We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

Wow, walking is hard! (running vs. walking)

yirara
yirara Posts: 10,196 Member
edited November 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
No, I'm not joking. Inspired by the discussions on how much calories walking burns vs running I didn't run tonight but went for a 5km walk. I'm not the fastest runner. On average I run about 8_00-8:30 minutes/km. Thus I set my walking goal at 8:30 minutes/km. Phew! That was much harder than running. But not only that, my speed varied a bit more. My runs usually have a pace variation of about 9%, with this walk I had a variation of 12%. I noticed I continuously got slower again and had to work hard to keep up the speed. Ok, I guess the calorie burn was still lower than running, but it certainly was more exhausting.

Replies

  • mwyvr
    mwyvr Posts: 1,883 Member
    There's a cross-over point where fast walking is less efficient than running. I guess you found yours!

    At that point, your calorie burn for walking may be the same, or even a little higher, than your running.

  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 10,196 Member
    Yes, that shows in the METs table if you compare the same speed for walking and running. That's what I was arguing before as well. But of course feeling more exhausted is no proof that I actually burned more calories. Anyway, it was good fun.
  • LAT1963
    LAT1963 Posts: 1,375 Member
    Do you find you can achieve your target heart rates walking?

    Right now I can get "in the zone" by walking, especially on hills. But when I was fit I had to run to reach my heart rate zone. Just wondered whether others have the same experience.

    What is a METs table? Do you have a link you could share? The fact there's a crossover point suggests that a complete program should include both running and walking, maybe.
  • 1princesswarrior
    1princesswarrior Posts: 1,242 Member
    Unless I'm doing hills I can only get into the 65% working level when walking but I tend to overwork my legs when I run and aggravate old injuries. And that's getting drug around by three herding dogs to add resistance.
  • MtnGirl38
    MtnGirl38 Posts: 37 Member
    You were walking the same speed you jog? Seems like that would require a lot more effort....I'd be exhausted too!

    I've found when I do hill workouts on the treadmill (walking pace 4.0-4.2 mi/hr) it sometimes still "feels" easier to jog it, even uphill. Slower than my normal jogging pace, but seems to require less effort than walking it. This is interesting. Thanks for your post!
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited July 2015
    LAT1963 wrote: »
    What is a METs table? Do you have a link you could share? The fact there's a crossover point suggests that a complete program should include both running and walking, maybe.

    Metabolic equivalents are a work factor that's applied to body mass and time/ distance. They're derived from research done at Stanford and essentially allow you to compare the workload effectiveness of any activities.

    http://www.juststand.org/portals/3/literature/compendium-of-physical-activities.pdf is from 2000, which was the first update. Subsequently republished in 2011.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 10,196 Member
    I'm online with my phone now and cannot give you the link. There's a google docs document that still gets updated with new measurements. I'll try to think of it tomorrow evening when I'm online again (it's evening now)
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 10,196 Member
    One thing I found is that while I'm not jumping like during a run the leg movement seems more difficult (especially if you're not that tall) and my upper body moves much more in order to keep up with the pace. Hmm I should look up fast walkers techniques!
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited July 2015
    yirara wrote: »
    Thus I set my walking goal at 8:30 minutes/km.

    That's under 4.5 mph, which gives a MET value of ~6.

    Running at that speed has a MET of ~7. So... (7-1)/(6-1) -> 1.2 -> running very slowly burns 20% more than walking extremely fast.

    All numbers approximate.

    But even modestly increasing your running pace from 8:30 to 8:00 - which is still slow running - increases the difference to about 40%.

    Bottom line - you're burning a lot more calories/mile running at 8:00/km vs walking at 8:30/km.


  • angelexperiment
    angelexperiment Posts: 1,917 Member
    But you are working different muscles walking than running. ..
This discussion has been closed.

Categories