 Member
    Options
    This may be a daft question, but here goes...

    What is the difference fitness-wise between jogging 3 miles at 5mph and walking 3 miles at 5mph?

    I would be dying walking 5mph for 3 miles...rather run it... But speed walking I've heard burns more calories because you are working your muscles harder.
  • lovemitch125
    lovemitch125 Posts: 257 Member
    Options
    I'm gonna say there's not one, but can you actually sustain a 5 mph walk for 3 miles?

    Yes I can.

    You are working different parts of your body and I think running may help your heart more? I may be wrong but my mom always said, either one is good for you, just in different ways. It just takes longer to walk 3 miles than to run 3 miles. And you'll sweat more, working off water weight.
  • lwagnitz
    lwagnitz Posts: 1,321 Member
    Options
    I'm gonna say there's not one, but can you actually sustain a 5 mph walk for 3 miles?

    Yes I can.

    You are working different parts of your body and I think running may help your heart more? I may be wrong but my mom always said, either one is good for you, just in different ways. It just takes longer to walk 3 miles than to run 3 miles. And you'll sweat more, working off water weight.

    Correct me if I'm wrong....but if you're walking at 5mph for a mile...and running at 5mph for a mile...it will take you the same exact time

    Or has everything I've been learning in math all these years been totally wrong? :laugh:
  • lovemitch125
    lovemitch125 Posts: 257 Member
    Options
    I'm gonna say there's not one, but can you actually sustain a 5 mph walk for 3 miles?

    Yes I can.

    You are working different parts of your body and I think running may help your heart more? I may be wrong but my mom always said, either one is good for you, just in different ways. It just takes longer to walk 3 miles than to run 3 miles. And you'll sweat more, working off water weight.

    Correct me if I'm wrong....but if you're walking at 5mph for a mile...and running at 5mph for a mile...it will take you the same exact time

    Or has everything I've been learning in math all these years been totally wrong? :laugh:

    haha, well I wasn't assuming she was walking 5mph, because I don't know many people who can do that for 3 miles. :laugh:
  • mrphil86
    mrphil86 Posts: 2,382 Member
    Options
    I'm gonna say there's not one, but can you actually sustain a 5 mph walk for 3 miles?

    Yes I can.

    You are working different parts of your body and I think running may help your heart more? I may be wrong but my mom always said, either one is good for you, just in different ways. It just takes longer to walk 3 miles than to run 3 miles. And you'll sweat more, working off water weight.

    Correct me if I'm wrong....but if you're walking at 5mph for a mile...and running at 5mph for a mile...it will take you the same exact time

    Or has everything I've been learning in math all these years been totally wrong? :laugh:

    Lol yeah you read my mind on that one.

    To OP:
    Walking 5 MPH, unless you are seriously power walking is useless. Well, I'm not even a fan of power walking.

    Running burns more than walking, more active muscles than walking. It does depend on the person though. Do what works for you!
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    If one foot remains in contact with the ground at all times during the stride, you are walking. If both feet leave the ground at any point in the stride, you are running.

    That is the only definition--speed is irrelevant.

    Equations for predicting oxygen uptake (energy cost) during walking are accurate for speeds of 2.0 - 4.2 mph. Equations for predicting oxygen uptake during running are applicable for running speeds of 5.0 mph and faster.

    At waking speeds above 4.2 mph and running speeds below 5.0 mph, standard equations do no apply because there is too much variability in stride, gait and other factors.

    If one adopts a racewalking gait, there is usually a speed at which (race)walking will expend greater energy (and burn more calories) than running at the same speed. Most people will never bother to reach that point, since if one can walk that fast, one can almost always run even faster.

    Except for the rare circumstances listed in the previous paragraph, running will always burn more calories per mile than walking. If one is walking, than one will burn the same number of calories per mile regardless of walking speed (up to 4.2 mph), and the same if one is running. However when comparing walking to running -- running always burns more per unit of distance.

    Whether or not any exercise is "good" for depends on your goals and your fitness level. If you are interested in gains in maximum aerobic fitness level, and a particular walking speed allows you to work at 60?% of your VO2max, then it can be effective for cardio training. If you have a high fitness level and a walking speed only brings you to 30%40% of VO2max, then it won't be that effective for improving fitness. There is nothing inherently "good" or "bad" about a cardio exercise modality--it's effectiveness depends solely on whether you perform the exercise at the appropriate Intensity, Frequency and Duration.
  • caly_man
    caly_man Posts: 281 Member
    Options
    That is what I'm thinking... But in terms of health and fitness, if a person finds it easier to sustain walking at 5mph than running at 5mph, is it better to walk and do it for longer/further?

    It really boils down to personal preference. If the idea is to go out and do 10 miles and you feel more comfortable walking at 5 mph than jogging, then do walking.

    if the idea is to burn more calories then definitely go jogging at 5 mph.

    what you are going to find out is that with running your stamina, endurance, and overall jogging speed will improve with time and therefore in the long run your overall fitness level will increase beyond the levels that power walking can accomplish.

    in other words, if you choose to jog instead of walking ..... your gonna start jogging faster than 5 mph real fast.

    stay active and good luck
  • hatethegame
    hatethegame Posts: 267 Member
    Options
    I don't know anyone that can walk that fast but there's no difference. It's just a matter of how hard your body is working which will determine how many calories you burn.
  • meerkat70
    meerkat70 Posts: 4,616 Member
    Options
    None. A mile is a mile is a mile.
    As long as there is some effort being put into it.
    Any study I have read or heard about says walking or running a mile uses 'about' 100 calories.
    I haven't figured out why running equals. I keep thinking all that heavy breathing and chest heaving
    ought to be burning more, but apparently not.
    Lots of this info on Google. From 'real' Universities and Medical facilities. Kinesthesiologists.
    Not the diet industry.

    Research tells us running burns more

    25% more in this study:
    http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2012/04000/Energy_Expenditure_Comparison_Between_Walking_and.22.aspx

    Running expends more energy for children than brisk walking:

    http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2012/04000/Energy_Expenditure_Comparison_Between_Walking_and.22.aspx

    I could go on...?
  • watfordjc
    watfordjc Posts: 304 Member
    Options
    The theory says that walking a mile and jogging/running a mile burns the same calories. Now, I would say (purely guessing here) that if you regularly walk at 5 mph then running will burn more because your body should be more efficient at the movements involved in walking. Vice-versa for regular runners. I'm only 50/50 on this though as an activity using more muscle fibres should require more energy. The difference won't be as big as if you were comparing to rowing or cycling at 5 mph since walking and running are similar.

    Edit: Or is it running a mile at X mph burns the same as running a mile at Y mph? The formula linked to below suggests I'm wrong in the last paragraph.

    As for which is better for the joints, I would assume walking unless your walking style is inefficient enough to put more strain on the joints than your running style (also taking into account any excess weight). As for which is better for cardiovascular health, I would assume that depends on how hard your heart works for each activity. When your heart is efficient at running at 5 mph you can step up either speed or distance, presumably walking would be limited to just increasing distance.

    Guessing, assuming, and presuming? Well, there are two formulae here (http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/technote/walkrun.htm) that predict the power expended for walking and the power expended for running using mass, leg length, and speed (and gravity) but I don't know how accurate those models are and my mind is a bit sluggish.

    The example, however, predicts someone with a mass of 220 lb and a leg length of 1 m will burn the same calories walking at 4.5 mph as running at 4.5 mph, and at faster speeds running is more efficient (and at slower speeds walking is more efficient). If your legs are shorter, running becomes more efficient at a speed slower than 4.5 mph, if they are longer running becomes more efficient at a speed faster than 4.5 mph. The "transition speed" formula uses leg length (and gravity).
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,708 Member
    Options
    None. A mile is a mile is a mile.
    As long as there is some effort being put into it.
    Any study I have read or heard about says walking or running a mile uses 'about' 100 calories.
    I haven't figured out why running equals. I keep thinking all that heavy breathing and chest heaving
    ought to be burning more, but apparently not.
    Lots of this info on Google. From 'real' Universities and Medical facilities. Kinesthesiologists.
    Not the diet industry.
    Actually I was schooled by a physics professor on this after making a statement that running a mile and walking a mile was the same in caloric burn.
    Long story short, for about every mile a person walks, they would burn approximately 50 more calories if they ran that same mile. No 50 calories doesn't sound like a lot, but if one ran 10 miles vs walking 10 miles, that's a 500 calorie difference.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
  • Justjamie0418
    Justjamie0418 Posts: 1,065 Member
    Options
    I burn roughly the same amount per mile if I am walking or running. EXCEPT, If I walk on a steep incline on a treadmill (I set it at 10 at 3.8 MPH) and I burn a ton more.
  • nessa552013
    nessa552013 Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    Great post. I always find that running burns more in my case but then I haven't tried the same speeds for walking and running.
  • debraran1
    debraran1 Posts: 521 Member
    Options
    My doctor told me jogging/running is better for the bones that walking, but both are better than nothing. A little pounding helps with osteoporosis along with weight training.

    I know when I ran in my 40's, I starting with walking and when I reached 5 miles on the weekend, wanted to do more but didn't have the time, so started to run/walk. I saw pounds start to go even under 5 miles. I never personally lost the same walking vs running but I think it is because my metabolism was sluggish.

    I would see women at the gym reading on the EFX machine...if I went slow enough to do that, I wouldn't lose much. It's a personal thing, anything is better than nothing, but as other posters said, if you are walking, add hills or incline to treadmill to make up for the lack of speed. It really works to up heart rate and calorie burn.

Categories