Running/walking... Is it the same amount of calories lost?
Options
Replies
-
Unrelated to the original question, but why are heart rate monitors so popular in that case?
MArketing and advertising, practitioners of both of those should be third up against the wall come the time of the glorious revolution.
They're a useful tool, but to increase market penetration they're advertised in a fairly creative way that implies that a secondary application in a fairly narrow set of circumstances has broad applicability.
0 -
-
I disagree with the poster that says running and walking SAME distance that running burns twice as many calories.
No it doesn't.
Same distance calories burned are close.
It's time that makes the difference 30 minutes running burns more than 30 minutes walking because you go further.
What are basing this on?
The formula given by Runners World is based on laboratory observations. Cite your source.....
0 -
@xLyricBrianSharpe wrote: »thatshistorical wrote: »Calorie burn and fat burn is determined on your heart rate when exercising so I think that forum was incorrect.
Sorry, there's no linear correlation between heart rate and caloric expenditure.
An unfit 200lb person will typically have a higher heart rate than a fit person of the same weight yet they would both expend almost the same number of calories running or walking the same distance. HR is an indicator of fitness, nothing else.
To estimate net calories expended Runners World has proposed the following formula.
Walking .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)
Running same but use .63
Apparently, however, race walking at 5mph or more expends more calories as result of mechanical inefficiency walking at that speed.
OP - the weight loss will come as a result of a caloric deficit, you can lose it with or without exercise. Exercise is for fitness and health (but numerous studies have also shown that people who exercise on a regular basis are more likely to keep the weight off in the long term) and IMO cardiovascular fitness is more important than the number on a scale (and may mitigate some of the consequences of being moderately overweight)
Unrelated to the original question, but why are heart rate monitors so popular in that case? Aren't they calculating calorie expenditure based on heart rate? If there's no correlation, are all of the posts saying "get a HRM for better accuracy determining your burn" pointless and misleading? Genuine question, I think I must be misunderstanding something about HRMs.
They are so popular mainly through ignorance and a desire to measure something that is actually quite hard to measure. They are also very cheap & convenient compared to going to a sports science lab and being hooked up to a gas analyser that can measure your oxygen uptake.
They can be a really good training aid for advanced cardio but they really don't (can't) measure energy.
Some more advanced ones that either have the ability to be custom calibrated or have a more advanced algorithm may do a better job at providing an estimate.
A basic HRM can give a reasonable approximation for someone doing an appropriate exercise if they happen to have an average exercise HR - that's about it.
Take an unfit person quite probably doing an inappropriate exercise (walking, intervals, strength training, dancing.....) and it's a complete lottery.
Then again the need to be accurate about exercise calorie burns is vastly inflated too. Consistency and "reasonableness" is fine.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »thatshistorical wrote: »Calorie burn and fat burn is determined on your heart rate when exercising so I think that forum was incorrect.
Sorry, there's no linear correlation between heart rate and caloric expenditure.
An unfit 200lb person will typically have a higher heart rate than a fit person of the same weight yet they would both expend almost the same number of calories running or walking the same distance. HR is an indicator of fitness, nothing else.
To estimate net calories expended Runners World has proposed the following formula.
Walking .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)
Running same but use .63
Apparently, however, race walking at 5mph or more expends more calories as result of mechanical inefficiency walking at that speed.
OP - the weight loss will come as a result of a caloric deficit, you can lose it with or without exercise. Exercise is for fitness and health (but numerous studies have also shown that people who exercise on a regular basis are more likely to keep the weight off in the long term) and IMO cardiovascular fitness is more important than the number on a scale (and may mitigate some of the consequences of being moderately overweight)
Unrelated to the original question, but why are heart rate monitors so popular in that case? Aren't they calculating calorie expenditure based on heart rate? If there's no correlation, are all of the posts saying "get a HRM for better accuracy determining your burn" pointless and misleading? Genuine question, I think I must be misunderstanding something about HRMs.
The fact that there isn't a linear correlation doesn't mean that there isn't a correlation.
It's like saying there is no linear correlation between speed and fuel consumption (there isn't - it's a functional curve) and assuming that going faster suddenly doesn't consume fuel. Under consistent conditions there is a relatively reasonable curve between HR and oxygen consumption which in turn corresponds to an estimate to total energy consumption - ideally if one knows max HR and a few other factors.
Thank you both for the clarification!0 -
I disagree with the poster that says running and walking SAME distance that running burns twice as many calories.
No it doesn't.
Same distance calories burned are close.
It's time that makes the difference 30 minutes running burns more than 30 minutes walking because you go further.
As mentioned above, running is much less efficient than walking. You use different muscles in different ways. When walking, one foot is always on the ground; when running, you spend much more time with both feet off the ground. Your pushoffs are faster, more forceful and "waste" some of their energy in the vertical plane movement.
If you'd like to test the difference in efficiency for yourself, do a walking program until you're very comfortable walking 3 miles at a brisk pace and don't experience DOMS from it anymore. Then try running those exact same 3 miles. I can 100% guarantee you that for the next 2 to 3 days afterward, you'll feel the difference in how the muscles are worked.0 -
When i spend a lazy afternoon with google resarching this i came to the following: all the sites and magazines that are running specific say that running needs more calories and the walking / hiking ones that mile for a mile you use the same amount per distance.
Unfortunatly i didn't found a neutral source.0 -
When i spend a lazy afternoon with google resarching this i came to the following: all the sites and magazines that are running specific say that running needs more calories and the walking / hiking ones that mile for a mile you use the same amount per distance.
Unfortunatly i didn't found a neutral source.
Hiking is a different story......the calorie calculations that are done are based on distance over relatively flat terrain, typically hiking involves a more vertically challenging environment (just like walking on a treadmill at a high incline burns more calories than walking on a level surface)........now if you want really crazy calorie burns check out trail running!
Here's a fairly neutral site that does the math......note that walking at 5mph and running at 5mph are rated the same (as they are in the Runners World calculation) based the mechanical inefficiency of walking at 5mph or more.....
walking.about.com/od/calorie1/a/calorieswalkrun.htm
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »A couple of good links that apply.....
exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html
The chart at the top appears to be based on gross calorie burns, not net calorie burns. And as with anything else it's based on accepted formulas, not exacts.
exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
A calculator based on the methods. Very close to the numbers stated by some from the Runners World article and studies if you use net calorie burn for running.
This brings up a point I thought about recently due to another thread. Though treadmills often know miles moved, as well as user weights and such, I'm not sure if any of them allows programming or a button to push to differentiate between walking and running. I'd have to guess that if they don't have a way to specify, they probably use some standard formula or averages to transition the calories burn calculations from walking to running. The extremes of either (fast walking or slow running) might grossly skew the machine calculations.
We had a cheap treadmill years ago, and I know they have progressed a lot on all levels. Does anyone use a home or commercial treadmill that differentiates between walking and running somehow?
Personally I discount HR as an estimation, unless a user has enough data or some other form of power measure to allow them to have an accurate indication of HR vs speeds or loads.
The calculations for walking are valid for speeds up to 4.2 mph. The calculations for running start at 5.0 mph. Outside of those parameters, there is too much variability to come up with an equation that will be valid and consistent.
Since there are no valid equations, the treadmill uses the running equation for speeds of 5.0 and above and walking equations for less than that.
I agree that on ranges people might come up with close numbers for where it should transition from walking to running. I'm just curious if people that own treadmills have tested the theory on specific machines. Since the higher end speeds of walking come close to the lower end speeds of running (in gross calories) I'm wondering if treadmills just have a linear calculation or an actual transition point to estimate calorie burns.
Depending on the way the machine works, it could skew numbers quite a bit for some people.I disagree with the poster that says running and walking SAME distance that running burns twice as many calories.
No it doesn't.
Same distance calories burned are close.
It's time that makes the difference 30 minutes running burns more than 30 minutes walking because you go further.
Though I agree with the posters that the calorie burn rates differ between the two, in the context of your post they are closer. When you factor the time and calculate gross calorie burn the numbers tighten up. For use inputting to sites or calculators like MFP uses, having the net calorie burn number is what is desired, since the energy expenditure related to the time factor is already accounted for.0 -
I stand corrected. It is a common myth that walking and running same distance are equal. Running burns more calories because of the moment of suspension. You use energy going up and down, not just forward. Learn something new everyday....0
-
kayleexbabeex wrote: »So I do a 40minute workout on the treadmill by usually warming up with walking on the treadmill but then my aim to run as much as I can. I'm 9st 13lbs so I'm just looking to burn those 13lbs. I was reading a forum on the net and read that you pretty much burn the same amount if you ran or walked. So is it true that if I were to walk for 40minutes it would be the equivalent lost to running for 40minutes? I thought I would burn more running :? X
Walk a mile, run a mile see which one burns more calories.
0 -
Unfortunatly i didn't found a neutral source.
Harvard is pretty neutral - http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/mets-activity-table/
And the Stanford Compendium https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxjb21wZW5kaXVtb2ZwaHlzaWNhbGFjdGl2aXRpZXN8Z3g6MjgyY2EyMzQzNWFlN2Q3OA0 -
One thing I would like to throw out there to complicate the answer is how used the person is to the particular exercise, in this case running. Consider the runner has been running 2 miles several times a week at a certain speed for 6 months or so. The person eventually plateaus and the heart rate is no longer as high as it was when first trying this run. If that same person were to do little to no regular walking (unlikely but possible), and then were to suddenly walk at a brisk pace that same distance of 2 miles, there could be a comparable calorie burn that is apples to apples but the run would in my guess, still be the bigger apple. Probably not much bigger though.
It would be interesting to see that tested over various distances, speeds, etc.
Mythbusters where are you when we need you?!!!
0 -
troytroy11 wrote: »One thing I would like to throw out there to complicate the answer is how used the person is to the particular exercise, in this case running. Consider the runner has been running 2 miles several times a week at a certain speed for 6 months or so. The person eventually plateaus and the heart rate is no longer as high as it was when first trying this run. If that same person were to do little to no regular walking (unlikely but possible), and then were to suddenly walk at a brisk pace that same distance of 2 miles, there could be a comparable calorie burn that is apples to apples but the run would in my guess, still be the bigger apple. Probably not much bigger though.
It would be interesting to see that tested over various distances, speeds, etc.
Mythbusters where are you when we need you?!!!
Wrong......there is no linear correlation to heart rate and caloric expenditure. An unfiit runner will have a higher heart rate than a less fit one of the same weight yet, all other things being equal, will burn approximately the same number of calories running the same distance.
This is the fundamental flaw with many HRMs algorithms.
Did you even read the previous posts? It's all laid out there.......
0 -
troytroy11 wrote: »The person eventually plateaus and the heart rate is no longer as high as it was when first trying this run.
So the conditioning from running means that the heart concentrates more oxygen per unit volume of blood, and as the heart improves in strength it moves a greater volume of blood per stroke. So as one improves in fitness that means that it takes fewer beats to get the same volume of oxygen to the system, hence one can burn the same number of calories for fewer heart beats.
0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »troytroy11 wrote: »One thing I would like to throw out there to complicate the answer is how used the person is to the particular exercise, in this case running. Consider the runner has been running 2 miles several times a week at a certain speed for 6 months or so. The person eventually plateaus and the heart rate is no longer as high as it was when first trying this run. If that same person were to do little to no regular walking (unlikely but possible), and then were to suddenly walk at a brisk pace that same distance of 2 miles, there could be a comparable calorie burn that is apples to apples but the run would in my guess, still be the bigger apple. Probably not much bigger though.
It would be interesting to see that tested over various distances, speeds, etc.
Mythbusters where are you when we need you?!!!
Wrong......there is no linear correlation to heart rate and caloric expenditure. An unfiit runner will have a higher heart rate than a less fit one of the same weight yet, all other things being equal, will burn approximately the same number of calories running the same distance.
This is the fundamental flaw with many HRMs algorithms.
Did you even read the previous posts? It's all laid out there.......
Thank you for clearing that up.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »troytroy11 wrote: »The person eventually plateaus and the heart rate is no longer as high as it was when first trying this run.
So the conditioning from running means that the heart concentrates more oxygen per unit volume of blood, and as the heart improves in strength it moves a greater volume of blood per stroke. So as one improves in fitness that means that it takes fewer beats to get the same volume of oxygen to the system, hence one can burn the same number of calories for fewer heart beats.
Thank you that makes sense0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »thatshistorical wrote: »Calorie burn and fat burn is determined on your heart rate when exercising so I think that forum was incorrect.
Sorry, there's no linear correlation between heart rate and caloric expenditure.
An unfit 200lb person will typically have a higher heart rate than a fit person of the same weight yet they would both expend almost the same number of calories running or walking the same distance. HR is an indicator of fitness, nothing else.
To estimate net calories expended Runners World has proposed the following formula.
Walking .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)
Running same but use .63
Apparently, however, race walking at 5mph or more expends more calories as result of mechanical inefficiency walking at that speed.
OP - the weight loss will come as a result of a caloric deficit, you can lose it with or without exercise. Exercise is for fitness and health (but numerous studies have also shown that people who exercise on a regular basis are more likely to keep the weight off in the long term) and IMO cardiovascular fitness is more important than the number on a scale (and may mitigate some of the consequences of being moderately overweight)
The formula is very helpful, thank you. I must have missed this earlier.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions