Calories walk 5k = Calories run 5k ???

Options
Do you burn the same calories running 5k or walking 5k.
I say yes, they're equal calories. Right?
«13

Replies

  • BadassCrossfitMama
    Options
    I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.
  • bannedword
    bannedword Posts: 299 Member
    Options
    I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.

    How on earth do you burn 500 calories running a 5k, let alone 500 MORE?
  • Nishi2013
    Nishi2013 Posts: 210 Member
    Options
    Running is more effort than walking. I run 5k in shorter time than when I walk. Hence, more effort. More effort = More calories.
  • mreeves261
    mreeves261 Posts: 728 Member
    Options
    I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.

    How on earth do you burn 500 calories running a 5k, let alone 500 MORE?

    Was wondering the same thing myself! Apparently I am doing it wrong!
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    Options
    They're not equal, running burns slightly more calories, because the mechanics are different. There's a break point though usually around 4.8-5.0mph where walking is less efficient than running and you burn more calories walking at that speed. (really fast powerwalking)
  • Nishi2013
    Nishi2013 Posts: 210 Member
    Options
    I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.

    How on earth do you burn 500 calories running a 5k, let alone 500 MORE?

    Must depend on her weight too. I am 140 pound, 5'3". I burn.about 400 calories average on a 5k run. On a hot day I might burn a few more.
  • madtownjeremy
    Options
    Also remember that when your heart rate is up, the cals you burn come from different sources. A really high heart rate will burn more total calories but a higher percentage of that will come from muscle glycogen, while a lower heart rate might come from a higher percentage of bodyfat stores (studies contradict each other on this regularly). Still, even at the lower percentage of bodyfat from a higher heart rate, you'll still burn more fat there than you would at a lower heart rate AND you'll have a longer afterburn from the workout.
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    Options
    I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.

    Your HRM is calibrated incorrectly.
  • stumblinthrulife
    stumblinthrulife Posts: 2,558 Member
    Options
    You burn more calories per mile the faster you walk. You burn most calories per mile when running.

    Once you are running, Calories per mile is pretty consistent at all running speeds.
  • stumblinthrulife
    stumblinthrulife Posts: 2,558 Member
    Options
    I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.

    Your HRM is calibrated incorrectly.

    Read the poster's profile - her starting weight was 263 pounds. It's not impossible that her HRM is also calibrated wrong, but running at 263 pounds is going to burn a lot of Calories.
  • madtownjeremy
    Options
    How on earth do you burn 500 calories running a 5k, let alone 500 MORE?

    I regularly burn 20 cals a minute when I run according to my bodymedia. 10 minute miles x 3.1 = 620 cals. I'm also 288 lbs, though. As I get lighter, it gets much easier to run faster hence fewer cals. Part of me is going to miss burning so many cals per mile. :)
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    Options
    I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.

    Your HRM is calibrated incorrectly.

    Read the poster's profile - her starting weight was 263 pounds. It's not impossible that her HRM is also calibrated wrong, but running at 263 pounds is going to burn a lot of Calories.

    0.75*263*3.1=611.5
    0.53*263*3.1=432.1

    There's no way you could burn 500 *MORE* calories doing a 5k running than walking at 263 lbs. I'm confident in the assessment that the HRM is giving incorrect feedback.
    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
  • jetscreaminagain
    jetscreaminagain Posts: 1,130 Member
    Options
    I'm going to wade in and suggest that not only weight but also cardiovascular efficiency are going to affect calorie burns. Someone who's been running a long time and is healthy and fit enough to do tri's is going to be more efficient and therefore burn fewer calories in their easy three mile run than I will, as my regular runs are about 2.5 miles and my heart rate still goes higher than my target when I run. Still I'm more efficient and burn less than someone just now starting a couch 2 5k not having run before.

    Enough to be 500 more calories? I don't know. But I do know that I used to run longer at a much higher heart rate than my current plan currently wants me to do. It seems possible that if I weren't paying attention to heart rate and could run as long a time at that rate as my plan wants me to run now (big if) I could see it being a huge difference. It doesn't make me proud. It is a measurement of how out of shape I still am that to run so slow my heart pumps so fast.
  • BadassCrossfitMama
    Options
    I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.

    How on earth do you burn 500 calories running a 5k, let alone 500 MORE?

    Was wondering the same thing myself! Apparently I am doing it wrong!

    I wear a heart rate monitor with chest strap - I also weight 222lbs, the heavier you are the harder your heart has to work when you put stress on your body such as running thus you burn more calories - the more I lose the more I see the max calories decrease. I average 1250 - 1500 calories for 5k. Walking it's only 900-1200 calories burned. I also took my HRM in to my trainer to make sure it was calibrated correctly. My heart rate tends to get up to 185-190 and stays there for 60-90mins.
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    Options
    I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.

    How on earth do you burn 500 calories running a 5k, let alone 500 MORE?

    Was wondering the same thing myself! Apparently I am doing it wrong!

    I wear a heart rate monitor with chest strap - I also weight 222lbs, the heavier you are the harder your heart has to work when you put stress on your body such as running thus you burn more calories - the more I lose the more I see the max calories decrease. I average 1250 - 1500 calories for 5k. Walking it's only 900-1200 calories burned. I also took my HRM in to my trainer to make sure it was calibrated correctly. My heart rate tends to get up to 185-190 and stays there for 60-90mins.

    Those numbers aren't possible. I'm not trying to be mean, but it's a disservice to yourself and your plan to figure 1250-1500 calories for 3.1 miles of running.
  • BadassCrossfitMama
    Options
    I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.

    How on earth do you burn 500 calories running a 5k, let alone 500 MORE?

    Was wondering the same thing myself! Apparently I am doing it wrong!

    I wear a heart rate monitor with chest strap - I also weight 222lbs, the heavier you are the harder your heart has to work when you put stress on your body such as running thus you burn more calories - the more I lose the more I see the max calories decrease. I average 1250 - 1500 calories for 5k. Walking it's only 900-1200 calories burned. I also took my HRM in to my trainer to make sure it was calibrated correctly. My heart rate tends to get up to 185-190 and stays there for 60-90mins.

    Those numbers aren't possible. I'm not trying to be mean, but it's a disservice to yourself and your plan to figure 1250-1500 calories for 3.1 miles of running.

    I would also like to point out it takes me a lot longer than most people to run that far - It takes me about an hour and 15 mins. My area is also very hilly.
  • jetscreaminagain
    jetscreaminagain Posts: 1,130 Member
    Options
    I also get high numbers for heart rate with a chest strap essentially due to not being much of a runner. Ill get to 190 easy if I'm not paying attention. I could do a half hour and have the average heart rate over 185. If it takes her an hour and a half and she has high heart rates, and she's saying it is a legit heart rate monitor and she checked it with her trainer, could we trust her rather than a formula from a magazine? It won't stay like that after she's been running a while and has cardiovascular fitness improvements like other runners who aren't new.
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.

    How on earth do you burn 500 calories running a 5k, let alone 500 MORE?

    Must depend on her weight too. I am 140 pound, 5'3". I burn.about 400 calories average on a 5k run. On a hot day I might burn a few more.

    I'm 5'1 and 179lbs and I'm on Week 6 of C25K (just did the 22min straight portion which would be 32min total with warm up and cool down at 2miles) and I'd say I burn more around 270-330 (per an HRM). But I'm a more a jogger right now lol. Working on the speed and such.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.

    How on earth do you burn 500 calories running a 5k, let alone 500 MORE?

    Was wondering the same thing myself! Apparently I am doing it wrong!

    I wear a heart rate monitor with chest strap - I also weight 222lbs, the heavier you are the harder your heart has to work when you put stress on your body such as running thus you burn more calories - the more I lose the more I see the max calories decrease. I average 1250 - 1500 calories for 5k. Walking it's only 900-1200 calories burned. I also took my HRM in to my trainer to make sure it was calibrated correctly. My heart rate tends to get up to 185-190 and stays there for 60-90mins.

    Those numbers aren't possible. I'm not trying to be mean, but it's a disservice to yourself and your plan to figure 1250-1500 calories for 3.1 miles of running.

    I would also like to point out it takes me a lot longer than most people to run that far - It takes me about an hour and 15 mins. My area is also very hilly.

    It is still a really really high burn even for that time frame.


    I'm just going to put this here for a few people in this thread. It's a really great read on HRMs. People don't always understand how they work and think they are far more accurate than they really are.
    People often get confused with HR and calories burned. Many believe that HR and calories are directly related. There is a relationship that allows for estimating calories burned under a narrow set of circumstances.

    Calories burned comes down to intensity x weight. Fitness level (aside from the fitter you are, the longer or more intense you can work at) is not a factor. It will affect the estimation on your HRM (it will be less accurate for fitter individuals).

    There are also any number of factors that affect HRMs including heat (will give you a higher reading) and intervals.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472