Walking burns more calories than running ?!?
alexiscastro_805
Posts: 10 Member
So I recently heard walking burns more fat calories than running does . Is this true ? I am trying to lose weight and would like to know if this is true ? And also I love working out on the eliptical. Which ones would help me burn more fat to lose weight
0
Replies
-
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.0 -
Hello I'm sorry I can't view your comment it looks like your comment has jail bars on it0
-
From what I understand, when you walk more calories that you burn come from fat versus running. So, it has to do with the % of calories burned, NOT the total number. You will most certainly burn more calories when you run than walk. (And let's keep apples to apples here - not a hike up a mountain vs running at a snail's pace - let's imagine the same 1 or 2 mile path walked vs ran).
I ran today for 28 minutes and burned well over 300 calories. At my weight of 131 lbs, I would not have burned half that had I spent that same amount of time walking. HTH.
0 -
arussell134 wrote: »From what I understand, when you walk more calories that you burn come from fat.
NO.
0 -
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.
0 -
alexiscastro_805 wrote: »Hello I'm sorry I can't view your comment it looks like your comment has jail bars on it
Oh goodness! I have never read the forums from mobile before. On the website only the poster's profile pic is in jail, not the whole post! That is too funny.
Here's the quote of what Mr_Knight said: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.
My suggestion would be to do whatever exercise you enjoy. The exercise that burns the most calories for you is the one you will actually do. If you hate running and will only do it once a month, but enjoy weight training and will do it three times a week. The weight training will burn more, because you are doing it. Before someone gets all pedantic about it, in an equal time session to session comparison running will burn more.0 -
I love walking and dislike running so for me it's true, because I will do the former
And you don't burn enough extra calories running to make the difference, and shin splints, worthwhile
Table A: Calories Burned Per 1-Mile Walk vs 1-Mile Run For A 156-lb Subject
WALK* RUN**
CALS/MILE 88.9 112.5
CALS/MINUTE 4.78 11.25
AFTER-BURN/MILE. 21.7 46.1
NEW TOTAL/MILE 110.6 158.6
CALS/MINUTE 5.95 15.86
* one mile walk in 18:36; ** one mile run in 10:00
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn
Thing is I would run for far less time than I would walk so overall, for me, walking wins0 -
It depends on how you break down your workout. If you look at it from a time perspective, all things being equal, running for an hour will burn considerably more calories than walking for an hour. If it's a distance perspective, say you'll either walk a mile or run a mile, the difference isn't that great. The bigger advantage to running a mile versus walking is the time saved.0
-
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.0
-
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.
This is how I understood it as well.
0 -
Thank you everyone for your advice and perspectives ! And the main reasons why I was concerned was because when I read about that walking was better for fat burning calories was because they said that running just burns carbs only . But I plan to just keep my cardio mixed up and still work out with weights .0
-
Lol and yes mr.knights posts on my mobile phone show the whole post In jail . Aww0
-
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.0
-
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?0 -
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.
This. I'm pretty sure the stuff about slower pace being "fat burning mode" is outdated.0 -
When running for an hour I burn about 700 calories at a pace of about 10 min/mile. This is according to my Garmin watch with a heart rate monitor. I don't really know about walking though as a comparison.0
-
alexiscastro_805 wrote: »So I recently heard walking burns more fat calories than running does .
So there's quite a confusing mix of messages in the thread, but broadly exercising at different intensities does have a very minor effect on the sources of fuel used at different points.
A slightly higher proportion of the energy expended at lower intensities can be drawn from fat stores, rather than directly from glycogen. However what you're interested in is the gross effect on weight loss and composition.
Whilst a slightly higher proportion of the calories expended in walking could be from fat stores, the total energy expended in walking is significantly lower than in higher intensity training, such as running. So a slightly larger proportion of a smaller energy expenditure is still a smaller total than a lower proportion of a relatively high number. The difference in where the energy is drawn from is dwarved by the fact that running can burn up to 50% more energy than walking.
In practice it depends on what you enjoy, and how much time you have available.
From my own perspective, I can comfortably run for three hours, and walk at a reasonable clip for more than that. I'm not going to commit that kind of time to burning calories, but I will commit it to endurance training, or hillwalking, because I enjoy it.
If you're time limiting your training to an hour of CV work, then you get much more calorie expenditure, aerobic effect and load bearing effect from running than walking. No question. But if you're not conditioned to run for an hour, then you've got a higher risk of injuring yourself as a result of poor form, or general lack of preparedness. As upthread, if you don't spend time on your running form then injuries like shin splints are a real possibility. They're not difficult to avoid though.
You still get more effect on retention of lean mass from resistance training of some kind.
0 -
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.
0 -
I live in Japan so there is a mountain in every direction. There is nowhere flat to run here so yes the 1000 calories is based on my route, speed and hrm. If you want to get stronger and be able to burn more calories then you run (if you are able). Period. Walking is not ever going to beat out running for weight loss unless you walk all day. If you run slowly keep running. You will go faster, get stronger and burn more and more calories as you gain speed and strength. There are lots of great ways to lose weight but if we are comparing walking and running, go run!0
-
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-1 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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.
0 -
-
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.autumnblade75 wrote: »
0 -
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.htm0 -
I'm the opposite, I love running and weight lifting but hate walking.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
0 -
Hee, hee...Everyone teases me about being able to walk faster than I jog so probably in my case this is true!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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