Running vs Walking

2»

Replies

  • mrphil86
    mrphil86 Posts: 2,382 Member
    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
    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
    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
    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: 4,605 Member
    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
    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: 49,024 Member
    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
    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
    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
    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.
  • DancingHev
    DancingHev Posts: 30 Member
    I've had to give up running!
    I've been getting up at 6am and going for a run for about 30 mins before my sit-ups etc at home.

    Being a rather, ahem, top~heavy girl, my sports bra has rubbed my right shoulder so badly that i actually have a scab there now!! Can't afford to go bra shopping, so I've been doing the dance DVDs I have at home in the lounge.
    Not gonna lie, it's soooooo much more fun and I don't feel half as embarrassed coz no one can see me!!
  • twelfty
    twelfty Posts: 576 Member
    i see walking more like strength training and running full on cardio, idk if this true or not lol but i find muscles popping up from walking where running seems to tone up
  • kimmianne89
    kimmianne89 Posts: 428 Member
    According to my HRM I always burn more running. Though my route includes lots of hills so running up them etc is so much harder than walking it. I could walk much further than I can run and not be as tired or feel like I have had a workout so I say running is a better work out as my heart rate is higher throughout my run compared to when I walk the same route
  • wifealiciousness
    wifealiciousness Posts: 179 Member
    There is a lot of research that says " a mile is a mile" whether walking or running. I am also impressed (and honestly a little sceptical) about walking at 5mph. On a flat, even surface with no roads to cross, I can maintain 4mph for a few miles walking and I am tall with a long stride! Either way, exercise is exercise! I choose to walk rather than run because I can incorporate walking into my daily life quite easily and I don't enjoy running. The impact on your body for walking and running will clearly be different, and walking definitely is better for my knees than running.
  • helyg
    helyg Posts: 675 Member
    I am confused by why so many of you are surprised and/or skeptical at the idea of walking 3 miles at 5mph. Personally I find walking 3 miles at that speed a whole lot easier than running the same distance and speed.
  • domdoan
    domdoan Posts: 30
    there is nothing fit about walking at 5mph. there isn't much point. mine as well improve your running times.
  • missprincessgina
    missprincessgina Posts: 446 Member
    When I started running marathons and half marathons some of the walkers were faster than me and just as fit and healthy. For me I can run 10 miles in an hour and a half and walking 10 miles would take me a lot longer. I walk my 4 dogs everyday along with some sort of exercise (running, spinning, lifting, etc.) for myself.

    P.S. I can't walk nearly as fast as you. I can run a sub four hour marathon but I've never walked that fast on a treadmill. My dogs would love to go walking with you!
  • dsjohndrow
    dsjohndrow Posts: 1,820 Member
    There probably wouldn't be a difference. Just walking 5 mph virtually impossible for most people.
  • twelfty
    twelfty Posts: 576 Member
    There is a lot of research that says " a mile is a mile" whether walking or running. I am also impressed (and honestly a little sceptical) about walking at 5mph. On a flat, even surface with no roads to cross, I can maintain 4mph for a few miles walking and I am tall with a long stride! Either way, exercise is exercise! I choose to walk rather than run because I can incorporate walking into my daily life quite easily and I don't enjoy running. The impact on your body for walking and running will clearly be different, and walking definitely is better for my knees than running.

    i can walk 5mph (though i'm 6'4")
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,024 Member
    I am confused by why so many of you are surprised and/or skeptical at the idea of walking 3 miles at 5mph. Personally I find walking 3 miles at that speed a whole lot easier than running the same distance and speed.
    It's really fast for walking. Speed walkers (competitive) maintain about 4.5 to 5.5 speeds for competitions.
    Question: Are you doing this on the road or treadmill? And if on the treadmill, do you use the handrails? Are you taller than 6 ft?

    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
  • twelfty
    twelfty Posts: 576 Member
    on road, up and down terrain roughly for 4.5 miles, thats stopping for a couple of mins to let the shin splints subside after a really steep hill too, should i be thinking of this competetively then? lol
  • phatguerilla
    phatguerilla Posts: 188 Member
    I can't say for sure but I think I have heard you will burn more with the motion of running. More of your body/muscles are involved than if you were just walking. I'm a suuuuuuuuper slow jogger (anyone could walk right beside me) but it is much more of a workout than if I were to just walk that same speed.

    You think that people walking beside you at the same speed are burning less calories than when you're 'jogging'? And you also think you could walk at the same speed as when you 'jog' but burn less calories? I'm sorry but how does that make sense to you?
  • scorpio516
    scorpio516 Posts: 955 Member
    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?

    Running burns about 0.63 KCal/lb/mile
    Walking burns about 0.52 KCal/lb/mile

    So for a 150lb person, a mile walked burns 78 KCal and a mile runned burns 95 KCal.

    J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Apr;26(4):1039-44
  • scorpio516
    scorpio516 Posts: 955 Member
    I am confused by why so many of you are surprised and/or skeptical at the idea of walking 3 miles at 5mph. Personally I find walking 3 miles at that speed a whole lot easier than running the same distance and speed.
    It's really fast for walking. Speed walkers (competitive) maintain about 4.5 to 5.5 speeds for competitions.
    Question: Are you doing this on the road or treadmill? And if on the treadmill, do you use the handrails? Are you taller than 6 ft?

    If your only maintaining 5mph average for a race walk race, you are getting left in the dust.
    http://www.kingsportracewalk.com/2011results
    Just check out those results. The top 11 (of 36) were walking at over 7.5 mph.
    The top ~20 women at the Olympic 20k walk were walking at over 8 mph.
  • bubbanene
    bubbanene Posts: 101 Member
    read the article, although interesting..........seems to be anti-climatic. So 1 hour of cardio will give you slightly better health benefits than 40 minutes of cardio?
  • bubbanene
    bubbanene Posts: 101 Member
    just some bro science here but to me walking at 5mph is way more difficult than the jogging. Also quite a few more steps. Longer in time for smae distance. I am guessin walkin burns more.
  • wifealiciousness
    wifealiciousness Posts: 179 Member
    I am confused by why so many of you are surprised and/or skeptical at the idea of walking 3 miles at 5mph. Personally I find walking 3 miles at that speed a whole lot easier than running the same distance and speed.

    I think it's like anything. If something is though of as a "competition pace", then it's surprising that it can be achieved by the average person.

    I'm 5ft 10 with long legs, I'm pretty fit and walk a lot, and can only achieve 3.5-4mph over a few miles on flat easy terrain.

    If you're sure that's what you achieve then go for it.
  • helyg
    helyg Posts: 675 Member
    I am confused by why so many of you are surprised and/or skeptical at the idea of walking 3 miles at 5mph. Personally I find walking 3 miles at that speed a whole lot easier than running the same distance and speed.
    It's really fast for walking. Speed walkers (competitive) maintain about 4.5 to 5.5 speeds for competitions.
    Question: Are you doing this on the road or treadmill? And if on the treadmill, do you use the handrails? Are you taller than 6 ft?

    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

    On the road. I am 5'6" tall.

    I'm not sure that I could keep going for much further than 3 miles maintaining that speed, but I can do 3 miles on the flat in 36 mins. That is serious working up a sweat walking though.

    I walk pretty quickly normally though, my 1 mile walk to work (which is partly uphill) takes me less than 20 minutes, and that is wearing heels not trainers.
  • djnusch
    djnusch Posts: 19 Member
    I think this is a very interesting topic. For my opinion, I think walking burns a lot of calories than running. Here's my logic behind it, when I run I can only run four days a week. If I run much more than that my knee started hurting, And I maybe laid off if I push my body to hard, But I can walk every day and burn more calories per week, Even if it's at a slower pace. Overall a years time that would add up to a lot more calories walking. :-)
  • Hodgie12345
    Hodgie12345 Posts: 51 Member
    Surely the point is quite simply this ? : if you want to walk, then walk. If you want to run, then run. End of. Hodgie x

Categories