Whoa.. what? WALKING burns more fat than running?

Whatever you choose, make sure it is something that you can keep up.

The more time you put into it the better.

If you only have 30 minutes, then run.

If you have a couple of hours, then walk.

If you don't feel like doing either, then promise yourself 20 minutes of walking and then increase either the speed or the time as you feel more comfortable.

Like the add says, "Just Do It!'

I have read that walking is just as good as running but with running you do cover more distance and will burn a bit more I think..
EITHER WAY.. Before I had my daughter I started working on losing weight. I lost 20 lbs from just WALKING!!!!! and of course changed my eating just a bit actually not even counting calories.. and so you CAN lose weight with walking at a very fast pace.. I still do it now as part of my cardio and I am losing plenty of weight but I do other things as well because well after sometimes I had to change it up!

We have a gate designed for walking, thus running is less efficient and uses more calories per unit distance than walking, but I think the difference isn't huge. For laymen's purposes, they can be thought of as equivalent.

It's "gait". And your point about efficiency is true, but it doesn't really come into play here. When you consider a ratio of calories burned over time, running wins hands down. When you are doing an activity that takes more effort, you burn more calories when the TIME you spend doing it remains constant.

Yes, when you are normalizing for time. However, some people are talking about distance. Normalizing for distance, they are roughly equivalent with running still burning more due to inefficiencies in the human pelvis.

What's great about the walking too, since it's mainly fat burning, is it doesn't need to be totally eaten back.

Isn't that where the deficit is created? By not feeding activities that are drawing from fat.

Keep it slow enough, it's just more daily activity, which you aren't feeding anyway probably.

Unless you are doing incline and totally getting the HR up there, which you can easily match running HR then.

You don't "Burn" fat. You shrink the fat cells is all you do.

Read this: http://members.rachelcosgrove.com/public/The_Final_Nail_in_the_Cardio_Coffin.cfm


"But They Call It The "Fat Burning Zone"

During a steady-state workout (when you move at the same pace for a certain amount of time), your body does burn a higher percentage of calories from fat. This is where that "fat burning zone" myth comes from. On the surface, it sounds like you're burning more fat calories.

There are two big problems with this.

1: As I explained earlier, you burn fewer total calories as your body adapts. So even if you're burning a higher percentage of fat, you aren't burning as many calories overall. It's like winning 80% of a Lotto jackpot. It sounds good until you realize that the jackpot is just fifty bucks.

2: Your body actually becomes efficient at storing fat. Since you're now burning fat as your primary source of fuel, your body adapts and becomes very good at storing fat. Blame it on a dumb self-preservation mechanism built into the body's operating system."

Your article pretty much says it.... Walking is great exercise IMO but running burns more calories, doesn't matter if they are calories from fat or calories from carbs....

Walking burns a higher percentage of fat calories than running; however, you burn more when running. Why? Because let's use simple math. Say you walk for an hour and burn 300 calories and say 60 percent of them were fat. That is 180 fat calories burned. Now, lets say you ran for 60 minutes and burn 800 calories, but only 40 percent of them were fat. You end up burning 320 calories of fat. So in one hour, you burned more fat calories running than you did walking.

Those are just example numbers to show how you burn more running. I have no clue what the actual numbers would be.

Yes, when you are normalizing for time. However, some people are talking about distance. Normalizing for distance, they are roughly equivalent with running still burning more due to inefficiencies in the human pelvis.

But normalizing for distance doesn't make sense if you're looking at an efficient way to burn calories.

That's how a lot of people think about it. Don't like it? Take it up with them.

Personally, my favorite treadmill routine is to do walking/running intervals. I walk on the flat at 4.5 MPH for 2 minutes followed by 2 minutes of running at 6.5 - 7.0 MPH on a 3 degree incline. I keep this up for an hour and I burn 850 - 920 calories in that hour. In the hard interval, my heart rate gets up to 165 to 170 and on the easy interval it's back down to 120 or even lower. The gap between my max and lowest HR on this routine has increased over time as my fitness has improved. I have no hard evidence but I think this has done more to improve my overall fitness than the other steady-state exercises I do.

Edit: Corrected a typo before the typo police catch it.

You don't "Burn" fat. You shrink the fat cells is all you do.

Which means you "burned" the fat that was in the cells.

I have lost weight walking. I have a job that I do alot of walking and I take an evening walk. I am 55 yrs old, I am not planning on turning into an athlete. Moving burns calories. So do what is right for you.

Same number of calories per mile whether you walk or run. But here's the thing. You can probably walk 2 miles in 30 minutes and run 3 or even more. So for 30 minutes of effort, you will burn more by running.

Actually, you burn calories more running - but you are more likely to be more efficient at 'burning fat' walking.

We should not get fat calories and total calories (fat and sugar) confused. All people are different. Some people burn more "fat"calories with walking and some burn just as much with running. It is how you train your body to utilize fat.

This entire thread and all the unnecessary responses.

F*cking physics, jesus christ.

If a metabolic function demands more energy to be executed what the flying *kitten* do you think happens?

Same number of calories per mile whether you walk or run. But here's the thing. You can probably walk 2 miles in 30 minutes and run 3 or even more. So for 30 minutes of effort, you will burn more by running.

This is correct. Work = energy expenditure = kilocalories burned. Not duration, not speed. So if you walk a mile or run a mile, you should burn about the same amount of calories. Except if you run, you will do it a lot faster!