Walking really burn more fat than running?? HELP!

mls557
mls557 Posts: 3
in Fitness and Exercise
Hey Ya'll, I'm new to the site and I am a dedicated runner for my cardio and have been for years. I am so confused about something I have heard in the gym... "that walking actually burns more fat than running". I was in shock when I read this because I am trying to lose a little bit around my mid-section! I've searched the web about this and the information I found just confused me more!

What's the best method for burning some fat around the tummy area? Is walking really more effective?

If anyone has any advice or even the answer if this is true or not, please reply or message me!

Thank you,
A Confused Runner
«1

Replies

  • jjennyb4
    jjennyb4 Posts: 1,581 Member
    I would like to know as well!!!
  • kit_katty
    kit_katty Posts: 992 Member
    I don't see how in the world walking could burn more fat than running, over the same time period! I have heard that one burns about 100 calories per mile. No matter how fast you're going. Not sure if that's true, but it's interesting.
  • 2fit4fat
    2fit4fat Posts: 559 Member
    I personally like HIIT training :-) curious though to see what people say.
  • emmaruns
    emmaruns Posts: 189 Member
    I've read a lot about this. Yes, technically, you burn more "fat" during a walk than a run. But at the end of the day, it's the total amount of calories burned that matters.

    Quoting Jillian Michaels (ok, paraphrasing) - If you walk for 30 minutes and burn 100 calories, you would burn 80 calories of fat and 20 calories of carbohydrate, or 80% fat. If you RUN for 30 minutes you would burn 300 calories, 33% from fat, or 100 calories. So still more fat than the walk and also another 200 of carbs!

    That said, I walk, but I have a treaddesk so I'm walking right now while I work. So, since I'm walking for like 3-4 hours a day, yes, lots of that is fat. However, I'd burn way more if I was running that whole time. And I'd be dead. And probably out of a job :)

    Emily
  • PearsPeppersandPeanutButter
    PearsPeppersandPeanutButter Posts: 190
    I think that the lower intensity uses more fat for fuel and the higher intensity running uses more of the glucose stores and muscle sugar for fuel. But i'm not positive. I think this is kind of a people that want to run use to justify their walking and not running, but overall it's still activity and good for you none the less. So run or walk, it is all great.
  • missym357
    missym357 Posts: 210 Member
    My understanding is that lower intensity aerobics burns a higher percentage of fat. Higher intensity aerobic exercise burns a smaller percentage of fat, but more fat overall because you burn more total calories. So it really is up to you and what you are inclined to do, how much time you have, what you enjoy, etc. If you enjoy running, then by all means, run!
  • jcstanton
    jcstanton Posts: 1,849 Member
    I'm not an expert on exercise by any means, but the only thing I can figure is it has something to do with your target HR. There's a 'fat burning zone ' at the lower end of your target range, and when you exceed that, you go from maximum fat burning to simply improving "cardiovascular endurance". You'll still should still lose fat no matter what, because you are still burning calories either way. My guess is you are also using slightly different muscles when walking than you are when running because your stride/form are slightly different for each. For me, my core is usually more sore the day after running, whereas my legs are more sore after walking. Again, I'm no expert. I'm just going by what health/fitness professionals have told me.
  • Zichu
    Zichu Posts: 542 Member
    I think it depends on how long you do each exercise.

    If you were say to do a 3 mile run at 6mph so it took you 30 minutes. You would burn around 273kcal.
    If you walked 3 miles at 3mph and it was the same route, it would take you an hour. You would burn around 181kcal.

    I got this information from MFP by the way.

    EDIT: Also note, these numbers are how much I would burn due to my weight, height, etc.
  • SueInAz
    SueInAz Posts: 6,592 Member
    The fat burning zone refers to a heart rate working range in which a greater percentage of calories burned come from fat stores. This benefit occurs in the lower end of the cardio zone--about 55 to 70 percent of maximum. When you exercise in a cardio zone, you burn a lower percentage of fat calories, but more total calories and, as a result, just as much total fat.

    This is why I tell people who walk that they don't need to run to lose weight. Pick your favorite exercise and go for it!
  • Huffdogg
    Huffdogg Posts: 1,934 Member
    You cannot spot reduce. You have to simply reduce bodyfat %.

    The only way you need to worry about which one is more "effective" is if you are coupling your cardio with carb restrictions and heavy weight training. Which, honestly...you should probably do lol.

    That having been said, if you're not, then just do whatever is going to burn more calories per minute spent without risking injury.

    Edit: To clarify--I, for example, have been doing heavy weight training, in an effort to build more strength. I could NOT run while doing this program without sabotaging my recovery period and thus my strength gains. I tried; it did not work. I was, however, still able to walk during this program, without any detrimental effects on recovery and gains, allowing me to maximize my fat burning while still focusing on strength building.
  • prism6
    prism6 Posts: 484 Member
    It's ALL good!
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    I have done both and both are good exercise. But for me, running burns much more fat than walking when the distance and terrain are the same.
  • Joannie30
    Joannie30 Posts: 415 Member
    I've read a lot about this. Yes, technically, you burn more "fat" during a walk than a run. But at the end of the day, it's the total amount of calories burned that matters.

    Quoting Jillian Michaels (ok, paraphrasing) - If you walk for 30 minutes and burn 100 calories, you would burn 80 calories of fat and 20 calories of carbohydrate, or 80% fat. If you RUN for 30 minutes you would burn 300 calories, 33% from fat, or 100 calories. So still more fat than the walk and also another 200 of carbs!

    That said, I walk, but I have a treaddesk so I'm walking right now while I work. So, since I'm walking for like 3-4 hours a day, yes, lots of that is fat. However, I'd burn way more if I was running that whole time. And I'd be dead. And probably out of a job :)

    Emily

    Haha love the end of this post! (not the thought of you being dead, just the wording.) Funny! :) x
  • surferfreak07
    surferfreak07 Posts: 221 Member
    I think this depends on the actual person, fat burning is meant to be 65% of your maximum heart rate and cardio is around 75%.
    You work out your maximum heart rate by using 220 - your age. So for example I'm 23 and my maximum heart rate would be 197 bpm. So if this theory is correct when my heart rate is at 128-129 bpm then my body is burning more fat than it would at a higher rate since the oxygen is being delivered to all my muscles with ease. If you're a serious runner then I'm assuming you're fit and can run comfortably without being out of breath so in that case your heartrate is probably around the 65% mark and you should have no problem burning fat :) I hope this helps, it's what I learnt in my Physical education theory so hopefully it's true which I think it is as most of the machines at my gym seem to give the same targets when I hit the fat burning mode.
  • skylark94
    skylark94 Posts: 2,036 Member
    "The fat-burning zone. Yes, it exists, but it has been misinterpreted. The fat-burning zone is a concept that the body burns a greater amount of fat at lower-intensity aerobic exercise than it does at higher intensities. Actually, the body burns a greater percentage of fat at lower intensities than at higher intensities. At lower intensities the body may burn 50 percent of the calories from fat, while at higher intensities it may only burn 35 percent. But at higher intensities you burn way more total calories—and more fat calories overall—than you do at lower intensities."

    From http://www.active.com/triathlon/Articles/The-Myth-of-the-Fat-burning-Zone.htm
  • SlvrLyssa
    SlvrLyssa Posts: 41 Member
    I'm looking up Tread Desk right now. :laugh:
  • Huffdogg
    Huffdogg Posts: 1,934 Member
    "The fat-burning zone. Yes, it exists, but it has been misinterpreted. The fat-burning zone is a concept that the body burns a greater amount of fat at lower-intensity aerobic exercise than it does at higher intensities. Actually, the body burns a greater percentage of fat at lower intensities than at higher intensities. At lower intensities the body may burn 50 percent of the calories from fat, while at higher intensities it may only burn 35 percent. But at higher intensities you burn way more total calories—and more fat calories overall—than you do at lower intensities."

    From http://www.active.com/triathlon/Articles/The-Myth-of-the-Fat-burning-Zone.htm

    This, as many people have acceded, is 100% correct. The issue is not always one of simple calories in vs. calories out for everyone, however. So it is important to note that if you are doing some other form of training that makes higher-intensity cardio counterproductive, or if you have an injury or condition that makes it potentially dangerous, then you should not feel as though you are wasting your time walking.
  • EthanJeremiahsMama
    EthanJeremiahsMama Posts: 534 Member
    Honestly, i'm not sure which burns more fat. But I speed walk and I also run and it has both helped me lose overall body fat with a healthy eating meal plan! But BUMP to hear responses, I would love to know as well!
  • mls557
    mls557 Posts: 3
    Thank ya'll for the feedback! Although i'm not as confused as I originally was, I now have to figure out which type of workout I want to proceed with!
    Decisions Decisions....

    Thanks!
    An Indecisive Runner
  • SueInAz
    SueInAz Posts: 6,592 Member
    Thank ya'll for the feedback! Although i'm not as confused as I originally was, I now have to figure out which type of workout I want to proceed with!
    Decisions Decisions....

    Thanks!
    An Indecisive Runner
    I do some of both. I hike on the weekends with my husband who isn't a runner and I run the rest of the time. I prefer to spend less time out of my day burning calories, plus I've found that I actually enjoy running.

Categories