Which is more beneficial for weight loss: walking a mile or running a mile and why?
Replies
-
I started walking. Then transitioned to running.
I'm in maintenance and usually will run for 4 miles in the morning and burn 600 calories and walk 6 miles the off day I don't run and burn 500.
So for me, running is only slightly better. If you're not a runner, walk and train to eventually run.
0 -
One thing my Timex HRM does for me is track my hr as it goes from elevated to resting. Soon as I hit stop, it calculates values. The faster my heart comes down to resting, the more in shape I (possibly) am.
Physically speaking, the bricks/feathers thing is apples and the walk/run thing is oranges. Freefall is mainly on the y axis, and is accelerated by gravity. Running goes against gravity, along with incline, friction, wind resistance, and/or slippage, which is why it is so damn difficult. You cant really use that analogy bc they have no correlation. But the more you go against gravity, the faster the body will adapt (ie grow muscle) to the new stress.
The more you put stress on your body, the more fit your body becomes, regardless of food consumption (to a degree). So, it is just a matter of how far you want to jump out of your comfort zone to achieve desired results in a certain timeframe.
Personally, I choose to run. If I walk, it is at 10-15° of incline. I am 5'9" 195 lbs (down from 225 & couldnt run 1/2 mile Oct 2012), not very muscular, and I am halfway to being able to run a half marathon. I track my progress through my endurance and hr. Its all about personal goals. You cant miss so long as you get moving.0 -
Thank you for all of the advice I was surprised. I assumed running would burn way more calories than walking. I'm shocked to learn the difference is minimal. I agree with the general consensus stick with what you like more that way you are more inclined to do it. I can also see the long term effects of running being detrimental to my joints; sounds much safer to walk. I am more inclined to walk long distance than run long distance as well. Can anyone recommend a charity walk most of the ones I found were running marathons. There is tons of information on training for a run/marathon I haven't been able to locate anything on walking. Any recommendations for a charity walking event?
You can walk at most running events. I see lots of walkers at 5K and 10K races and even at half marathons. There are even lots of people who do a combination of both running and walking. You do need to be able to walk at a decent clip for some events, so check the maximum time. For example, for most half marathons the course is open for 4 hours so 13.1 miles/4 hours = 3.275 MPH average pace needed to finish in time.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »Walking a mile. Because I have no desire to run a mile, so it will never happen.
THIS.0 -
There is evidence that running 4 hours a week or more is as bad for you as being sedentary.
http://time.com/3692668/when-exercise-does-more-harm-than-good/
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »There is evidence that running 4 hours a week or more is as bad for you as being sedentary.
http://time.com/3692668/when-exercise-does-more-harm-than-good/
That research has been taken apart very well. It doesn't actually say what people think it does.
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/the-supposed-dangers-of-running-too-much0 -
ncboiler89 wrote: »
This. More people are likely going to last much much longer walking for life, versus running for life. Obvious reason is wear and tear.mamapeach910 wrote: »The one you're more likely to stick with doing is best for weight loss.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Agree. Plus running bores the hell out of me. I can walk and walk forever but totally despise running.
I don't see how running is more boring than walking (assuming we're comparing running and walking in the same environment, either both outside or both on a treadmill). I understand it if you just don't like to run because it's harder, but if anything running is much less boring than walking....if nothing else the scenery changes quicker.0 -
Eating at a deficit is more beneficial to losing weight.0
-
mburgess458 wrote: »ncboiler89 wrote: »
This. More people are likely going to last much much longer walking for life, versus running for life. Obvious reason is wear and tear.mamapeach910 wrote: »The one you're more likely to stick with doing is best for weight loss.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Agree. Plus running bores the hell out of me. I can walk and walk forever but totally despise running.
I don't see how running is more boring than walking (assuming we're comparing running and walking in the same environment, either both outside or both on a treadmill). I understand it if you just don't like to run because it's harder, but if anything running is much less boring than walking....if nothing else the scenery changes quicker.
It's the gasping for air part that gets old quickly.0 -
It's the one you'll do, but I actually posted to say thanks - I've felt a bit sick today and reading this has inspired me to go do a mile walk! So Thanks
0 -
-
mburgess458 wrote: »I don't see how running is more boring than walking (assuming we're comparing running and walking in the same environment, either both outside or both on a treadmill). I understand it if you just don't like to run because it's harder, but if anything running is much less boring than walking....if nothing else the scenery changes quicker.
Agreed. My sister-in-law does the 3 day Susan G Komen walk most years. I've thought about doing it but being forced to go at a walking pace, rather than running much of it, would drive me slowly insane over that weekend.It's the gasping for air part that gets old quickly.
LOL!beemerphile1 wrote: »
Running burns more calories and more quickly than walking. It's the time factor that matters to me and why I started running in the first place. I can walk 6 miles in two hours (410 calories) or I can run that far in one hour (620 calories). I'll take the latter.0 -
PeachyPlum said it great. I think the best is what you think is best for you and whatever you like to do.0
-
Interesting question: I know a pound of bricks and a pound of feathers are still a pound but I'm curious; if running a mile or walking a mile is still considered a mile which if either is more beneficial for weight loss? If you throw a pound of bricks and a pound of feathers off a roof they are not going to fall at the same rate of speed one will land on the ground before the other so I'm curious to learn which is more beneficial for weight loss running or walking and why? Any suggestions?
I'm not sure what a brick and a feather has to do with anything, but running a mile will burn more calories than walking a mile.
0 -
Actually you do burn more running. For each person, it's approximately 50 more calories than if you walked. I used to believe it was even due to mass and distance, but a physics professor schooled me and showed me mathematically the difference.During the activity itself, as pointed out above, the work done (i.e. calories spent) is exactly the same for the same mass and distance. Time is not a factor in work. However, because the run requires you to spend those calories in a shorter period of time, the "after effect" is better with the run - that is, your body keeps burning more calories for a longer period of time AFTER the activity in the case of a run than in the case of a walk.
That said, if a Run makes you hungrier and you end up overeating because of it, you may in fact hurt your deficit rather than help it. So what's best for you in terms of weight loss depends of what helps you create the greater deficit.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's because of the plyometric aspect of having both feet off the ground at the same time, no? I *believe* the energy needed to propel you up and forward instead of just forward is what makes the difference, but I'm not super sure.
This would be the only way. The work done against gravity is greater if you run because you are for small fractions of time completely lifted and because your legs lift further for a run than a walk (i.e. requiring greater force for the lift). But speaking of the work done against horizontal forces (wind resistance, friction) would be the same. And if one is looking to make up 50 calories, take a backpack to increase the weight.
Air resistance is directly proportional to velocity so the faster you go, the more force you need to overcome air resistance, and therefore the greater energy expenditure you need to maintain your forward velocity.
0 -
I agree with this^^.sherbear702 wrote: »However, I can walk for miles. Jogging, not so much. I'd rather do a long distance walk, than a short distance run.
I Powerwalk and can walk for a long time.
Whereas running or jogging, i'd get tired after 15 minutes.
0 -
Running burns more calories per unit of time invested.
Which one is "better" for you really depends on what you're able and willing to do with the least risk of injury and highest possibility of compliance!0 -
Like others have said, the one you will do.
For me, both/no reason to choose. I enjoy running, but I try to walk as much as possible every day and think both are important. Running is important because it provides motivation to focus on fitness and is a form a stress relief that I really enjoy (and which is much better than eating). Walking is important because it's a consistent way to burn calories every day without really noticing and without a threat of injury/soreness/needing to take any time off.0 -
Walk. You will burn fat.0
-
mburgess458 wrote: »ncboiler89 wrote: »
This. More people are likely going to last much much longer walking for life, versus running for life. Obvious reason is wear and tear.mamapeach910 wrote: »The one you're more likely to stick with doing is best for weight loss.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Agree. Plus running bores the hell out of me. I can walk and walk forever but totally despise running.
I don't see how running is more boring than walking (assuming we're comparing running and walking in the same environment, either both outside or both on a treadmill). I understand it if you just don't like to run because it's harder, but if anything running is much less boring than walking....if nothing else the scenery changes quicker.
It's the gasping for air part that gets old quickly.
All the more reason to run.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K 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