Running v Walking

Options
woodhouse_j2
woodhouse_j2 Posts: 20 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I was under the impression if you walked 5 mile in 2 hours or run 5 mile in 40 minutes you would burn around the same amount of calories but looking on a few websites this dosnt seem to be the case. The main exercise i do at the minute is an hour on the treadmill which i can usually get through 5 mile with a mixture of fast walking at 4mph and running around 7-8 mph in 2-3 minute bursts. What i am asking is would i burn more calories if i tried to keep to an even 5mph for the hours workout? I welcome any advice

Replies

  • cardbucfan
    cardbucfan Posts: 10,396 Member
    Options
    Steady state cardio (walking at an even pace for a certain amount of time) will burn x number of calories DURING that time. The benefit to what you describe as intervals (walk for a bit, short fast bursts then walk so more) can burn the same amount during the exercise but your body will burn more later on. This is the one of the benefits to HIIT-you burn more throughout the day AND it takes less time.
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Options
    I don't think we can answer this with the information provided.

    When you get to this level of detail with calories burned, you are splitting hairs. But, if you really want to figure it out, you'll need to calculate how many minutes you are running vs. how many you are walking. Then add them together. Keep in mind that you are walking 4 mph vs the 5 mph you noted in your first sentence (you said 5 miles in 2 hours but I'm guessing you meant in 1 hour) so you're burning fewer calories during the walk portion.
  • _Waffle_
    _Waffle_ Posts: 13,049 Member
    Options
    For the most part you burn X calories to move X amount of weight X miles. You just do it sooner if you're running. Of course you do burn a bit more running instead of walking but unless you're doing 10+ miles a day I doubt the difference is worth worrying about.
  • gdyment
    gdyment Posts: 299 Member
    Options
    woodhouse_j2 wrote: »
    I was under the impression if you walked 5 mile in 2 hours or run 5 mile in 40 minutes you would burn around the same amount of calories but looking on a few websites this dosnt seem to be the case. The main exercise i do at the minute is an hour on the treadmill which i can usually get through 5 mile with a mixture of fast walking at 4mph and running around 7-8 mph in 2-3 minute bursts. What i am asking is would i burn more calories if i tried to keep to an even 5mph for the hours workout? I welcome any advice

    It is the case for the most part. If you walk the 5k one day, and run it the next, you might have 10-20% more cals burnt in afterburn/epoc (so an extra small bag of cheezies) but you have to balance the convenience of getting your workout done in less time vs the recovery time.

    Ie, if you do your 7-8mph strides in 2-3 min bursts (great) but then find out you're too sore to run the next day, vs running steady both days - which loses more calories? Consistency is more important.

    Running better, running faster, and burning extra calories is run frequency and mostly slow. But not everyone has 10 hrs a week to do that so higher intensity gets things done faster at the risk of less frequency and higher risk of injury. Treat the afterburn as a bonus.
  • coreyreichle
    coreyreichle Posts: 1,039 Member
    Options
    Generally speaking, the distance moved regardless of speed, will burn about the same calories.

    If you run, you might burn a few more per mile, but we're not talking huge numbers here. Like, running 1 mile will burn 110 calories per mile, whereas walking is 100. That kind of difference.

    Now, you'll burn them faster, time wise.

    It's a bit more complicated, and has to do with MET's. 1 MET is living for 1 minute. Walking at 3.5 mph is 1.5 METs. Walking at 4 mph is ~1.9 METs. Running at 4 mpg is ~1.9 METs. Running at 8 mph is 2.5 METs.

    Now, those are estimates I pulled from my derriere, but it works something akin to this.
  • SuggaD
    SuggaD Posts: 1,369 Member
    Options
    When I use my HR, the difference between walking and running is huge. Even walking quickly (3.5 mph - 4.0 mph), I can barely get my HR over 100 bpm, which means I am not burning that many calories. Running, I can get my HR up quickly and keep it there, so I burn more significantly more calories running. It isn't even close. I think this is one of the biggest overestimates in calorie burns people log. I see people posting these huge burns for 2 mile walks, and I'm skeptical.
  • gdyment
    gdyment Posts: 299 Member
    Options
    SuggaD wrote: »
    When I use my HR, the difference between walking and running is huge. Even walking quickly (3.5 mph - 4.0 mph), I can barely get my HR over 100 bpm, which means I am not burning that many calories. Running, I can get my HR up quickly and keep it there, so I burn more significantly more calories running. It isn't even close. I think this is one of the biggest overestimates in calorie burns people log. I see people posting these huge burns for 2 mile walks, and I'm skeptical.

    That's the point - you're confusing the aerobic/heart rate stuff with the actual "work" of moving your body from point A to point B.

    Run: 39:19 - 8.09km - HR: 142 - Calories: 546
    Run: 39:31 - 7.26km - HR: 117 - Calories: 437

    There IS a difference but it's not huge. Getting the job done is more important.
  • andyluvv
    andyluvv Posts: 281 Member
    Options
    gdyment wrote: »
    SuggaD wrote: »
    When I use my HR, the difference between walking and running is huge. Even walking quickly (3.5 mph - 4.0 mph), I can barely get my HR over 100 bpm, which means I am not burning that many calories. Running, I can get my HR up quickly and keep it there, so I burn more significantly more calories running. It isn't even close. I think this is one of the biggest overestimates in calorie burns people log. I see people posting these huge burns for 2 mile walks, and I'm skeptical.

    That's the point - you're confusing the aerobic/heart rate stuff with the actual "work" of moving your body from point A to point B.

    Run: 39:19 - 8.09km - HR: 142 - Calories: 546
    Run: 39:31 - 7.26km - HR: 117 - Calories: 437

    There IS a difference but it's not huge. Getting the job done is more important.

    Which is why I prefer walking... I feel that running is a lot more strenuous, so I get my calories from waking up a bit earlier and walking over 2 stops rather than getting the train close to home. Then I add that to a bit more walking during lunch time, then going all the way to the gym (30 mins away from home) and walking back.

    Does it take longer? Yes, but I'm not sore and out of breath by the end of it which also doesn't impact my lifting routine. As I can keep doing it everyday, it's a great way to be consistent with it.
  • SuggaD
    SuggaD Posts: 1,369 Member
    Options
    gdyment wrote: »
    SuggaD wrote: »
    When I use my HR, the difference between walking and running is huge. Even walking quickly (3.5 mph - 4.0 mph), I can barely get my HR over 100 bpm, which means I am not burning that many calories. Running, I can get my HR up quickly and keep it there, so I burn more significantly more calories running. It isn't even close. I think this is one of the biggest overestimates in calorie burns people log. I see people posting these huge burns for 2 mile walks, and I'm skeptical.

    That's the point - you're confusing the aerobic/heart rate stuff with the actual "work" of moving your body from point A to point B.

    Run: 39:19 - 8.09km - HR: 142 - Calories: 546
    Run: 39:31 - 7.26km - HR: 117 - Calories: 437

    There IS a difference but it's not huge. Getting the job done is more important.

    Both of your items say run. What am I missing? My HR monitor isn't recording a similar calorie burn for a 39 minute run and 39 minute walk. My point was, the calorie burn isn't even close based on my Garmin.
  • gdyment
    gdyment Posts: 299 Member
    Options
    SuggaD wrote: »
    Both of your items say run. What am I missing? My HR monitor isn't recording a similar calorie burn for a 39 minute run and 39 minute walk. My point was, the calorie burn isn't even close based on my Garmin.

    My point was the HR being not that critical - 117 hr vs 142 hr for the same time. 437-546 - advantage is obviously you get more done in the time. If I'd been walking, it might be 350 cals - so I'd have to go a bit longer, but could still hit the 500 or whatever. You said that you burn "barely any calories" with your HR barely over 100 and that you can't understand how people have huge burns with walks. I'm saying it's the weight and distance that is the bulk of the burn - intensity is a bonus. The distance is the meat/potatoes no matter how slow you go.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited September 2015
    Options
    cardbucfan wrote: »
    Steady state cardio (walking at an even pace for a certain amount of time) will burn x number of calories DURING that time. The benefit to what you describe as intervals (walk for a bit, short fast bursts then walk so more) can burn the same amount during the exercise but your body will burn more later on.

    Whilst you have identified a mild difference between HIIT and steady state, the originator isn't remotely close to HIIT type effort.

    Notwithstanding that the difference in EPOC between steady state and HIIT isn't all that significant. HIIT will give somewhere between 6-10% additional expenditure, where steady state will give 3-6%. The difference is negated when you realise that in 30 minutes of steady state you'll burn far more than in a comparable warm up, HIIT, cool down activity. That assumes you're really dong high intensity in that work period.

    Contrary to popular belief on here HIIT doesn't defy the laws of physics.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    woodhouse_j2 wrote: »
    I was under the impression if you walked 5 mile in 2 hours or run 5 mile in 40 minutes you would burn around the same amount of calories but looking on a few websites this dosnt seem to be the case. The main exercise i do at the minute is an hour on the treadmill which i can usually get through 5 mile with a mixture of fast walking at 4mph and running around 7-8 mph in 2-3 minute bursts. What i am asking is would i burn more calories if i tried to keep to an even 5mph for the hours workout? I welcome any advice

    As upthread running consumes around twice the energy of walking for a comparable distance.

    I'd suggest working towards continuous running, as you'll yield improvements in your aerobic capacity that you won't get from walking.

    Note that despite the discussion upthread an HRM will not give you a meaningful expenditure for walking as your HR won't be rising into the range where it's a meaningful indicator of calorie expenditure.

Categories