Runners World article on calories burned per mile walking vs running
findingone
Posts: 31 Member
http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn
This is a good article on how many calories burned walking vs running. Increases in walking rate actually increase calorie burn and if you walk 12:30 miles per hour or faster, it's actually burning more calories then 10 minute miles ran! Again this is a runners world article that tested college students in a lab.
CALORIES/MILE .57 x wt in lbs .72 x wt in lbs. Walk/Run.
Amazing how much misinformation is out there. This site included. Can't bs good ole science and math.
I run three 10k's a week on hilly terrain and am now going to start doing two 5k's in between them. I have a sub 10 minute mile pace. What I wanted to know, is it worth it to get fitted and tested for proper running shoes? I have a 140$ budget to get somewhat decent running shoes.
What do you guys/ladies use for jogging/running? Any good brands to look for? What is your experience with buying running clothing, gear, shoes?
Thanks for the help!
This is a good article on how many calories burned walking vs running. Increases in walking rate actually increase calorie burn and if you walk 12:30 miles per hour or faster, it's actually burning more calories then 10 minute miles ran! Again this is a runners world article that tested college students in a lab.
CALORIES/MILE .57 x wt in lbs .72 x wt in lbs. Walk/Run.
Amazing how much misinformation is out there. This site included. Can't bs good ole science and math.
I run three 10k's a week on hilly terrain and am now going to start doing two 5k's in between them. I have a sub 10 minute mile pace. What I wanted to know, is it worth it to get fitted and tested for proper running shoes? I have a 140$ budget to get somewhat decent running shoes.
What do you guys/ladies use for jogging/running? Any good brands to look for? What is your experience with buying running clothing, gear, shoes?
Thanks for the help!
2
Replies
-
if it ain't broke, don't fix it.0
-
Who walks 12 minute miles though? 18 mins is normal and 15 mins is my "I'm really late" pace.8
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Who walks 12 minute miles though? 18 mins is normal and 15 mins is my "I'm really late" pace.
I bet I can get REALLY close to that. I do a lot of fast walking for endurance hikes/trail races...my walk is extremely fast. When I'm hitting my stride, my hiking partner has to break into a jog to keep up. I've reeled in runners late in races while walking vs their slow jog.0 -
I can walk really fast when I take walk breaks during a run or race. Generally 12 or 13 minute miles. I can't sustain it, but for a short period, I can move.
And to the OP, yes, it is worth while to get shoes that really fit your feet and the way you run. Go to a running store, where they will watch you walk and run to determine whether you need a neutral or stability shoe. Having the wrong shoe can lead to injury. Keep track of the mileage on your shoes as well. After a while (400-500 miles for me) they start to break down internally, which can lead to knee and other issues. I rotate four pairs of shoes, depending on what I'm doing. For a long run I like more cushion than for a short or fast run. I like Asics, but there are a lot of good shoes out there.0 -
Get fit for the right shoes for you, don't worry about recommendations from other runners, they don't have your feet/gait/body.
I walk fast, but couldn't walk that speed for a sustained period of time.1 -
So if you walk at a faster pace than you run you will burn more calories! No kidding. Who would have guessed?
Also as 4 miles an hour is considered a brisk pace I really can't see how you could walk at 12.5 miles an hour for any period of time and not be running.2 -
Read the article. It is not miles per hour but minutes per mile. Big difference. Even so it is a pace that only elite walkers can manage for any period of time.0
-
Lillymoo01 wrote: »So if you walk at a faster pace than you run you will burn more calories! No kidding. Who would have guessed?
Also as 4 miles an hour is considered a brisk pace I really can't see how you could walk at 12.5 miles an hour for any period of time and not be running.
Yep! OP, have you got something wrong here because when you say: "12:30 miles per hour or faster, it's actually burning more calories then 10 minute miles ran!" that is because 12:30 miles per hour is significantly faster than 10 minute miles (which is 6 miles per hour). And, as others point out - is a very, very, very fast walk.0 -
Sorry. I didn't type that out correctly. The article states...
Walking is a different kind of animal. Increases in walking speed dramatically raise calorie burn per mile as well as per minute. Indeed, at about 12:30 per mile, walking hits a point where it burns about the same calories/mile as running. Walk faster than 12:30 and you will burn more calories/mile than running at 10:00 pace.
So if you are walking a mile faster than 12:30 then you will burn more calories if you were running 10:00 miles.0 -
spiriteagle99 wrote: »I can walk really fast when I take walk breaks during a run or race. Generally 12 or 13 minute miles. I can't sustain it, but for a short period, I can move.
And to the OP, yes, it is worth while to get shoes that really fit your feet and the way you run. Go to a running store, where they will watch you walk and run to determine whether you need a neutral or stability shoe. Having the wrong shoe can lead to injury. Keep track of the mileage on your shoes as well. After a while (400-500 miles for me) they start to break down internally, which can lead to knee and other issues. I rotate four pairs of shoes, depending on what I'm doing. For a long run I like more cushion than for a short or fast run. I like Asics, but there are a lot of good shoes out there.
Did this last night. Tried the shoes on the treadmill this morning and they feel a little better than what I was jogging in, but time will tell.
Plus they were not cheap. ~$170 Cdn. I'll be saving them for running outside and go back to what I had for the treadmill.0 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »Read the article. It is not miles per hour but minutes per mile. Big difference. Even so it is a pace that only elite walkers can manage for any period of time.
12:30 isn't an elite pace. 9:00 is.
12:30 is absolutely attainable.1 -
I've loved my Asics Cumulus for running, have had three pairs, but they just don't last. Every pair got the same hole in the toe within a couple months. I'm now a couple months into some Nikes, a shoe I'd never thought I'd try for running, but they're great. The name is escaping me right now--maybe natural run?0
-
For trail running I wouldn't be without Inov8s.2
-
stanmann571 wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »Read the article. It is not miles per hour but minutes per mile. Big difference. Even so it is a pace that only elite walkers can manage for any period of time.
12:30 isn't an elite pace. 9:00 is.
12:30 is absolutely attainable.
Power walkers reach a maximum comfortable walking pace of about 5.7 mph. Race walking is done competitively, and national-class male race walkers cover a 20-kilometer -- 12.5-mile -- race in approximately one hour and 30-minutes. That is about 8 to 9 mph.
Race Walking vs. Power Walking | Chron.com
livehealthy.chron.com/race-walking-vs-power-walking-2929.html
8 mph= 7.5 minutes per mile. That's some fast walking.
5.7 mph= 10:30 minute miles. Still fast in my book.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Who walks 12 minute miles though? 18 mins is normal and 15 mins is my "I'm really late" pace.
That is not very much faster than my normal walking pace. Even when I was much heavier, I walked almost that fast normally. This is why I get so annoyed at slow walkers, particularly in crowded areas. And if I have to try to stay with someone? That's really tough for me to slow down like that. Many years ago, I had a job where I had a police escort throughout my shift. My employer would hire off-duty officers, in uniform (this is not an uncommon practice) to protect me whenever I was away from my secured (bulletproof, etc.) office area and especially when I was among the general public in a crowded events center / arena. There was one cop that I most enjoyed working with because she was the only one that had enough speed and endurance for us to keep close to each other and continue to move quickly among the various stops I had to make around the venue sometimes for hours at a time. All of the other cops had trouble keeping up, or would wear out after awhile and end up further away than needed. More than a few feet away greatly increased the risk, and our general manager was always concerned when that happened. At his previous location, someone who did my job was killed with a razor blade; and it happened really fast. So he was always on me about how I needed to slow down to keep with the cops... while I was thinking the cops should speed up to keep with me.
OP, as to shoes, it depends on the person. Personally, I like a lot of padding and my road shoes are Hoka One Clifton's. Trail shoes need to have a good toe guard but not as much padding on the soles. I wear waterproof Ahnu's on dirt trails. Factors vary from person to person as to firmness, padding, drop, etc. If you spend $140 to get a pair of shoes and that includes a proper fitting - yes, it is worth it.1 -
I'm short. The best I've gotten myself to is a 15 minute mile for walking and since I like to take long walks and can sustain that over 5 miles, I'm not going to quibble with it. What I get from my Fitbit has served me well, so I really don't need the article to tell me anything.
My running pace is glacial, except for shorter runs. I can run around a 10:30 mile, but only for maybe 2 miles. Anything longer and I have to pull it back to 11:30 - 12:00.
As for shoes, I'm not a trail runner. I have arthritis and my feet are really achy. I like a good stable shoe with some decent padding. For walking, I have Hoka One-One's. For running, I had Asics Gel Cumulus and liked them well enough, but they didn't quite fit my feet right. I seem to do really well with the fit of New Balance shoes. I'm currently wearing Fresh Foam 1080's and love them -- particularly since my feet tend to get hot and they are really a nice, cool shoe.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Who walks 12 minute miles though? 18 mins is normal and 15 mins is my "I'm really late" pace.
I bet I can get REALLY close to that.
I'm sure a lot of people can. I'm also sure no one does on a regular basis.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Who walks 12 minute miles though? 18 mins is normal and 15 mins is my "I'm really late" pace.
I bet I can get REALLY close to that.
I'm sure a lot of people can. I'm also sure no one does on a regular basis.
When Pokewalking I do 13:45-14:00
When I put the phone down, put the phones in, and bear down, I hit 12:00 easily. And that's for a 2-4 mile trip.
It's not all that hard.
For the record, I can also hit 8:00-9:00 for a couple hundred yards.
Knowing that I will burn as many calories at 12:30 as running means I'll probably be in less of a hurry to get back to running.0 -
I can sustain a walking pace of 11:37 for 2 miles. Then I just slowed down and walked normal. I could do it no problem. It's not that hard and people do it. This isn't some unique thing that is coveted. Just working out, getting healthy. Thank God for science right!
Like you all said, I think I am going to get fitted for running shoes tonight. I have Asics and I like them. I think I will stay with that brand, or see what they fit me for my gait. Trail running sounds neat as heck. Kinda like being a kid in the woods back when you were young 1 -
findingone wrote: »http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn
This is a good article on how many calories burned walking vs running. Increases in walking rate actually increase calorie burn and if you walk 12:30 miles per hour or faster, it's actually burning more calories then 10 minute miles ran! Again this is a runners world article that tested college students in a lab.
CALORIES/MILE .57 x wt in lbs .72 x wt in lbs. Walk/Run.
Amazing how much misinformation is out there. This site included. Can't bs good ole science and math.
I run three 10k's a week on hilly terrain and am now going to start doing two 5k's in between them. I have a sub 10 minute mile pace. What I wanted to know, is it worth it to get fitted and tested for proper running shoes? I have a 140$ budget to get somewhat decent running shoes.
What do you guys/ladies use for jogging/running? Any good brands to look for? What is your experience with buying running clothing, gear, shoes?
Thanks for the help!
Being an avid runner, it is always worth getting fitted for proper running shoes. No exceptions. The sporting store you go to testing should advise you accordingly. 3 -
TavistockToad wrote: »Get fit for the right shoes for you, don't worry about recommendations from other runners, they don't have your feet/gait/body.
This!!
Go to a specialty running store. They will find good shoes for your feet. Do not take recommendations from strangers or friends unless you're willing to spend that $140 on shoes that may not be good for your feet.
It's very beneficial to be fitted by a running store. I'm a size 8.5 in all my shoes. In running shoes, especially if you are thinking about increasing distances to a half marathon or a full, you need to have room for your feet to expand. If I just tried buying shoes on my own, I never would have done that and I definitely need the extra room.1 -
findingone wrote: »http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn
This is a good article on how many calories burned walking vs running. Increases in walking rate actually increase calorie burn and if you walk 12:30 miles per hour or faster, it's actually burning more calories then 10 minute miles ran! Again this is a runners world article that tested college students in a lab.
Lots of caveats in that article, and a very small sample size. I'd also note that there is no indication of how the EPOC was established.
I'd also note that the comparison of running at 10 min/ mile cf walking 12 min/ mile is unrealistic. Running at that pace is a comfortable pace that many can sustain for a long distance, whereas walking at that pace is much less easy to sustain. There are always exception cases.
Anyway, the point of training is not simple calorie expenditure.1 -
"Anyway, the point of training is not simple calorie expenditure."
But for people trying to lose weight by using CICO, it proves a good point.
But you're right. I just think training means a lot of things to a lot of different people. As always, your mileage may vary.
Definitely getting fitted now. Just have to get my butt to the shoe store! Thanks again.0 -
findingone wrote: »But for people trying to lose weight by using CICO, it proves a good point.
More aimed at the I can walk sooper fast willy waving upthread.
Walking at a 12 min/ mile is somewhat more challenging for many than just running at 10 min/ mile, so it becomes a moot debate.
From an ultra running perspective power walking is an important discipline, but then it's about deploying it at the right time in a race.3 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »findingone wrote: »But for people trying to lose weight by using CICO, it proves a good point.
More aimed at the I can walk sooper fast willy waving upthread.
I've seen people who do that, then I've seen people who just exercise walking normally. I just power through my walk, when I do walk. Just because you walk fast doesn't mean you have to look like your high. People buy into stupid *kitten* all the time.
Take care, see you out there.
0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Who walks 12 minute miles though? 18 mins is normal and 15 mins is my "I'm really late" pace.
I bet I can get REALLY close to that.
I'm sure a lot of people can. I'm also sure no one does on a regular basis.
I do. On a regular basis. Almost always, in fact. That was true when I was really fat and it is true now that I'm only a little bit fat. The only case where it isn't/wasn't true is in challenging terrain or if I'm distracted (i.e. I'm on my phone and walking simultaneously... in which case, I'm still usually faster than everyone else around me). Steep hills and rocky terrain slow me down quite a bit as well.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Who walks 12 minute miles though? 18 mins is normal and 15 mins is my "I'm really late" pace.
I bet I can get REALLY close to that.
I'm sure a lot of people can. I'm also sure no one does on a regular basis.
I do. On a regular basis. Almost always, in fact. That was true when I was really fat and it is true now that I'm only a little bit fat. The only case where it isn't/wasn't true is in challenging terrain or if I'm distracted (i.e. I'm on my phone and walking simultaneously... in which case, I'm still usually faster than everyone else around me). Steep hills and rocky terrain slow me down quite a bit as well.
For me, going from point a to b with no distractions, It's harder to walk at a 2.5-3 mph (18 min mile pace) than to walk at a 4 mph pace. Now I know that part of that is that a quicktime march(military standard cadence) is 4 mph, and I spent more than a few of my younger years in a formation marching. but even before that, when I was walking for transportation/locomotion, there's really no reason to go slower.
Which makes it easy to bear down and get to a 5 mph pace.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Who walks 12 minute miles though? 18 mins is normal and 15 mins is my "I'm really late" pace.
I bet I can get REALLY close to that.
I'm sure a lot of people can. I'm also sure no one does on a regular basis.
I do. On a regular basis. Almost always, in fact. That was true when I was really fat and it is true now that I'm only a little bit fat. The only case where it isn't/wasn't true is in challenging terrain or if I'm distracted (i.e. I'm on my phone and walking simultaneously... in which case, I'm still usually faster than everyone else around me). Steep hills and rocky terrain slow me down quite a bit as well.
For me, going from point a to b with no distractions, It's harder to walk at a 2.5-3 mph (18 min mile pace) than to walk at a 4 mph pace. Now I know that part of that is that a quicktime march(military standard cadence) is 4 mph, and I spent more than a few of my younger years in a formation marching. but even before that, when I was walking for transportation/locomotion, there's really no reason to go slower.
Which makes it easy to bear down and get to a 5 mph pace.
Yes, I think our earlier experience has a big impact on walking pace. For me, I had 4 min. between classes in middle school. During 8th grade, for one semester, I had alternating classes on the 3rd floor of different buildings in the morning. So I had 4 min. to fly down 3 flights of stairs, go outside and cross about 75-100 yards to a different building, fly up 3 flights of stairs, go to my locker to switch out books / musical instrument, and then get to class. It was during that time that I formed a habit of walking fast.
Also, since the halls and stairs were crowded, I became very good at walking fast and dodging other people. It wasn't a huge school (maybe 400-500 students total), so others mostly knew me or recognized me and figured out that if they kept doing their own thing, I could more easily move around them. Walking is different than running in that I can still stop on a dime, side-step as needed, turn my body sideways to fit through a gap, etc. Today, in a crowded environment, people do not know me. In a crowd, when people see me walking quickly, they react in an effort to avoid me. In fact, what happens is they end up moving unpredictably and that makes things more difficult for me. Where I had planned to move a few seconds ago is now blocked off and sometimes I have to stop altogether simply due to others' reactions. That is part of why crowded areas where everyone is going at slow paces (2-3 mph) is super annoying to me.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Who walks 12 minute miles though? 18 mins is normal and 15 mins is my "I'm really late" pace.
this guy used to.0 -
The whole issue of using arbitrarily fixed walking and running speeds as a comparison is useless in this case. It's a dumbing down of the topic into incoherence.
The breakpoint where ones VO2 at a walking speed begins to exceed that at the same running speed is based on individual biomechanics. It will be different for each person and it is not easy to do. You cannot maintain that "breakpoint" speed walking holding a phone to your ear and talking. You have to be moving at a race walking type of pace and style. If you are walking with a "normal" gait at 5 mph, no way can you be using more energy than if you are running at 6 mph. Cannot happen. It's the biomechanical inefficiency that leads to the higher energy expenditure, not the actual speed itself.
The fact is that, in almost every case, if you have the fitness level to walk at that "breakpoint" pace, you have the aerobic capacity to run even faster and work even harder. The only situation where racewalking would be superior to running would be one where, because of injury or other physical limitations, one absolutely could not run. Other than that, this whole topic has virtually no practical application.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions