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

1234689

Replies

  • albayin
    albayin Posts: 2,524 Member
    OP, just do whatever you enjoy the most and keep doing it.
  • delco714
    delco714 Posts: 229
    the 24hr mark? what about 1,2,3,4,5 hours? plus that's icing on the cake. We're talking Point-of-exercise time anyway. All that research shows (if it's even recent) is that running doesnt have a longer-term effect on fat burn per day of exercise than walking
    TOPIC
    WALKING burns more fat than running?
    You can call it Murphy’s Law, but the promise of greater fat oxidation seen during and in the early postexercise periods of lower intensity cardio disappears when the effects are measured over 24 hours. Melanson’s research team was perhaps the first to break the redundancy of studies that only compared effects within a few hours postexercise [5]. In a design involving an even mix of lean, healthy men & women aged 20-45, identical caloric expenditures of 40% VO2 max was compared with 70% VO2 max. Result? No difference in net fat oxidation between the low & high-intensity groups at the 24 hr mark.

    Have a nice day. :drinker:

    http://www.thebodygenesis.com/myths-under-the-microscope-part-1-the-low-intensity-fat-burning-zone/
  • meerkat70
    meerkat70 Posts: 4,605 Member
    I walk on a treadmill ( varying levels of incline and speed) I have lost 6 lbs since Apr 5.

    I run on the ground. I've lost 115lb... :-)

    It doesn't really *prove* anything, does it?
  • delco714
    delco714 Posts: 229
    evidence? read a journal!

    If you go b/w 80-90% of your max heart rate you enter the anaerobic exercise zone where you basically catabolize (eat your own) muscle and produce insane amounts of lactic acid.. What this MFPer said is 100% factual and supporting by peer-reviewed scientific research that has been known for many many years.
    When you run, you will burn more calories since it's a more difficult activity and takes more energy. BUT sometimes if you go at it too hard your body will switch into what we call, anaerobic respiration.. meaning that your body does not have enough oxygen to burn your stored fat for calories, so you won't be losing that extra fat we all want to get rid of. The best way to burn fat with cardio is to do low impact and long duration. You should hit your target heart rate and keep at it for like 45 minutes. That way your body is oxygenated enough to burn that stored fat for energy. I know I mostly walk and I burn a TON of calories! You do have to walk more though!

    evidence please?
  • auntiebabs
    auntiebabs Posts: 1,754 Member
    I read a article a while back...
    that basically said your body works more efficiently (burning LESS for distance traveled) when walking SLOWLY or running QUICKLY.

    But less efficiently (burning MORE for distance traveled) when walking QUICKLY or running SLOWLY.

    So the trick is to find the sweet spot halfway between walk and run.

    Any who, I can't do high-impact anything so running is not an option for me.
  • bm99
    bm99 Posts: 597 Member
    I have heard that speed walking is better than walking or running because it takes so much effort to walk at that pace (over 4mph) and not start jogging.
  • Shock_Wave
    Shock_Wave Posts: 1,573 Member
    the 24hr mark? what about 1,2,3,4,5 hours? plus that's icing on the cake. We're talking Point-of-exercise time anyway.
    TOPIC
    WALKING burns more fat than running?
    You can call it Murphy’s Law, but the promise of greater fat oxidation seen during and in the early postexercise periods of lower intensity cardio disappears when the effects are measured over 24 hours. Melanson’s research team was perhaps the first to break the redundancy of studies that only compared effects within a few hours postexercise [5]. In a design involving an even mix of lean, healthy men & women aged 20-45, identical caloric expenditures of 40% VO2 max was compared with 70% VO2 max. Result? No difference in net fat oxidation between the low & high-intensity groups at the 24 hr mark.

    Have a nice day. :drinker:

    http://www.thebodygenesis.com/myths-under-the-microscope-part-1-the-low-intensity-fat-burning-zone/

    Reading links is hard?
    "Point-of-exercise time"?
    I thought the topic was " Whoa.. what? WALKING burns more fat than running?"
    OP Q: "Is it true that WALKING burns more fat than running?"
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    TOPIC
    WALKING burns more fat than running?
    You can call it Murphy’s Law, but the promise of greater fat oxidation seen during and in the early postexercise periods of lower intensity cardio disappears when the effects are measured over 24 hours. Melanson’s research team was perhaps the first to break the redundancy of studies that only compared effects within a few hours postexercise [5]. In a design involving an even mix of lean, healthy men & women aged 20-45, identical caloric expenditures of 40% VO2 max was compared with 70% VO2 max. Result? No difference in net fat oxidation between the low & high-intensity groups at the 24 hr mark.

    Have a nice day. :drinker:

    http://www.thebodygenesis.com/myths-under-the-microscope-part-1-the-low-intensity-fat-burning-zone/

    Great link and expanation backed by research. I hope more people, especially those who are stating thier own anecdotal experience as fact in this thread, read it!
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Deleted. Duplicate post.
  • monty619
    monty619 Posts: 1,308 Member
    ... to me this is like one of those "yes and no at the same time" answers.
  • gfuller46
    gfuller46 Posts: 20
    You burn more fat faster when running vs. walking.
  • Jmstill300
    Jmstill300 Posts: 239 Member
    It's all about the fat burning zone. Walking keeps you there longer but lower calories but more of those calories are fat. Running your heart rate is higher and you burn more calories but a % of those calories are fat is lower. That is why HIIT spurts is far superior than running or walking.
    ^^^^^^This^^^^^^
  • JuliaSmiles
    JuliaSmiles Posts: 3 Member
    Get a heart rate monitor, learn what your fat burn zone is, and burn it off. I find that my biggest fat burn zone is in a brisk walk.
  • Qatsi
    Qatsi Posts: 2,191 Member
    Is it true that WALKING burns more fat than running? Someone on MFP had told me "walking" wasn't even a real form of cardio exercise and that i'd get no where with walking. I recently just bought a treadmill since I am a mom and busy after work, I was speed walking at 4.6 for the first week and started running at 5.7.

    What is more effective? Have any of you lost weight while WALKING?

    I have. I started walking when I joined MFP. Six months in and 850 miles later... I think the results speak for themselves.
  • monty619
    monty619 Posts: 1,308 Member
    cardio is not necessary for fat loss, its primarily thru diet and strength training... if you want to get in cardiovascular shape then you run... if you want to burn extra calories without putting as much stress on the body (less stress more fat loss) then you walk..

    combination of both is optimal in my opinion. for me personally il either do HIIT or low intensity cardio... not so much the moderate state cardio (i.e. running 5 miles at a moderate pace)
  • jzrharv
    jzrharv Posts: 126 Member
    It has been awhile since I used to do it, but RACE walking does burn more than running. At about 4.5 MPH, the natural gate transfers normally from the walking stride to a running stride. Race walkers, who have to maintain a specific movement style (essentially one foot always in contact with the ground), are moving using a terribly inefficient movement and thus using a much greater calorie value to cover the distance than a runner would. True, the runner takes less time, but on a matched mileage course, the race walker is using more calories.
  • KarmaxKitty
    KarmaxKitty Posts: 901 Member
    What matters is that you find what works for you and go with it, but don't stop pushing your body. Walking up an incline does more that walking flat. running/jogging has varying degrees of equality depending on effort. HIIT will do wonders beyond that.
  • dvisser1
    dvisser1 Posts: 788 Member
    Is it true that WALKING burns more fat than running? Someone on MFP had told me "walking" wasn't even a real form of cardio exercise and that i'd get no where with walking. I recently just bought a treadmill since I am a mom and busy after work, I was speed walking at 4.6 for the first week and started running at 5.7.

    What is more effective? Have any of you lost weight while WALKING?





    Article:

    " In a strict scientific sense, these claims are true because working at a lower intensity requires less quick energy and a higher percentage of fat is burned. But you'll also burn fewer calories than you would if, for the same amount of time, you work out at a harder intensity (running versus walking). If you're trying to lose weight, even though a higher percentage of fat is being used, a lower total amount of fat is lost.

    Whether increased fat burning will result in actual weight loss is dependent upon several variables, including the total calories burned (which include both fat and carbohydrate calories) and the total fat calories burned. If you do work at a low intensity, you need to increase the time spent exercising to burn more calories. What matters most is the total number of calories burned. If you burned 250 calories every day from a short, fast jog, you'd see a bigger difference in weight and fat loss than if you walked everyday for the same amount of time. The number of fat calories you burn isn't that important, because even if you burn a lot of carb calories, these need to be replaced both by the carbs you eat in your diet and also within your body. Your fat stores will be broken down and transformed into carbohydrates when you need fuel. Even if you're burning lots of carb calories and less fat calories through exercise, your fat still inevitably gets used. "

    There are some facts in there, and some total leaps.

    Per minute of exercise performed, the higher intensity exercise will burn more calories. But that misses the point that most people put their running goals in terms of miles. Run two miles and do a brisk walk for two miles, then compare those calories burned. Probably not as severe.

    This article also makes the assumption that the person running has crossed the aerobic / anaerobic threshold and is now burning primarily glycogen in an anaerobic exercise instead of a combination of primarily fat with some glycogen. But that kind of doesn't matter for weight loss, just means you'll fatigue faster during the exercise. Your body is constantly metabolizing food being digested and fat stores. During and after exercise the glycogen built up in your muscles is constantly being replenished. When you burn more calories than you consume, and are not at an ultra low caloric intake causing starvation, your body will break down fat (and some muscle) to meet the necessary energy stores. However the replenishment happens slowly, so if your burn energy slowly (no exercise or only low intensity exercise) you will not be as depleted of energy as someone who did a high intensity exercise over the same amount of time.
  • kaytlinj
    kaytlinj Posts: 4 Member
    Alternating running and walking every 3-5 minutes. when you walk make it on an incline.
    Tip...
    DO NOT hold on to the treadmill handles.
  • ahsongbird
    ahsongbird Posts: 712 Member
    Alternating running and walking every 3-5 minutes. when you walk make it on an incline.
    Tip...
    DO NOT hold on to the treadmill handles.
    Not holding onto the handles is impossible for me even walking very slowly, I get light headed and cannot keep my balance.
  • K8tzmom
    K8tzmom Posts: 20 Member
    I believe the rule of thumb is 100 calories burned per mile - walking or running. It's just that you burn it a lot faster if you run.,
  • BlackLabLover
    BlackLabLover Posts: 81 Member
    You'll burn approximately 100 calories per mile. The only difference with running is that you burn it faster. A 20-min mile = 100 calories; a 10-min mile = 100 calories; 8-min mile = 100 calories.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    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.

    Wrong. Running burns approx 50% more calories per mile than walking.
    I believe the rule of thumb is 100 calories burned per mile - walking or running. It's just that you burn it a lot faster if you run.,

    see above
    ou'll burn approximately 100 calories per mile. The only difference with running is that you burn it faster. A 20-min mile = 100 calories; a 10-min mile = 100 calories; 8-min mile = 100 calories.

    wrong, wrong, wrong........

    http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html
  • spartangirl79
    spartangirl79 Posts: 277 Member
    I haven't read all the comments, but the "fat burning zone" is an outdated notion...

    http://www.active.com/triathlon/Articles/The-Myth-of-the-Fat-burning-Zone.htm
  • spartangirl79
    spartangirl79 Posts: 277 Member
    I believe the rule of thumb is 100 calories burned per mile - walking or running. It's just that you burn it a lot faster if you run.,

    Wrong. Running averages approximately 7-10 calories per minute depending on your effort. Walking is about half that.
  • malins2
    malins2 Posts: 154 Member
    Percentage-wise you burn more FAT walking - but you still burn more fat overall running. 60% of 100 calories is still less than 40% of 200 calories. (60<80)


    ^^^^^This
  • contingencyplan
    contingencyplan Posts: 3,639 Member
    This idea is based on a concept called the "Fat Burning Zone" which is widely debated in fitness. The idea behind it is this: You burn more fat PER CALORIE BURNED at lower intensities of cardiovascular exercises than you do at higher intensities. The science behind it goes like this:

    When you operate at moderate intensities, your body goes straight to burning fat as a fuel source regardless of what nutrients you have stored up. At higher intensities it turns to other fuel sources (most commonly glycogen, something sourced from carbohydrate-rich foods) and doesn't begin to burn fat until those other fuel sources have been exhausted. However, in order to really take advantage of the "fat burning zone" and make it work for you, you need to go for extended durations. You should go on hour long walks. If you aren't willing to devote an hour at a time to your moderate intensity cardio, then you need to up the intensity on something you do at a balls-to-the-wall pace for 20-30 minutes.

    Of course the science behind this is still largely debated. In the end I just choose to simply go with more calories burned per hour doing higher intensity exercises and that's what worked for me.
  • jettyib1
    jettyib1 Posts: 46 Member
    I difinitely burn more calories walking because I couldn't run if there was a bear after me.
  • jettyib1
    jettyib1 Posts: 46 Member
    I can't spell either.
  • will010574
    will010574 Posts: 761 Member
    but doesn't walking keep your hate rate during "fat burning zone?"

    Walking will burn fat calories first....yes. But total calories burned is more important then which calories are burned for overall weight loss. A 30 minute run will burn many many more calories than a 30 minute walk so it is more efficient and effective.

    A 2 hour walk may burn as much as a 30 minute run and it would primarily come from your stored carbs (fat).

Categories