Running vs Walking
kvanderbeek1
Posts: 50 Member
Are there many out there that have had luck at losing weight with walking? I ran a half marathon in 2013 and I've had issues running ever since. I always read walking is just as good as running. Obviously eating well and also some strength training is helpful. But, my main question is about the walking. I try to walk 3.8-4.0 for 30-45 minutes.
0
Replies
-
Walking is great exercise, but only nets about half the calories as running for each mile covered.0
-
At my weight (191 marked down from 220 ;-)) walking 4 miles an hour (15 minute miles) burns 217 calories in 30 minutes (2 miles), Running at 10 miles an hour (6 minute miles) burns 278 in 12 minutes, over that same two miles.
Running may burn more calories calories per mile, but not a real lot more per mile. The BIG difference comes in covering more ground while running IF YOU CAN RUN AT THAT PACE FOR THAT TIME.
If you can't run for an appreciable period of time, walking is very good.
I started walking, and got to 4 miles in 44 minutes. But that's me, you move how you see fit.0 -
At my weight (191 marked down from 220 ;-)) walking 4 miles an hour (15 minute miles) burns 217 calories in 30 minutes (2 miles), Running at 10 miles an hour (6 minute miles) burns 278 in 12 minutes, over that same two miles.
Running may burn more calories calories per mile, but not a real lot more per mile. The BIG difference comes in covering more ground while running IF YOU CAN RUN AT THAT PACE FOR THAT TIME.
If you can't run for an appreciable period of time, walking is very good.
I started walking, and got to 4 miles in 44 minutes. But that's me, you move how you see fit.
What are you using to calculate your burns?
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning -- The formulas in this study put walking netting .3 calories per pound per mile ... running .63 calories per pound per mile.
http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/docs/documents_compendium.pdf -- Based on METS, running 10 minute miles generates over twice the caloric burn as walking 4.5 mph.0 -
I've lost 21 pounds in the past few months. Brisk walking is what I do to burn calories. Works for me.
I think the above post is probably quite accurate -- running probably burns a little more calories per mile, but the main difference in calorie burn is that you can cover more distance by running than by walking for the same amount of time. For me it's not worth the stress or the increased risk of injury. I enjoy a nice, brisk walk. I don't enjoy running.0 -
MFP calculations. Plugged in the times gave me the result.0
-
Notice the time disparity between the walked and run miles in that Syracuse study? (19:00 walking, 9:30 running)
That's... troublesome.
Most people who can run that fast are going to walk a lot faster than that.
Also? You have people like me whose run speed and walking speed are fairly close together. You can't give a hard and fast ratio for the differential between running and walking without knowing the relative speeds an individual uses for each.0 -
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »Notice the time disparity between the walked and run miles in that Syracuse study? (19:00 walking, 9:30 running)
That's... troublesome.
Most people who can run that fast are going to walk a lot faster than that.
Also? You have people like me whose run speed and walking speed are fairly close together. You can't give a hard and fast ratio for the differential between running and walking without knowing the relative speeds an individual uses for each.
It isn't the time that creates the difference in net caloric burn by unit of distance ... it is the biomechanical difference in the two activities.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Notice the time disparity between the walked and run miles in that Syracuse study? (19:00 walking, 9:30 running)
That's... troublesome.
Most people who can run that fast are going to walk a lot faster than that.
Also? You have people like me whose run speed and walking speed are fairly close together. You can't give a hard and fast ratio for the differential between running and walking without knowing the relative speeds an individual uses for each.
It isn't the time that creates the difference in net caloric burn by unit of distance ... it is the biomechanical difference in the two activities.
I was poking in the study a bit more and read that, but I'm still... skeptical that the differential is doubled in all cases.
I'd love to have experience data to know better, but I'm going through a frustrating stall/lose pattern right now and can't tell.
The reason I question this is because my run and walk speeds, with me being a new runner, are fairly close. Fitbit doesn't give me that many more calories for running. I'd like to be able to see loss results reflecting a higher burn if the mechanics are indeed responsible.
Sorry for the derail, OP. Walking is great exercise.0 -
I keep reading about how the MFP calorie burns are off, over stated and inflated. My Gamin Forerunner, when I have my heart rate monitor on, matches MFP close enough for government work. I have also found that, in my experience, and only in my experience, when I have taken everyone's advise and eaten only half my exercise calories back, I don't lose just the one pound a week I was scheduled to lose but also an addition half to one pound a week which concides pretty closely to those uneaten exercise calories. In my experience, the MFP calorie count is pretty close OR I have an uncanny knack for adjusting to it's flaws.
However, walking is a very good exercise. It burn calories, it gets your heart beating, it exercises you legs, gets your outside (if you're walking outside) and does not put a great deal of stress on your joints. I prefer an 11 minute mile jog, but that's me. You move how you see fit.
July 4, 2015 220 #s. November 12, 2015 191.8#s, I think I'll keep this up and keep (my weight) going down.0 -
Using METS data, walking 3.5 mph with no load is a MET of 3.8 ... running 5mph (12 minute miles) is a MET of 8 ... the caloric relationship holds up.0
-
I keep reading about how the MFP calorie burns are off, over stated and inflated. My Gamin Forerunner, when I have my heart rate monitor on, matches MFP close enough for government work. I have also found that, in my experience, and only in my experience, when I have taken everyone's advise and eaten only half my exercise calories back, I don't lose just the one pound a week I was scheduled to lose but also an addition half to one pound a week which concides pretty closely to those uneaten exercise calories. In my experience, the MFP calorie count is pretty close OR I have an uncanny knack for adjusting to it's flaws.
However, walking is a very good exercise. It burn calories, it gets your heart beating, it exercises you legs, gets your outside (if you're walking outside) and does not put a great deal of stress on your joints. I prefer an 11 minute mile jog, but that's me. You move how you see fit.
July 4, 2015 220 #s. November 12, 2015 191.8#s, I think I'll keep this up and keep (my weight) going down.
The formulae used by HRMs don't hold up for low intensity activities such as walking.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »I keep reading about how the MFP calorie burns are off, over stated and inflated. My Gamin Forerunner, when I have my heart rate monitor on, matches MFP close enough for government work. I have also found that, in my experience, and only in my experience, when I have taken everyone's advise and eaten only half my exercise calories back, I don't lose just the one pound a week I was scheduled to lose but also an addition half to one pound a week which concides pretty closely to those uneaten exercise calories. In my experience, the MFP calorie count is pretty close OR I have an uncanny knack for adjusting to it's flaws.
However, walking is a very good exercise. It burn calories, it gets your heart beating, it exercises you legs, gets your outside (if you're walking outside) and does not put a great deal of stress on your joints. I prefer an 11 minute mile jog, but that's me. You move how you see fit.
July 4, 2015 220 #s. November 12, 2015 191.8#s, I think I'll keep this up and keep (my weight) going down.
The formulae used by HRMs don't hold up for low intensity activities such as walking.
I thought that as well but apparently the newer Garmins are supposed to be good. I have no idea, I've been waiting for someone to break it down for me.0 -
OK, brian. I'll take my results. Programed to lose a pound a week. Lost 1.5 not eating all my exercise calories. I completely discount the week I spent in the DR gaining 3 pounds which I lost the next week. 2 weeks "running " in place.0
-
If you're only talking about a couple of miles (I'd say, maybe up to 5) it's probably not a big enough difference in calories per mile to sweat it. The TIME it takes to walk 5 miles vs. running 5 miles is a priority for me. Less than an hour or over an hour and a half. Hmm. I get bored walking for that long.
When you're talking about more than 10 miles in a single session, well, for me, we're definitely talking about running, because I'm not dedicating more than 3 hours to a walk. 10 miles of walking at 140 lbs. will take me 200 minutes and burn 512 calories. 10 miles of running will take 120 minutes and burn 1023 calories.
Edited to add:
As for your original question - you could absolutely lose weight while walking. Running would give you more bang for your buck. You don't need any exercise at all to drop pounds. You just need to eat less than you burn. Both walking and running are good for the cardiovascular system.0 -
Walking is great. When medical researchers have looked at walking they have found that very little walking provides very great health and heart benefits!0
-
OK, brian. I'll take my results. Programed to lose a pound a week. Lost 1.5 not eating all my exercise calories. I completely discount the week I spent in the DR gaining 3 pounds which I lost the next week. 2 weeks "running " in place.
Argue against multiple scientific studies all you want. Feel free to choose confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance over fact.0 -
kvanderbeek1 wrote: »Are there many out there that have had luck at losing weight with walking? I ran a half marathon in 2013 and I've had issues running ever since. I always read walking is just as good as running. Obviously eating well and also some strength training is helpful. But, my main question is about the walking. I try to walk 3.8-4.0 for 30-45 minutes.
I've lost 118 lbs in the last 17 months walking. Started at 1 mile with several rest stops and now walk 4-5 mi per day with no stops & no pain. I've also done three 5k and one 10 k event, all walking.0 -
I love to walk & it's better for me from an orthopedic standpoint. (I've got a lot of plantars fascia damage on one foot. Running is off the table for now.) If someone really wants to develop a running practice they should plug away! But honestly, slowly jogging 12s or 13s is really not that different from rapid walking.
I use my phone as my pedometer. I walk 100000+ steps a week. About 1/2-2/3 comes from daily life & substitute teaching; the remainder comes from serious fitness walking and hiking. I lose about 1.24 lbs a week when I last crunched the numbers. And it lets me eat! Between September 29-October 27 I got a Fitbit badge for walking 250 miles, but I was on vacation in DC & had a 75 mile week there. I got caught in my local park after dark a few weeks ago (misjudged the sunset) and ran effortlessly the 2-3 miles back to my car, so my cardio & overall physical condition is fine thanks to walking. The foot barked for a few days, though. If you like running, run. If you like walking, walk. It's all about 1000 times better than sitting on your @ss, right?0 -
Hmm. So I'll have to confirm it, but my understanding is that the difference on average for each person is about 50 more calories if they ran a mile/versus walking if the intensities were equal by performance. That obviously would be a 200 calorie difference for 4 miles, but I don't think many people on average walk that much in an hour's time.brianpperkins wrote: »Walking is great exercise, but only nets about half the calories as running for each mile covered.
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
0 -
The formulae used by HRMs don't hold up for low intensity activities such as walking.
However Garmin uses HR to corroborate the GPS derived calculation, not the other way round.
Notwithstanding that, agree the point that going back to first principles demonstrates very clearly that walking consumes about half the calories of running the same distance.0 -
kvanderbeek1 wrote: »I always read walking is just as good as running.
I guess the key question here is what you mean by just as good as
The difference in calorie expenditure is illustrated above, the metabolic equivalents for leisurely paced walking and leisurely running would indicate that running burns twice the calories that walking does by distance. That relationship holds true asone scales the comparisons.
Walking is less physically demanding, so can be carried on for longer, however it has much narrower range of cardiovascular benefits. Running demands technique/ form in a way that walking doesn't. As you highlight you've had problems since a half, although it's not clear whether you mean persistent injury or something else.
I appreciate that latter point myself as I injured myself on my first HM and it took a good couple of months to get over that and back to running again. The intervening period was frustrating and I did lengthen it by not allowing the knee to heal properly before going out on it.
The big drawback with walking is, as highlighted upthread, it's time consuming.
It's a question of what's important to you, but walking is perfectly reasonable.
0 -
Hmm. So I'll have to confirm it, but my understanding is that the difference on average for each person is about 50 more calories if they ran a mile/versus walking if the intensities were equal by performance. That obviously would be a 200 calorie difference for 4 miles, but I don't think many people on average walk that much in an hour's time.brianpperkins wrote: »Walking is great exercise, but only nets about half the calories as running for each mile covered.
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
Runner's World's suggested formula for net calories expended walking .30 x weight in lbs x distance in miles
same calculation for running use .63 slightly more than double the net energy expenditure running
runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning
Having said that I would never discourage someone from walking if they would rather do that than running. You don't get the same cardiovascular effect (ie you're not pushing and maintaining the higher heart rate) but it's an activity can be done by almost anyone 365 days a year and is very unlikely to cause overuse injuries and doesn't require anything more than comfortable shoes (unless you get bit by the race walking bug....)0 -
fwiw, if you can't run cuz it hurts you, then walking is super awesome.0
-
At first, a month or so, but now I just use it to cover errors and occasional indulgence. I walk 2.3 miles during my morning break on most weekdays in around 30-35 minutes depending on the mood. Try cycling. It's lot easier on the knees and there are plenty of ex-runners that took up the sport because of running is to hard on the body (prolonged). Personally I hate running and avoid it like a plague (except when I was in the Army where it was mandatory).
Unless there is a structural imbalance, strength training is BAD for endurance adaptation. Your at odds as strength training builds bulk (contractile proteins) which makes less room for increases of mitochondria and capillaries. It retards the conversion of Type IIb to Type IIa fiber. Also, why carry the excess weight. This is why cross training = no man's land. (Assuming you are some what serious since you ran a half marathon).0 -
I would actually rather run, but since the half marathon, I can't seem to run without needing a restroom rather quickly most runs. A little TMI, and for those that get grossed out easily, please refrain from continuing to read. During the half marathon there was only one port-a-potty set up, during the race, at mile 7. I had been holding it for a couple miles prior. After mile 7, my body seemed to have something wrong as I needed to "go again" mile 8, but there were not any "potties" set up the rest of the race. Immediately after the race I started puking and crapping blood (that's the TMI part). Ever since then (two years ago), I have not been able to go on a run without a "potty" very close by. Hence, the reason I'm having to walk.:(0
-
I'm thinking that you've provided too little information, rather than too much. What was the diagnosis regarding the bloody poop and the vomit? Is it a condition caused by running? Is your inability to run a mental block or do you experience those symptoms when you run, now?0
-
It's called colitis. Running can cause it to happen. I don't run far enough any longer, to the point of blood/vomit, it starts with diarrhea and I need a break quickly.0
-
I love walking, a few years ago I lost 15 lbs just by walking every afternoon for about an hour. and on the weekends a bit more, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. I wasn't trying to loose weight! just trying to learn my way around the new neighborhood.. but now I don't really have the time to walk as much, but that is on my to do list for next summer, free up some time for a good walk. That saying I kind of fill that void by doing Walk away the pounds videos.. they re fun too. and when I go on vacation, that's what I do the most walk walk walk0
-
This is how many extra calories fitbit gives me for walking, which is the only exercise I do. So yes IMO walking will get you results. This is for 25,000 steps, roughly 20kms.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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