Walking burns more calories than running ?!?

Options
2

Replies

  • _Waffle_
    _Waffle_ Posts: 13,049 Member
    Options
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    MamaMollyT wrote: »
    I can burn 1000 calories in an hour running 8 min miles. Walking for an hour will burn about 350ish. No comparison really. Even at a slow pace running you can burn 600/hr.

    That's not really the point of the question though, it's about relative proportions of fat and glycogen stores.

    Notwithstanding that I'd agree on 1000 cals, if you're talking about a callenging trail route. Not for a dreadmill or pavement.

    That really depends on your weight. The more mass you have to move down the road the more calories you burn. 1000 cals an hour is pretty typical for me on a flat surface. Then again I weigh about 222 lbs. so results my vary.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    OP...what you are referring to is energy sourcing. Low intensity stuff like walking is going to use fat as energy rather than glycogen...and not only walking and whatnot...but most of the mundane type of things you do every day...typing, driving, cooking, etc...most of that energy is coming from fat. Alternatively, higher intensity movement and exercise is going to pull energy from glycogen stores and carbohydrates...because you need rocket fuel to move fast and go hard.

    All that said, in the end, burning more calories overall regardless of where that energy is derived from is what is important. Worrying about whether you're burning fat or glycogen for energy for a particular activity is not important...at the end of the day, if you are consuming less energy than your body requires, the net result is more fat burned to make up the difference.
  • autumnblade75
    autumnblade75 Posts: 1,661 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    MamaMollyT wrote: »
    I can burn 1000 calories in an hour running 8 min miles. Walking for an hour will burn about 350ish. No comparison really. Even at a slow pace running you can burn 600/hr.

    ummm.. measured how?

    I'm not fully confirming the above quote, but it's not unreasonable to assume that "slow" would refer to 12 minute (or longer) miles - at 150 lbs. or more, that's going to burn at least 550 calories over the course of 5 miles. YMMV, of course.

  • ThickMcRunFast
    ThickMcRunFast Posts: 22,511 Member
    Options
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    OP...what you are referring to is energy sourcing. Low intensity stuff like walking is going to use fat as energy rather than glycogen...and not only walking and whatnot...but most of the mundane type of things you do every day...typing, driving, cooking, etc...most of that energy is coming from fat. Alternatively, higher intensity movement and exercise is going to pull energy from glycogen stores and carbohydrates...because you need rocket fuel to move fast and go hard.

    All that said, in the end, burning more calories overall regardless of where that energy is derived from is what is important. Worrying about whether you're burning fat or glycogen for energy for a particular activity is not important...at the end of the day, if you are consuming less energy than your body requires, the net result is more fat burned to make up the difference.

    This. The ratios will shift for different things (quick sprints are almost all glycogen-sourced, but the longer your run, the more your body will take from fat), but its almost entirely a non-issue when you're talking about overall weight loss.

    And I as well am skeptical of 1000/cals an hour for an average woman. Even during a hard uphill trail run, I can maybe hit 700 cals/hour and at 5'9 and 150ish, I burn more than most. Maybe its possible if you're heading up 3000ft in that hour...but then you wouldn't be running 8 min miles, it'd be more of a power hike. Unless you are a world-class trail runner. Shrug.
  • RBfittest
    RBfittest Posts: 6
    Options
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    For the same amount of time? No.

    For the same amount of distance? No.

    If you walk 4x as long as you run? About the same.

    Erm...said with confidence but hmm...

    #1 Right

    #2 sometimes you will see an app say you burn more calories walking the same distance vs running, since you also burn calories doing the activity that you would have otherwise and this is added to the burn. The answer is still no, because you would have burnt a portion of those calories anyways, but it causes people confusion.

    #3 is plain wrong, you do not burn 4x more calories when you run.
  • autumnblade75
    autumnblade75 Posts: 1,661 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    RBfittest wrote: »
    #3 is plain wrong, you do not burn 4x more calories when you run.

    Per unit of time? Nearly. Walking for 20 minutes (1 mile) 67 calories. Running for 10 minutes (1 mile) 110 calories. Calories burned per minute walking: 3.4. Calories burned per minute running: 11.

  • SueInAz
    SueInAz Posts: 6,592 Member
    Options
    autumnblade75 wrote: »
    RBfittest wrote: »
    #3 is plain wrong, you do not burn 4x more calories when you run.

    Per unit of time? Nearly. Walking for 20 minutes (1 mile) 67 calories. Running for 10 minutes (1 mile) 110 calories. Calories burned per minute walking: 3.4. Calories burned per minute running: 11.
    But this assumes that someone runs twice as fast as they walk and is probably above a certain weight. I, for example, walk faster than a 20 minute mile and run, for distance, more slowly than a 10 minute mile. I ran 3.1 miles yesterday morning in 33 minutes and burned 275 calories according to my Garmin. That's 88.7 calories per mile compared to 50 calories per mile walking for 16 minutes. It's not quite the 4 times ratio being proposed and my running pace is even slower if I'm running 10K or a half marathon.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    OP - do the exercise you enjoy doing. Do the exercise you will do regularly (think lifestyle change). You will very likely need regular exercise to keep the weight from creeping back up.

    Running is more efficient at burning calories than walking. Efficient in that you can reach the same calorie burns from walking but it will take you longer to get there.

    Walking does burn fat.....we are talking about fast walking. If you are walking at a moderate pace, you are not getting near the fat burning or cardiovascular benefit. You need to challenge yourself.

    Calorie burn estimates for 1 mile by (your) size and speed.
    http://walking.about.com/cs/howtoloseweight/a/howcalburn.htm
  • yusaku02
    yusaku02 Posts: 3,472 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Running is not the only exercise that makes one stronger and burn more

    Personally I prefer a mix of walking and progressive weight training

    I will never run because I hate it - although others will because they love it
    I'm the opposite, I love running and weight lifting but hate walking.
  • RadiantChange
    RadiantChange Posts: 57 Member
    Options
    Hee, hee...Everyone teases me about being able to walk faster than I jog so probably in my case this is true!
  • kpw818
    kpw818 Posts: 113 Member
    Options
    I think it depends on where you are walking (or hiking). Hilly trails will probably burn more than a flat street for the same amount of time, but comparing straight--no. Running takes more effort, so it burns more energy.
  • carliekitty
    carliekitty Posts: 303 Member
    Options
    I read an article that stated net calories burned running are .63 x weight x miles ran.
    Walking .36 x weight x miles walked.
  • lbetancourt
    lbetancourt Posts: 522 Member
    Options
    Walking?? Walking is boring. Walking is for boring people. jk

    I agree with one of the above.. do the exercise you will do regularly. Mix it up. Have fun. The other day, I joined a body combat class. I mostly felt silly doing it but I had fun & got my 30 min of cardio in for the day. And, I don't really worry about how many calories I burn. I just try to stay within my calculated TDEE. It was too overwhelming for me to count my calories AND track calories burned. I am slowly losing the weight & I am okay with that.
  • arussell134
    arussell134 Posts: 463 Member
    Options
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    OP...what you are referring to is energy sourcing. Low intensity stuff like walking is going to use fat as energy rather than glycogen...and not only walking and whatnot...but most of the mundane type of things you do every day...typing, driving, cooking, etc...most of that energy is coming from fat. Alternatively, higher intensity movement and exercise is going to pull energy from glycogen stores and carbohydrates...because you need rocket fuel to move fast and go hard.

    All that said, in the end, burning more calories overall regardless of where that energy is derived from is what is important. Worrying about whether you're burning fat or glycogen for energy for a particular activity is not important...at the end of the day, if you are consuming less energy than your body requires, the net result is more fat burned to make up the difference.

    THAT is exactly what I was trying to say last night (but failed miserably at articulating, lol)!

  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    Options
    Its the old fat burning zone argument v aerobic and anerobic exercise. the stuff Polar trots out to make you buy their product. Whilst you may burn a greater % of fat at a lower level the higher amount of calories burned at higher rates equates to a greater overall fat burn.
  • arussell134
    arussell134 Posts: 463 Member
    Options
    999tigger wrote: »
    Its the old fat burning zone argument v aerobic and anerobic exercise. the stuff Polar trots out to make you buy their product. Whilst you may burn a greater % of fat at a lower level the higher amount of calories burned at higher rates equates to a greater overall fat burn.

    YUP!!

  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    aggelikik wrote: »
    Very fast walking burns more calories per minute than slow running. So, if you are at a speed where you could either walk fast or start to jog, walking burns more calories (I do not have the link, I remember reading an analysis somewhere at runnersworld. A comfortable walking pace burns less calories per minute than a comfortable running pace.

    Only at speeds that most people would find uncomfortable to sustain for any length of time. This is one of things that in theory contains a grain of truth, but in reality is true for almost no one.

  • bennettinfinity
    bennettinfinity Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    I'm too lazy to look it up, but I remember reading a reference to walking at a faster pace would burn (slightly) more calories that running, simply because running form is more efficient than fast walking. Maybe broscience, but I can attest from personal experience; a personal trainer I once knew put me on a treadmill at a walking pace and continued to up the speed telling me to maintain a walking gait. Shortly, I was begging her to let me run - but that was the whole point of the exercise - running would have been easier.

    Try it sometime... it's fun.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    arussell134 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    arussell134 wrote: »
    From what I understand, when you walk more calories that you burn come from fat.

    NO.


    I may not be articulating this well. :) You would absolutely burn more calories OVERALL running than walking (which would basically mean, more fat calories burned running than walking). I agree with your initial comment.

    I give up trying to explain it. It makes sense in my head, but I got no energy. Maybe someone else that understands what I'm getting at can say it. Sorry, I'm out.

    I get what you are saying. :smile: The answer is still NO. There is no circumstance under which you will burn more fat from walking than you will from running the same distance.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    alexiscastro_805 wrote: »
    Lol and yes mr.knights posts on my mobile phone show the whole post In jail . Aww

    Like Mr. Ali used to say...."I'm a bad, bad man!"

    The problem is that walking burns very little above BMR/RMR, so even if all the walking burn is from fat metabolization, it can't catch up to the sheer excess number of burn calories that running gives.

Categories