Running vs. walking on incline

Well. I will tell you that I don't burn nearly as many calories walking at an incline as I do when I run. I've lost almost 60lbs and I have been running for quite awhile. That being said, I do walk at an incline just to switch things up. But, overall I run as my cardio.

I'd like to see what people say about this. On my treadmill there is a specific weight loss program, and it is all fast paced walking on an incline. I really feel the burn when I do it, and just telling myself it's walking kinda tricks my mind into feeling like it's easier than running. Haha. But it's not easy. I'm rambling...

Here's the way I understand it.... There is such a thing as a fat burning zone that will burn a higher percentage of calories from fat. BUT if you want to lose weight, you need to burn calories, and that means you need to get your heart rate up into the high intensity zone and running happens to be one thing that tends to get your heart rate up that high.

While there is nothing wrong with incline walking, his "facts" about fat-burning are 100% wrong. The whole "running vs incline walking" debate is a false argument. They both exist on the same continuum of aerobic exercise. It's not an "either/or" type of choice.

There are two truths in exercise physiology that render the whole argument (and his position) moot.

1. The fuel you burn during exercise has NO effect on long-term weight loss. None. A) the total amount of fat burned during exercise is tiny to begin with. The differences between a "fat burning" and a "non fat burning" workout are even tinier. Whatever happens during an exercise session, the body compensates the rest of the day, so that the net difference is: nada.

2. Caloric burn during exercise is a byproduct of oxygen uptake. Oxygen uptake is directly related to workout intensity. If you have matching levels of oxygen uptake (i.e. matching intensities), for the most part you will have matching caloric burns (for the same individual).

Again, it doesn't matter what % fat you burn during exercise, or how long it takes the body to "burn sugar", or whatever. When it comes to aerobic exercise, intensity is intensity, regardless of what modality you are using. (Now it can be more comfortable to reach higher levels of exertion with some types of exercise activity over others, but that's a completely different issue).

From a physiologic standpoint, if you can work at an equivalent intensity level during incline walking as compared to running, caloric burn will be roughly equal. There is no "opinion" in this "debate". The facts and the formulae to estimate energy output have been established for decades.

Example: running 6mph (10:00 mile) on the flat is an intensity of around 10 METs. Here are some equivalent incline walking workloads:

2.5 mph/ 20.5% hill (need a specialized machine)

3.0 mph/ 16% hill (most treadmills only go up to 15%)

3.2 mph/15% hill

3.5 mph/13% hill

Anything faster than 3.5 will be harder to sustain at that steep an incline. You can also do faster speeds and lower inclines but those become harder to sustain because you have to keep the foot flexed through the swing phase and that can lead to early muscle fatigue). And, of course, this assumes that you do not hold on to the handrails at any time.

From a theoretical standpoint, these should all be equal, once one has become comfortable with the movements.

Practically, as always, there are pros and cons with each choice. Incline walking, because it has less pounding, allows one to more easily increase duration of the workout and I think can be easier to do more frequently. Incline walking is an excellent choice for those whose fitness level is too high to be challenged by walking on level ground, but who do not have either the physical ability or interest in running. The advantage of running is that it is still one of the best ways to burn calories and improve fitness--but only if you are fit enough to handle the intensity. As you can see from above, it takes a high level of incline walking to equal a relatively modest running pace.

The only reasons to prefer or recommend one over the other would be subjective ones like personal preference or fitness/health background. There is no unique inherent advantage with either activity.

So today my coworker (who is super fit and helps people lose weight all the time) was telling me that when going to the gym i shouldnt be running. He said that in order to lose weight i should be walking on an incline for 30-60 minutes and that will burn more fat than doing hardcore cardio. Has anyone heard this or know if its true?

I do incline walking because my knees can't take the impact of running. I end up burning about 600-700 calories per hour (my workout is usually 3.5mph at 15% incline for 40 mins).

I like to do my treadmilling in bursts! So I'll run at a high speed and a slight incline for around 10 minutes, then I'll walk for 3 minutes or so on a higher incline to catch my breath, and repeat till I run out of time. It depends on my level of motivation how high and low the time, speeds, and inclines get, but I've read that burst workouts are good for weight loss.

All workouts are good for weight loss. What you are doing is an interval workout which is good for increasing overall fitness, which in turn allows you to work harder, which allows you to burn more calories, which is good for weight loss. The whole "burst" concept is just a catchy name. The workout is fine--you will also benefit from continuing to include some endurance cardio as well 1-2 days a week.

This is an old post but I thought I would respond for any one searching for this on Google like I did. Walking on an incline and keeping your heart rate around 65% does burn more fat. The reasoning behind this is because when you run and gas your body you will dig into carbohydrate storage first, then fat. However, if your body is being pushed and you keep running you can burn fat and muscle, which for me is a no no. Walking on an incline does build your glutes (butt), legs, and calves. At 65ish% of max heart rate your body will use fat for energy instead of all your carbs. The body actually prefers using fat for energy. Walking on an incline can also save your knees! specially if your a female considering females naturally have wider hips (for child birth), women can obtain patella-femur pain which can be very painful. To concentrate on fat you don't want to turn your workout into an anaerobic (No oxygen) workout, that's when you will start to grab whatever your body can to produce the energy it needs to keep going.When I'm walking on the treadmill at a 15% incline I keep my heart rate of course at 65% my max heart rate, but also to keep it an aerobic exercise (with oxygen). My motto is if I am able to speak to someone while walking at an incline I am still at an aerobic workout. Now don't get me wrong starting of my legs and calves were killing me, but now they have strengthen up and I can go for over an hour now. Like I tell my girlfriend, Why not tone your legs while doing cardio and have it look like your wearing high heels when your wearing regular shoes or flip flops.

The fuel substrate you utilize during your workout has no effect on body fat. There are another 23 hours in the day and, when it comes to fat oxidation, the body will compensate for what occurred during a workout the rest of the day, so that at the end of 24 hours, there is no difference in 24 hour fat oxidation.

The "aerobic exercise burns muscle" is also a fallacy for similar reasons. It assumes that a minor shift in fuel substrate usage during a small portion of a workout will somehow have irreversible changes in muscle mass. Doesn't happen. A simple PubMed search will come up with at least a half a dozen studies that show that athletes can engage in hours of endurance training per week without ever going into nitrogen imbalance as long as their protein intake is adequate.

What Azdak said.

But just to add - I've recently started walking on an incline for a number of reasons.

1) Convenience - I have a half mile hill literally at the end of my road and it's STEEP. I get up to 150bpm walking up it, which at 40 is pretty good going.

2) Low impact. I run, do Insanity, weights, met cons etc. But I really wanted something that would let me burn calories and fat but wouldn't waste my knees. This fits the bill perfectly.

3) Back to convenience - as it's so easy I don't find it difficult to pop out and get an hour workout in before breakfast (I'm NOT a morning person).

I walk up the hill (around 8 minutes) and down it (about 5) for a total of an hour. It's also a bit like an extended interval workout. By the top of it my calves and glutes are burning, I'm breathing hard and my heart rate is around 150+. Coming down I use different muscles but it gets back down to around 120 before I turn around and start going up again.

650 calories an hour last time I wore my HRM. Plus, my knees were fine and I actually felt refreshed after it rather than wasted (as I do after some of my runs etc).

I highly recommend walking up inclines. But there's a difference between walking up a steep hill and just tilting the treadmill a bit.

Yeah I understand what your saying about total 24 hour day there is not a difference at the end of the day. However, my exercise science books said that walking incline does burn fat ratio wise more than running; also I know bodybuilders (although have supplemental help) do the same thing to concentrate on fat instead of running the risk of having it use muscle as energy. For example, look at marathon runners, or people that run all the time as their exercise....their muscle mass is not very good. You are probably right about the PubMed search, but it's the same thing when you go on Science Direct..You can find articles supporting incline training. For example, I know Princeton University did a study on it.

Running vs walking on incline

Walking incline pro's:
Mentally easier
go longer = more calories
A LOT easier on joints
Build or tone butt, legs, calves
Helps women avoid from getting patella-femur pain

These are without mentioning our debate up top

Walking at an incline is a fantastic workout. As an avid runner (including marathons), I often opt for incline power walking when I am looking for a fast high yield workout. I burn more calories incline power walking (~900 cal/hr at 15% incline & 5.0 pace - must hold on to front hand rail at his steep incline vs. running ~775 cal/hr at 0% and 7.2 - 7.5 pace). I find that I get more fatigued with incline power walking and have to take breaks with interval running. Additionally, as others have mentioned, you will burn more fat. If you haven't tried incline power walking, give it a try!

Another pro: it's a good way to get some light cardio in if you're just starting out weight lifting and can't cope with more leg-intensive stuff or impact (as mentioned), or need help with recovery.

There`s a little calorie burn, but at my weight (low end of average bmi) it`s not worthwhile for that. I do it more for motivational reasons - I like doing *something* every day, to keep my head in my body. Helps regulate my appetite too (though I know that`s not true for everyone), and it`s a good mood-booster.

(Ok, technically not a new pro, but thought I`d spell out why I like it.)

Hi. If the incline on the treadmill reads 5, does that mean it's at 5%? Cause going steeper than 5 makes my lower back hurt
Also, after walking for 1 hour at 3.5-3.8 on that incline, my HRM said I burnt 912 calories! Is it crazy? Or is that actually possible?

We were actually talking about this in my Physiology class last night. You burn a higher percentage of fat in a lower heart rate range but not necessarily more fat calories.

Example: You are burning 100 cal per/hr at an 80% fat burning rate which would equal 80 cal of fat. Where as if you were doing an intense work out and were burning 300 cal per/hr at 40% fat burning rate equals 120 cal calories from fat. The last time I checked 120 is greater than 80.

With that being said...doing some exercise is better than doing none!!!!!!!

We were actually talking about this in my Physiology class last night. You burn a higher percentage of fat in a lower heart rate range but not necessarily more fat calories.

Example: You are burning 100 cal per/hr at an 80% fat burning rate which would equal 80 cal of fat. Where as if you were doing an intense work out and were burning 300 cal per/hr at 40% fat burning rate equals 120 cal calories from fat. The last time I checked 120 is greater than 80.

With that being said...doing some exercise is better than doing none!!!!!!!

They tend to not mention this in class, but the most important thing to remember is that, whatever the percentage and whatever the exercise, even the total fat calories burned during a workout session is meaningless when looking at fat loss. First of all, the total amount of fat burned during an exercise session -- even if one burns 1000 calories in an hour -- is negligible. That's overall -- if you look at the difference when comparing two different kinds of workouts (since you will always burn a minimum amount of fat doing anything), the difference is insignificant--like less than 1/2 of an ounce.

But even that discussion is meaningless because, over 24 hours, the body changes its rate of fat oxidation so that, after 24 hours, there is absolutely no difference in total fat oxidation between individuals who burned different amounts of fat during a workout.

I prefer walking 3.5-4 mph on a 5-10 incline (depending on my energy level that day) because my knees and feet hurt too much when I run. I've found that walking tricks my mind into thinking that I'm not really working hard, so I always walk much longer than I can run. Just my two cents.