Walking vs Running

Running burns more calories overall because the movement requires more muscle involvement. Running is basically like jumping (both feet in the air) while with walking one foot always remains on the ground.

Why not play with this for a bit: https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs (use net calories as gross includes the calories for the movement, plus what your body burns just to stay alive).

yirara wrote: »

Running burns more calories overall because the movement requires more muscle involvement. Running is basically like jumping (both feet in the air) while with walking one foot always remains on the ground.

Why not play with this for a bit: https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs (use net calories as gross includes the calories for the movement, plus what your body burns just to stay alive).

And one click away on the same website: a chart showing the calorie burns depending on speed, because that also has an effect on both walking and running:
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp

lisakatz2 wrote: »

I once read, a long time ago, "You burn as much walking a mile as you do running a mile, it just takes longer to get there." Is this the case?

No you burn more running. On average for every mile, it's about 50 calories or so more running than walking. That might not seem like much, but if you did 4 miles, that's about 200 calories more which is pretty significant.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 40 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

chris_in_cal wrote: »

tomcustombuilder wrote: »

then you have the wear and tear on your knees if you aren't fairly lean.

Life causes wear and tear. When adjusted for body mass old people who run have healthier knees and lower extremities than old people who don't run.

To reiterate,

if you aren't fairly lean.

Walking at a decent speed between 3.7-4.5 mph will be a very good workout and will be fairly close to a zone 2-3 jog of 5.5-6.5 mph. This will be a fairly close calorie burn equivalent . It’ll be more time, but will be maybe 20-30 cals diff of walk vs jog. Things to keep in mind is walking and even zone 2 jogging will help with burning more of your fat reserves and jogging at higher zone 3-4 will burn more of your carbohydrates. Total time and distance will impact and you decide what is comfortable and not be overdoing it to point of injury or deciding to give up all together. Start off slow and build. I went almost a full year of walking, elliptical and lower impact cardio before I ran a single minute. I went on an extended vacation of 20+ years from running and really any semblance of body maintenance. So more than a few few few lbs had to come off before I’d commit to the strain that running is. Being a 27 yr old and then starting back at 50 after the 1 year of walking and lowering mass did the trick. Here I am 5 years later. I run very regularly with a minimum of a 5k when I run. I’m 54 now and stay within my lane to be the person I can be now and not try to be someone from the past that is no longer here.

yirara wrote: »

It also doesn't matter whether you use glycogen or fatty acids as source of energy. If you deplete your glycogen stores then new food restores them and energy is taken elsewhere, hence fatty acids. You also lose bodyfat if you use glycogen as energy source. Heck, I have a congenital muscle condition (yay, I finally have a diagnosis!) that does not allow me to use ANY fatty acids as substrate at all when exercising as low impact as moderately fast walking, and I'm totally able to lose body fat if I eat at maintenance and create my calorie deficit through running.

The average person can have 1500-2000 calories of energy in their stored glycogen, so I assume most people aren't going to burn through all of that in a run, unless maybe they're fasted. If they are using mostly glycogen then presumably they'll be hungrier after as the body tries to restore those stores, which means more calories being consumed?

Very interesting about your diagnosis. How does that affect your workouts?

Retroguy2000 wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

It also doesn't matter whether you use glycogen or fatty acids as source of energy. If you deplete your glycogen stores then new food restores them and energy is taken elsewhere, hence fatty acids. You also lose bodyfat if you use glycogen as energy source. Heck, I have a congenital muscle condition (yay, I finally have a diagnosis!) that does not allow me to use ANY fatty acids as substrate at all when exercising as low impact as moderately fast walking, and I'm totally able to lose body fat if I eat at maintenance and create my calorie deficit through running.

The average person can have 1500-2000 calories of energy in their stored glycogen, so I assume most people aren't going to burn through all of that in a run, unless maybe they're fasted. If they are using mostly glycogen then presumably they'll be hungrier after as the body tries to restore those stores, which means more calories being consumed?

Very interesting about your diagnosis. How does that affect your workouts?

Well, I've been exercising like this for ages now. I know now my muscle glycogen is partially shot, and I know my body doesn't use fatty acids when exercising. Leaves me with a meager rest of muscle glycogen and the one stored in liver and kidneys. And I suppose some lactate. Meaning I have to eat very regularly. And if I want to run for longer than 50 minutes or so I need gel to prevent bonking. Strength is better, but with some muscle fibers shot and those clustering in specific muscles it's a bit annoying. Like, if I want to do pushups, I use the uppermost part of my pecs. I can't activate the whole rest at all, even not really while sitting here, writing this. Likewise there are ghost muscles elsewhere.

I think I read somewhere that liver/kidney glycogen for a not so tall female is not much more than 400 calories. And even for a big dude, 1000 would be stretching it.