is there any benefit to running over walking?

[spacejamz]

I have significantly lowered the intensity on my cardio workouts...I am trying to keep my heartrate lower than 140 BPM which means a brisk walking pace for a longer period (instead of average around 174 BPM with a moderate jogging pace for 20-30 minutes).

Will doing this really burn more fat off (even though I will be burning less calories)?

Aerobic workout sessions like this should use more energy from stored fats versus anerobic workouts that use energy from other non-fat sources, right?

 

[KoolDrew]

http://www.alanaragon.com/myth...one-fasted-cardio.html

 

[purbeast0]

i always just ask people if they would rather look like a marathon runner or a sprinter.

most people say sprinter, which trains at a very high intensity.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
http://www.alanaragon.com/myth...one-fasted-cardio.html

Cliff notes: In long-term studies, both linear high-intensity and HIIT training is superior to lower intensities on the whole for maintaining and/or increasing cardiovascular fitness & lean mass, and are at least as effective, and according to some research, far better at reducing bodyfat

Thanks for the info!!!

 

[Legend]

"Fat burning zone" isn't a complete lie. Low intensity cardio does burn a higher percentage of fat while you are walking. But it's low intensity, and has little impact on your metabolism AFTER working out.

The trick that HIIT and lifting weights has is that it boosts your metabolism for several hours after working out.

Doesn't mean that low intensity cardio is worthless. I'd do a bit of each. Low intensity cardio and weights isn't a bad combination either.

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: Legend
"Fat burning zone" isn't a complete lie. Low intensity cardio does burn a higher percentage of fat while you are walking. But it's low intensity, and has little impact on your metabolism AFTER working out.

The trick that HIIT and lifting weights has is that it boosts your metabolism for several hours after working out.

Doesn't mean that low intensity cardio is worthless. I'd do a bit of each. Low intensity cardio and weights isn't a bad combination either.

I completely agree and Alan pretty much came to the same conclusion in the three part article I linked to

 

[edcarman]

Fat | body fat levels | cyclists

In the article above they use the analogy of a pie to illustrate exercise energy expenditure:
At low intensities, fat makes up a big slice of the pie. At high intensities you're taking a smaller slice, but the total energy use is higher so the pie is much bigger.

Small slice of huge pie = big slice of small pie

Their study agreed with the previously linked one that fat metabolism peaks at around 65% VO2max (76% MHR). They also agree that the most important factor for overall weight loss is the total amount of calories burned during an exercise session.

If you've only got 30 min to train, you get the greatest long term fat loss by doing it at 85% VO2max (90-95% MHR). It may, however, be difficult to sustain this intensity for the full duration, so a more realistic intensity would be 75-80% VO2max (83-88% MHR).

So, the rule-of-thumb for maximum fat loss seems to be: go as hard as you can in the time you have (while realising that you will need more time to recover after a hard session)

 

[skace]

Low intensity is being misconstrued. Low intensity IS aerobic exercise and it is low intensity in comparison with ANAEROBIC exercise. Low intensity does not mean low heart rate. Your body will always prefer to burn up glycogen and other energy stores before burning fat. That simple. The reason low intensity workouts are subscribed for burning fat is because your body cannot sustain a high intensity work out while burning fat, lactic acid build up and other conditions will eventually render you useless long before any significant fat stores are utilized.

 

[manlymatt83]

Say you run 5 miles on Monday.
Say you walk 5 miles on Wednesday.

Which day was the better workout?

I've gotten conflicting views. Surely the Monday workout will *seem* better.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: mjuszczak
Say you run 5 miles on Monday.
Say you walk 5 miles on Wednesday.

Which day was the better workout?

I've gotten conflicting views. Surely the Monday workout will *seem* better.

Usually, running is the standard over walking since it keeps your heart rate higher. It will allow you to increase your cardio threshold. Walking on the other hand won't do either, but it will burn calories. I'm not sure which burns more calories due to the time difference, but running will provide the better workout per time unit.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: mjuszczak
Say you run 5 miles on Monday.
Say you walk 5 miles on Wednesday.

Which day was the better workout?

I've gotten conflicting views. Surely the Monday workout will *seem* better.

Usually, running is the standard over walking since it keeps your heart rate higher. It will allow you to increase your cardio threshold. Walking on the other hand won't do either, but it will burn calories. I'm not sure which burns more calories due to the time difference, but running will provide the better workout per time unit.

Running requires mucho energy compared to walking. We burn calories for energy. I know I can walk a mile and not feel tired, but if I run a mile I'll definitely be somewhat fatigued by the end of it.

 

[spacejamz]

Similar topic was discussed here...

I'll merge it with this thread

Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn

 

[skace]

It's all about heart rate. Even if walking does allow you to hit your target heart rate, it shouldn't stay that way for long if you work out with any sort of consistency.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Great thread/s. Thanks for the good reading/educational material.

 

[dakels]

What skace referred to is really important in understanding fat burn. The body will always prefer anaerobic caloric burn (ATP/Glycogen) before aerobic fat burn. Getting rid of the spare tire is better accomplished with long periods of elevated heart rate, not all out sprints. I don't think it is really relevant in run/walk discussion though. Running and walking are both aerobic and will burn fat, just one (run) more then the other (walk). If you can handle running 5 miles but you can walk 10 miles, I'm not sure which is better. Might be the walking if at a decent pace (look to edcarman's post). I don't feel like doing the math.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: dakels
What skace referred to is really important in understanding fat burn. The body will always prefer anaerobic caloric burn (ATP/Glycogen) before aerobic fat burn. Getting rid of the spare tire is better accomplished with long periods of elevated heart rate, not all out sprints. I don't think it is really relevant in run/walk discussion though. Running and walking are both aerobic and will burn fat, just one (run) more then the other (walk). If you can handle running 5 miles but you can walk 10 miles, I'm not sure which is better. Might be the walking if at a decent pace (look to edcarman's post). I don't feel like doing the math.

It is relevant in a run/walk discussion because the intensity of the workout is going to define the heart rate on a per person basis. If me walking around never raises my heart rate significantly, I can't expect to get a real aerobic workout from it. The only thing that matters is your target heart rate, monitor it, find what exercise allows you to meet it for a given period of time and continue to do that exercise on some sort of schedule until it no longer does, at which point increase intensity.

Remember, aerobic exercise isn't just about burning calories. And even then, the rift between a low impact exercise and a moderate impact exercise is going to be difficult to cover within a given period of time.

 

[dakels]

Skace, I'm under the assumption that we are talking about workout walking, not strolling through the mall. I'd assume the person is talking about a brisk walk with elevated heart rates for probably 40-60 min according to said 5miles. I don't think that's much of an anaerobic workout.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: dakels
Skace, I'm under the assumption that we are talking about workout walking, not strolling through the mall. I'd assume the person is talking about a brisk walk with elevated heart rates for probably 40-60 min according to said 5miles. I don't think that's much of an anaerobic workout.

Considering anaerobic is even a higher heart rate than aerobic, yea I bet not .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Exercise_zones.png

The point remains, crawling, skipping, hopping, strolling through the mall, workout walking, power walking, jogging, running, and sprinting are all irrelevant. What is relevant is the effect on the heart rate of the individual involved. If you meet 70% of your THR walking through the mall, more power to you. If you meet it doing a power walk, good for you. But eventually, if you are healthy you will most likely move beyond walking, which is why there is a benefit and a difference between running and walking. And yes, before it gets mentioned, there is a small gray area where someone can jog really freaking slowly and someone else can powerwalk really fast but this is not only the exception but a upper/lower limitation.

A big part of why running is so much more demanding than walking is that your body is actually throwing itself into the air during a run and then landing again and re-stabilizing. This takes much more work than walking where 1 foot will always be touching the ground.

 

[dakels]

Originally posted by: skace
If you meet 70% of your THR walking through the mall, more power to you.

and less donuts please.

If you walk like this guy, It looks like a good aerobic workout, although the samurai may push you into anaerobic.

 

[AK l xD]

runnings faster

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: AK l xD
runnings faster

Wow, what a truly insightful contribution :roll: Please don't post if you don't have some useful information to add.

Just wanted to say that, pretty much, since the rest of the facts have already been spouted off

 

[StageLeft]

If you lack joint issues, running is superior in all ways. You can cover the same distance in a shorter period, the same distance will burn far more calories than walking (there was a myth that has since been clearly debunked about a mile of either one burning the same calories, which is rubbish), and you'll end up with a superior cardiovascular fitness.

I don't think walking is a great path to fitness. It's certainly better than nothing, but a reasonably fit person will hardly get a rise in their heart rate, so the only reason they should do it is if they are having joint or other problems that running prohibits. In such cases, other activites like swimming or cycling would all be better than walking.