Calories walk 5k = Calories run 5k ???
1capybara
Posts: 162 Member
Do you burn the same calories running 5k or walking 5k.
I say yes, they're equal calories. Right?
I say yes, they're equal calories. Right?
0
Replies
-
There have been lots of studies on this:
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446673
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn?page=single
They aren't equal, you burn more at a run then you do at a walk.0 -
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.0
-
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?0 -
Running is more effort than walking. I run 5k in shorter time than when I walk. Hence, more effort. More effort = More calories.0
-
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!0 -
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)0
-
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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 -
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.
0 -
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=single0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
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-214720 -
Wait, are you saying it takes you an hour and 15 minutes to run or walk a 5k?0
-
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.
Sorry to also burst your bubble (even though you don't seem to be listening) but those figures are way inflated. The reason is clear, your heart rate is artificially inflated. Maybe due to medication or medical condition? Perhaps a crappy heart rate monitor? Thus the extreme calorie burn given by your HRM, which is unfortunately inflated due to your oddly high heart rate. Given your age, 185-190 heart rate should be 100% maximum exertion. There is no way you are sustaining maximum exertion for 75 minutes. Not even the most elite athletes in the world can do that.
It's no big deal (though I'd probably get that heart rate checked out by a doc to make sure you don't have a medical problem). The only other problem would be is if you're eating back all those calories - you will most certainly not be losing weight as a result.
If you ARE eating back your calories (and you should, if you're following MFP's model), then calculate 400-500 for your 5k run and you should be pretty much dead on. And no, being fat and/or taking a long time to run 5k isn't going to affect things THAT much. A fit person might burn something more like 300 calories in a 5k, my 400-500 calorie estimation is already allowing for your present situation.0 -
To the OP: yes you will burn more by running than walking, but as you have seen in the responses, you should get a good heart rate monitor if you would like to get your acurate number of calories burned.0
-
Do you burn the same calories running 5k or walking 5k.
I say yes, they're equal calories. Right?
Nope! Depending on whether you're looking at net or gross calories, running burns 40% to 100% more calories than walking the same distance.
Takes way less time, too.0 -
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?
If you weigh around 220 pounds, you'll burn about 500 calories in 5km. To get to "500 more" calories, you need to weigh around 450 pounds.0 -
Do you burn the same calories running 5k or walking 5k.
I say yes, they're equal calories. Right?
Nope! Depending on whether you're looking at net or gross calories, running burns 40% to 100% more calories than walking the same distance.
Takes way less time, too.
Here's a little math for you.....
Net calories running .63 x your body weigh in lbs x distance in miles
Net calories walking .30 x your body weigh in lbs x distance in miles
(source Runners World)
in terms of net calories expended (additional calories burned that can be attributed to the exercise) just over double running vs walking0 -
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 doesn't matter (much) how long it takes, what matters is the distance, and the weight. What your HRM is really telling you is that you are very out of shape - or as the other poster might put it, the HRM is calibrated for a fitness level you will one day get to, but aren't at yet.
At 5k, you're going to burn about 500 calories, using the 1000 calorie figure is only going to lead to frustration.0 -
Here's a little math for you.....
Net calories running .63 x your body weigh in lbs x distance in miles
Net calories walking .30 x your body weigh in lbs x distance in miles
Yep, those numbers are solid, and what go into the calculators at sites like Strava, etc.0 -
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.
When I weighed 220 lbs and ran I was burning about 600-700 for 5k (35 min, flat) - so it is possible that your HRM is monitoring a burn of 2x that for a run that is actually 3x the time and very very hilly. But only take into consideration 70-80% of that burn because with a run of 90 minutes you should really subtract the 200-300 cals which would be the base if you did nothing.
However, I would also consider that your HR is giving you the wrong calc - do you consider that 90 minutes for 5 km is going out hard? If not, your HR is going up more than usual and giving you these higher than usual readings.0 -
I weight 220 and burn approx 465 for a 50 min 5k... 1200 seems ridiculously high...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions