Slow jogging vs. brisk walking
Peaceandwater
Posts: 23 Member
I jog very slowly. I don't have a gadget that tells me exactly but my experience with treadmills tells me it's probably 4.5 mph. I jog slowly because I'm not much of a runner and also I live in the mountains (it's ALL uphill baby). However, on MFP the slowest running speed is 5 mph and they considered 4.5 mph to be brisk walking. Now I could walk at 4.5 or jog at 4.5 (they are physically different movements) but does it make a difference calorie-wise or fitness-wise? If I am jogging that slow, should I just be brisk-walking?
0
Replies
-
Running slow burns more calories than walking under 5 mph. Most people don't come close to walking that fast.
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single0 -
Honestly 4.5 is a brisk walk.
If you're not much of a runner why do it at all? Why not just walk briskly?0 -
I used to run slower than I could walk, however over time my speed at running built up and I'm now faster (most of the time), calorie wise, probably not a huge difference between a really brisk walk and a jog, so it depends on you, do you want to run for a reason or are you happy to continue with your brisk walk??
If you want to 'run' as a goal challenge then keep it slow, build up the distance and the speed will improve itself over time, I live in a very hilly area as well, but for every uphill I have, there's also a downhill on the way home!!0 -
Go buy a Garmin device. Problem solved.0
-
Get a heart rate monitor if you care about how many calories you burn.0
-
Running slow burns more calories than walking under 5 mph. Most people don't come close to walking that fast.
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
Great article!
I was contemplating the same thing the other day, walking vs running. I do a mix, running where I can and walking where I can't, because it's hilly where I run and running up a steep hill is really hard! I'm almost able to do it though. I also run very slowly. I was thinking along the same lines, you burn more while running because you move yourself differently (up and down as well as forward while running, rather than just forward while walking).
Honestly I would say stick with the running rather than brisk walking. But then it depends on your goals. I want to be able to run faster, farther, longer... It's a fitness challenge for me. For basic health, I'm not sure it matters. Whatever helps you feel your best!0 -
Running slow burns more calories than walking under 5 mph. Most people don't come close to walking that fast.
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
wow really...I do frequently if my husband isn't with me...mind you I was told I might as well just start running but eh.
To the OP why are you running if you don't like it? why not just walk fast...0 -
I have read/heard somewhere that it is the distance you cover that burns the calories rather than the speed i.e. running one mile burns the same calories as walking one mile, you'll just do it quicker running.
Calorie consumption per mile is higher in running, by about 20 cals per mile so not huge. Broadly more of the system is activated in running than walking.0 -
I jog very slowly. I don't have a gadget that tells me exactly but my experience with treadmills tells me it's probably 4.5 mph. I jog slowly because I'm not much of a runner and also I live in the mountains (it's ALL uphill baby).
If you're outside then I'd suggest getting runkeeper or endomondo on a smartphone, similarly hill training is speedwork in disguise, I find it makes a huge difference to my road running after having been on the hill.
RK and Endomondo will also give you a calorie consumption estimate that accounts for the elevation gains, I generally burn about 20-25% higher calorie levels on a hill session than a routine road session.0 -
Yeah the wild card here is the hills. That will increase the burn exponentially. Frankly, I tend to view serious hills as strength training.
I speed walk and run, and really, they are not the same. Both are great workouts on hills (what goes up comes down, though lol). Running is much harder.1 -
I'm a very slow runner as well and average 4-4.5 mph as I'm building. There is no way I could walk that fast like a previous posted suggested and always laugh when I see that on MFP. I definitely feel like I'm working more even at such a slow pace versus when I'm walking. I do have a Garmin watch that gives me a general amount of calories burned but I second thinking about a heart rate monitor and checking that way.0
-
A heart monitor is just about the only thing that is going to give you something close to a definitive answer here. With a difference of 0.5 mph, I doubt your body knows much of a difference between brisk walking and running. But I'll tell you this, if you are chugging 4.0 - 4.5 mph up mountainous hills, then even a brisk walk is going to be more of an aerobic workout than most of us get putting down 6.5 - 7.0 mph on flat terrain.0
-
They are physically different, because when you jog or run, you are actually springing up off the ground and the energy required is higher. I have worn a heart rate monitor to confirm this.0
-
I jog very slowly. I don't have a gadget that tells me exactly but my experience with treadmills tells me it's probably 4.5 mph. I jog slowly because I'm not much of a runner and also I live in the mountains (it's ALL uphill baby). However, on MFP the slowest running speed is 5 mph and they considered 4.5 mph to be brisk walking. Now I could walk at 4.5 or jog at 4.5 (they are physically different movements) but does it make a difference calorie-wise or fitness-wise? If I am jogging that slow, should I just be brisk-walking?
It doesn't make *that* much a difference energy-wise if you cover the same difference. However, running slowly - even more slowly than you would walk - is the critical first step in becoming a distance runner. Keep going and you'll see. Eventually you'll be hitting those 10 minute miles with ease and that's way faster than you can walk.
When you cover twice as much ground in the same amount of time as walking, that's twice as many calories burned. You won't be caring about the calories at that point though
MFP is more of a run-snob than any of the near-elite level runners on here. We all complain about it.0 -
A heart monitor is just about the only thing that is going to give you something close to a definitive answer here.
Unlikely really, using HR as a proxy for calorie consumption needs to be based on assumptions of steady state. My HR is all over the place on a trail run, from 130bpm up to 200 without any real issue.0 -
I have read/heard somewhere that it is the distance you cover that burns the calories rather than the speed i.e. running one mile burns the same calories as walking one mile, you'll just do it quicker running.
Calorie consumption per mile is higher in running, by about 20 cals per mile so not huge. Broadly more of the system is activated in running than walking.
No, net calories expended running are a little over double than that of walking (exception walking over 5 mph)
The formulae are:
walking .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)
running .63 x weight 9in lbs) x distance (in miles)
as per the Runners World article cited earlier....0 -
I definitely feel like I had a better cardio workout when I run, so if your goal is heart health, jog, if your goal is simply calories, walk.0
-
Do you have any idea of your heart rate, and if your heart rate goes higher during jogging vs walking? There are websites you can input your stats & heart rate and it will give you an estimate of calories burned per minute. Even without a heart rate # you can probably find websites to estimate based on the activity and have a # to log. Perhaps round down as a precaution.
Personally I'm a slow runner also - can walk 4.3-4.4 (and its a good workout) but run 4.7-4.8. Can do a little faster but only for short bursts of time. Its a work in progress. If you go by MFP settings and enter it as the brisk walk, if anything you're rounding down your actual burn # which isn't a horrible thing.0 -
Do whatever exercise you are happy enough with so you will continue to do it long term!0
-
No way. I run slower than OP and could not physically walk 4.5. I run anyway because I want to and because it burns more calories and gets your heart rate higher and because doing it is how you improve at it.Honestly 4.5 is a brisk walk.
If you're not much of a runner why do it at all? Why not just walk briskly?0 -
Jogging burns more calories than walking, even if you're slow. So there is plenty of reasons to go for the jog, especially if you enjoy it and want to pursue running.
I had to learn in hilly terrain also so I started off running slower than MFP considers a jog. But do your best and keep it up, speed comes with time, and I definitely run faster now than I did in my beginning days.
P.S. Posting again for those who missed it ... http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single0 -
Running slow burns more calories than walking under 5 mph. Most people don't come close to walking that fast.
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
As a slow runner myself I want to say thank you for sharing this article. It makes a lot of sense!0 -
To be fair, it's 50% downhill, unless you're now very, VERY high up a mountain and and a very, VERY long way from home! :happy:it's ALL uphill baby
You burn more calories through slow-running at the same speed as you can fast-walk because the energy it takes to propel yourself off the ground. You can probably tell by how much more sweaty and out of breath you get running!
You might actually be running faster than you do on the treadmill - I hate them so much it's far more of an effort to keep up the pace.
Do you have a smartphone? There are tons of free maps that use GPS to tell you how fast you';re going.
If you love running, keep running. If you prefer walking, walk more. If you like a bit of both, mix it up. If your goal is to run a certain distance or complete a race, work up from one to the other.
If you want to get faster, do some interval sessions - run faster for a minute and jog or walk to recover. I was going to add do hills, but you've got that covered! Bet you'd conquer any race on the flat!0 -
much of this will also depend on your gait. if it's harder for you to walk a pace and easier to run it, then you're more than likely using more energy trying to force your body to walk it .
at least this is what i've noticed on the treadmill. for me the walk/run barrier is around 5.0/5.1. anything under i can walk but the closer to 5.1 im walking the more elevated my heart rate when walking. once i give in to start running at that speed, my heart rate drops 20-30 BPM0 -
If your knees hurt walking is best. If you can run then run like the wind because it is great stuff when you get into it. I just started the running about 6 months ago and now I run at least two 5K's per week. It feels great and seems to help the whole body thing. The bicycle has improved my running when I started doing one 30 mile ride per week.
As always: Live like someone left the gate open!0 -
Do whichever one your enjoy most. Then you'll stick with it!0
-
It sounds like your question is about how to log your activity, if you log using the speed you will have the most accurate results. Personally I feel like it's better to underestimate calorie burns when not using some sort of device, so if it estimates you burned 200 cals for example after 25 minutes of walking, I might adjust that to 175 cals. I used to try and force myself to run a lot but just found myself slogging through it. I much more enjoy the brisk walking, but I mix in lunges, jumps and always do hills to make sure it's challenging. You can also try walking up the hills, then jogging down.0
-
Honestly 4.5 is a brisk walk.
If you're not much of a runner why do it at all? Why not just walk briskly?
Not true. If you are running, you're running. Keep trying and, slowly, you'll get speedier. MFP has just made groupings and as we progress, we fall between the groupings sometimes.
When I first started running, I was slower than MFP's 5MPH, too. I logged my running time under MFP's "walking" criteria and used the "running" criteria as a goal to reach. It was a milestone when I could move up to "real" running. It felt like a big accomplishment to be able to post a "running" day on MFP. LOL!0 -
Honestly 4.5 is a brisk walk.
If you're not much of a runner why do it at all? Why not just walk briskly?
Not true. If you are running, you're running. Keep trying and, slowly, you'll get speedier. MFP has just made groupings and as we progress, we fall between the groupings sometimes.
When I first started running, I was slower than MFP's 5MPH, too. I logged my running time under MFP's "walking" criteria and used the "running" criteria as a goal to reach. It was a milestone when I could move up to "real" running. It felt like a big accomplishment to be able to post a "running" day on MFP. LOL!
Also, the average marathon runner typically clocks in at 4.5 miles per hour. Tell them it's a brisk walk! :laugh:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions