Whoa.. what? WALKING burns more fat than running?

Go to everybodywalk.org. there is all kinds of info about this even an article under the tab of experts that explains why power walking burns more than running.

I was walking a lot my first part of this journey. By a lot, I mean 3 hours daily, burning over 1000 calories via my HRM. Eventually I needed to be doing more. I have recently started running and I am really feeling like it is re-shaping my body. I liked to walk and I lost a lot of inches walking at first but then my progress stalled. I think it is a good starting point but it all depends what you want. I myself am a goal oriented person and once I master one thing I need to start on something else. It is good to get your body moving. I took the 10,000 steps very seriously for the first 3 months of my journey. My goal now is to get the fat off and then work on the muscles as soon as it is gone. I think walking and running are good on different levels but in the end it is all about what you can do for the rest of your life. If you enjoy it, and you are losing weight, how can anyone fault that.

ETA: I don't think the injury issue is a red herring at all. If I can get the same or similar benefits from a HIIT walking program (I believe I can) and the risk of injury is lessened, why would that not be relevant?

It's a red herring in the sense that it can be minimised with caution and proper training routines. Most running injuries are caused by going to hard, too fast, too soon. I thought I'd explained that already so apologies if it wasn't sufficiently clear the first time round.

As to the cardio and calorie burn benefits.... well, you may remain to be convinced, but perhaps because you don't wish to be convinced, rather than because of a lack of evidence? The evidence has, after all, been repeatedly presented in this thread....

By all means, go ahead and continue to walk, if it makes you happy, if it feels good. That's absolutely great, and I'm genuinely very happy for you. However, all I ask, and the reason I keep returning to the thread, is that you don't diss a form of exercise you yourself haven't even *tried*, in celebrating the value of your own preferred exercise. I don't believe a claim that running is 'overrated' has yet been demonstrated in your posts.... Indeed, I return to my earlier point that it really is a bit of a silly claim, that can't really be sustained. Particularly not without answering those questions I asked first, which you have yet to reply to - overrated by whom, for what, and in what sense.... ?

Go to everybodywalk.org. there is all kinds of info about this even an article under the tab of experts that explains why power walking burns more than running.

You mean this article: http://everybodywalk.org/read/theexperts/480-walking-vs-running.html?start=1

With all due respect you might want to learn how to read. The article about race walking does not imply this misinterpretation that you've made anywhere in the text. It does correctly assert that race walking will get your heart rate up higher than leisurely walking. (I've seen race walkers - i have no doubt that a fast race walker is expending an amount of energy similar to a slow runner)

As to the cardio and calorie burn benefits.... well, you may remain to be convinced, but perhaps because you don't wish to be convinced, rather than because of a lack of evidence? The evidence has, after all, been repeatedly presented in this thread....

I haven't seen anyone describe how I could improve on the intensity and duration I'm currently getting by learning to run. Can you point me to that? And I'm not being facetious here. I really am interested in finding the best, most efficient workout that I can realistically do. If doing C25K really would be beneficial, I am open to doing it. I actually initiated a post about my questions surrounding this last week.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/585175-is-running-worth-it-at-this-point

By all means, go ahead and continue to walk, if it makes you happy, if it feels good. That's absolutely great, and I'm genuinely very happy for you. However, all I ask, and the reason I keep returning to the thread, is that you don't diss a form of exercise you yourself haven't even *tried*, in celebrating the value of your own preferred exercise. I don't believe a claim that running is 'overrated' has yet been demonstrated in your posts.... Indeed, I return to my earlier point that it really is a bit of a silly claim, that can't really be sustained. Particularly not without answering those questions I asked first, which you have yet to reply to - overrated by whom, for what, and in what sense.... ?

I can't shake the feeling that we're arguing semantics now. I am not dissing running. Not at all. It is a fantastic activity which helps many people achieve and maintain high levels of fitness. I just don't believe it is the only way to get there. There are some who speak of running as if it is the only way, and in that sense I believe it is overrated. I'm not sure how else to explain my assertion. It's an opinion, really. Nothing more. And I think I've explained what led me to form that belief. You don't agree with it, and that's fine with me. I'm not trying to belittle or insult running or runners. I'm just saying it's not the be-all, end-all.

Also...to be fair, I have tried running. Not for all that long, granted (maybe 3 to 4 weeks of a LTR clinic at the most), but I think saying I've never tried it is a bit misleading.

your term was 'overrated'. which is dismissive and negative.

I disagree about that. FWIW, I didn't intend to cause offense with that statement. I intended only to say that it's an activity that is often touted to be ideal, and I dont believe it is.

i guess i am missing the point you're trying to make about interval walking as i do think it's a point that'd been repeatedly countered in this thread.

I honestly don't see a counter to this in this thread. I will read through again later, as I am sincerely interested in learning more.

and with respect, no. if you stuck with it for just 3 weeks, you didn't really try running.

It was as much of a try as I was inclined to give it at the time. I respect that it wasn't enough time to get used to it or good at it. Point taken.

Minute for minute, under the same topographical conditions, running is obviously going to burn more calories.

However in the real world, with people like myself who are trying to lose weight and aren't very fit, walking is probably going to be a better choice.

Why?

Amount I can run: About 5 minutes tops....on flat ground. Then I have to go have a good sit down and a cup of tea to recover
Amount I can walk: about 6-7 miles in one go, over rough ground with some steep inclines

So walking is a far better calorie burner for me because I can actually sustain it for a period of time long enough to get some good calorie burn.

I do a 7.5 kmph run speed on treadmill ..1 min flat the 1 min massive incline. works for me my fitness has gone through the roof.

Percentage-wise you burn more FAT walking - but you still burn more fat overall running. 60% of 100 calories is still less than 40% of 200 calories. (60<80)

^^THIS

If you can run, you should run.

I can't agree with this.

People talk like walking/hiking is some kind of inferior form of running. That's just bullsh!t.

If you enjoy walking. Walk.

If you want to run. Run.

Weight loss will come from being in a calorie deficit. Persuading your body to make more of that weight loss fat tissue is down to a) being in a sensible deficit b) some progressive overload training for the muscles.

Again, walking isn't "running-lite" it's its own activity, in it's own right. And a damn fine activity it is too.

I have osteoarthritis in my right knee so I can't run

before I bang on about the benefits of walking I just want to remind that weight loss is achieved 80% in the kitchen & 20% through exercise so I'm not going to claim that my weight loss is a result of my walking, it's just a part of it

my belief, is that whether you walk, jog or sprint one mile you'll burn 100 calories roughly, runners will cover 3 miles in under half an hour, it'll take us walkers closer to an hour but the burn will be the same

I'm a believer in interval training & so include steep hills in my walks

in conclusion, to any newbies reading this thread; I've walked every day since 4th January this year, no running, & weighed & logged all my intake & I'm 40lb lighter than I was this time last year, that's proof that the 'eat a little less, exercise a little more' mantra works just fine, keep it simple

Ding-dongs the lot of you! Well, some of you. Actually, none of you. It's the notions that are silly, not the peeps.
Anyhoo, here's the shizzle as the kids say:

(1) Exercise is next to useless for weight loss.
Study after study has shown this. And most honest (and scientific) trainers will tell you this too. Unless you're superhuman - or a self-flagellating martyr - exercise makes us eat more AND move less afterwards. Remember your mother telling you to "Go play outside and work up an appetite!"?

(2) The body always seeks homeostasis. This is why modern hunter gathers and sedentary westerners have been shown to burn roughly the same number of calories per day. This is also (sort of) why infrequent intensive exercise (besides the benefit of allowing enough time for recovery and muscle building) is much more effective than exercising daily. As with drugs and sucking up to your boss, the MINIMUM EFFECTIVE DOSE (M.E.D.) should be at the forefront of your mind. Any more than the M.E.D. is a waste of time - and potentially dangerous.

(3) Real running (i.e. Sprinting) is great for us. Intensive, lower impact than jogging, more natural and suited to our bodies than jogging. Walking is great too. Natural, uses most muscles, low impact, minimal effect on cortisol (unless you're walking to the dentist). Jogging or distance running is for suckers. But it's great for shoe salesmen, knee surgeons and emergency heart surgeons. ;-)

(4) Right, walking vs. 'sucker-running' (aka jogging not sprinting).
Walking over the same distance will burn far more calories (and do more for your heart/soul/gizzards and stool movements) than jogging. Plus you can do it without dressing up like an idiot or wasting money on expensive gear which you think says "LOOK AT ME! I'M BEING HEALTHY AND ****!" Buy which actually says "LOOK AT ME! I FALL EASILY FOR MARKETING SHTICK! PLUS I'M GOING TO DIE EARLIER (or need a Zimmer-frame sooner) THAN YOU!" like that ding-bat Jim Fixx (who DIDN'T invent jogging but is responsible for the 'fad').

If you're keen to burn more fat, eat sensibly, ditch the grains and energy drinks and sleep at least eight hours per night. Your body will do amazing things all by itself if you simply stop trying to pound it into submission. :-)
BW

While I have no doubt that running burns more calories than walking, I can definitely attest to the fact that walking can be a major contributor to weight loss. I lost 65 pounds with walking as my only form of exercise.

Ding-dongs the lot of you! Well, some of you. Actually, none of you. It's the notions that are silly, not the peeps.
Anyhoo, here's the shizzle as the kids say:

(1) Exercise is next to useless for weight loss.
Study after study has shown this. And most honest (and scientific) trainers will tell you this too. Unless you're superhuman - or a self-flagellating martyr - exercise makes us eat more AND move less afterwards. Remember your mother telling you to "Go play outside and work up an appetite!"?

(2) The body always seeks homeostasis. This is why modern hunter gathers and sedentary westerners have been shown to burn roughly the same number of calories per day. This is also (sort of) why infrequent intensive exercise (besides the benefit of allowing enough time for recovery and muscle building) is much more effective than exercising daily. As with drugs and sucking up to your boss, the MINIMUM EFFECTIVE DOSE (M.E.D.) should be at the forefront of your mind. Any more than the M.E.D. is a waste of time - and potentially dangerous.

(3) Real running (i.e. Sprinting) is great for us. Intensive, lower impact than jogging, more natural and suited to our bodies than jogging. Walking is great too. Natural, uses most muscles, low impact, minimal effect on cortisol (unless you're walking to the dentist). Jogging or distance running is for suckers. But it's great for shoe salesmen, knee surgeons and emergency heart surgeons. ;-)

(4) Right, walking vs. 'sucker-running' (aka jogging not sprinting).
Walking over the same distance will burn far more calories (and do more for your heart/soul/gizzards and stool movements) than jogging. Plus you can do it without dressing up like an idiot or wasting money on expensive gear which you think says "LOOK AT ME! I'M BEING HEALTHY AND ****!" Buy which actually says "LOOK AT ME! I FALL EASILY FOR MARKETING SHTICK! PLUS I'M GOING TO DIE EARLIER (or need a Zimmer-frame sooner) THAN YOU!" like that ding-bat Jim Fixx (who DIDN'T invent jogging but is responsible for the 'fad').

If you're keen to burn more fat, eat sensibly, ditch the grains and energy drinks and sleep at least eight hours per night. Your body will do amazing things all by itself if you simply stop trying to pound it into submission. :-)
BW

sigh.
thank all that is holy that you came along to educate us all.

what a pity that you felt the need to name call while demonstrating your utter failure to grasp what motivates most runners.

but yes. obviously we're the 'ding dongs'.

you might want to try a bit of actual redesrch though. you know, with actual studies. because your llast few points are particulsrly misguided.

good luck though. i'm sure you're perfectly lovely when the ego and smugness are in abeyance.