What burns more calories?

[notfred]

Walking 3 miles, or running 3 miles?

From a physics standpoint, they both should use the same amount of energy, and therefore the same amount of calories, since they both are the same amount of work. However, fitness and physics seem to have inconsistencies.

Does running burn significantly more calories per mile than walking?

 

[robothouse77]

heart rate faster = more calories burning

 

[BlueWeasel]

Nope, it's not how fast you do it, but a function of the distance traveled. I agree, though, it seems as though running a mile in 7.5minutes burns more calories than walking a mile in twice the time.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: robothouse77
heart rate faster = more calories burning

I don't believe this is necessarily true.

I for weight loss you want to be in a certain zone, where you are sweating and your body isn't over-exerting yourself.

 

[ironcrotch]

I would say running or jogging cuz your exerting more from yourself than walking.

 

[torpid]

Further research has made me conclude that fat burning zones are a myth, and that high intensity is better. This is because your body continues to exert energy after the high intensity workout, but will only do this minimally after a low intensity workout.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: torpid
Further research has made me conclude that fat burning zones are a myth, and that high intensity is better. This is because your body continues to exert energy after the high intensity workout, but will only do this minimally after a low intensity workout.

Exert energy doing what?

When you get home after running and flop over on the couch, what calories are you burning?

 

[BlueWeasel]

Originally posted by: robothouse77
heart rate faster = more calories burning

That's only true if the amount of time running vs. walking is the same. But if the distance traveled is kept constant for both, then the amount of calories burned is also the same.

If you run 2 miles in 15 minutes, then the calories consumed would be exactly the same if you took 1 hour to walk those 2 miles.

 

[robothouse77]

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=6381

"All things being equal, you will burn more calories by running an
hour than walking an hour. It is true that walking a mile will burn
more calories than running a mile -- although it takes longer to do
so. When you run a mile, you're burning mostly sugar, or
carbohydrates, which is how your body gives you fast energy in bursts.
When you walk a mile, it gives your metabolism time to switch from
burning carbohydrates to burning fat."

WebMD - Dean Ornish, MD Q A:

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: torpid
Further research has made me conclude that fat burning zones are a myth, and that high intensity is better. This is because your body continues to exert energy after the high intensity workout, but will only do this minimally after a low intensity workout.

Exert energy doing what?

When y ou home after running and flop over on the couch, what calories are you burning?

Probably jogging, you probably expend more total energy as heat jogging than walking. Oh yeah and wind resistance is proportional to the square of velocity, so you experience more losses to wind resistance when jogging.

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

running because you have to continually accelerate yourself, as you only carry like half your momentum from one step to the next. your blood also has to circulate a lot faster, and takes more work too

 

[Argo]

You body isn't a very efficient engine. When you run, it wastes a lot more energy when you run.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: torpid
Further research has made me conclude that fat burning zones are a myth, and that high intensity is better. This is because your body continues to exert energy after the high intensity workout, but will only do this minimally after a low intensity workout.

Exert energy doing what?

When y ou home after running and flop over on the couch, what calories are you burning?

Here's a quote from pponline.co.uk

In order to recover from exercise, the body undertakes several active (energy-consuming) processes for up to an hour afterwards: phosphate is reunited with creatine and ADP; haemoglobin and myoglobin (oxygen-carrying pigment within the muscle) are resaturated with oxygen; lactate is oxidised or resynthesised to glycogen; circulation and breathing increase. In addition, the return to homeostasis following high-intensity exercise is further delayed by the demands of glycogen resynthesis and increased hormonal activity. Interestingly, in the glycogen-depleted state, this prolonged EPOC period is fuelled by lipid as blood glucose is used to replace muscle glycogen (3).

This postexercise fat burning zone barely exists after moderate-intensity exercise. In a 1992 study, participants cycling for 80 minutes at 29% of VO2 max experienced an elevated oxygen consumption (and energy expenditure) for 0.3 hours, compared with 3.3 hours for those exercising at 50% of VO2 max and 10.5 hours for those at 75% (4).

Clearly, the calorific value of EPOC has implications for those seeking to reduce body weight. Indeed, after 20 minutes of high intensity exercise (70% VO2max), Sedlock et al (5) observed an EPOC of approximately 30 kcal and calculated that if such exercise were performed five times a week for 52 weeks, the EPOC period alone would amount to 7,800 kcal or the energy equivalent of approximately 1 kg fat.

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: robothouse77
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=6381

"All things being equal, you will burn more calories by running an
hour than walking an hour. It is true that walking a mile will burn
more calories than running a mile -- although it takes longer to do
so. When you run a mile, you're burning mostly sugar, or
carbohydrates, which is how your body gives you fast energy in bursts.
When you walk a mile, it gives your metabolism time to switch from
burning carbohydrates to burning fat."

WebMD - Dean Ornish, MD Q A:

Nice link, that makes me feel a little better. Gotta get out walking more as it is much gentler on my knees.

-spike

 

[klah]

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,5033,s6-51-0-0-628,00.html

by: Owen Anderson Ph.D.

Many so-called "experts" recommend that the best way to burn more fat is to run slowly during workouts. You've probably heard advice about training in your "fat-burning zone," said to correspond to a heart rate of just 50 to 65 percent of maximum heart rate (MHR). This is equivalent to a running pace about 2 minutes per mile slower than your marathon race pace. In other words, very slow.

At first glance, such slow running seems like a great idea. A recent University of Texas study found that when athletes exercised at only 50 percent of their MHR, fat provided 90 percent of the calories burned. When the athletes sped up to 75 percent of MHR, fat provided "only" 60 percent of calories.

However, the higher-intensity session actually burned more total fat calories! This happened because the 50-percent workout burned only 7 calories per minute, while the 75-percent workout burned 14 calories per minute. A little simple math reveals that the harder workout consumed 8.4 fat calories per minute (60 percent of 14) versus just 6.3 fat calories (90 percent of 7) for the slow workout.

A study reported in last month's "Health Watch" column reached similar conclusions. In that intriguing experiment, world-famous fat researchers from Laval University in Quebec City, Quebec, reported that intense exercise led to a ninefold greater loss of body fat, per calorie burned, than less intense exercise. The scientists at Laval had earlier shown that vigorous exercisers are thinner than moderate exercisers who burn the same number of calories. From these studies, you might conclude that you should run at top speed to maximize your fat-burning potential. Not so. Above 85 percent of MHR, fat metabolism begins to drop. It appears that 75 to 85 percent of MHR is the ideal range for fat-burning.

 

[StageLeft]

Nobody has noted that when you run you have vertial work done, too? Running burns more. /thread

 

[CasioTech]

Originally posted by: notfred
Walking 3 miles, or running 3 miles?

From a physics standpoint, they both should use the same amount of energy, and therefore the same amount of calories, since they both are the same amount of work. However, fitness and physics seem to have inconsistencies.

Does running burn significantly more calories per mile than walking?

you my friend, are an idiot.




are you looking for an excuse to walk and not to run?

 

[BlueWeasel]

Originally posted by: robothouse77
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=6381

"All things being equal, you will burn more calories by running an
hour than walking an hour. It is true that walking a mile will burn
more calories than running a mile -- although it takes longer to do
so. When you run a mile, you're burning mostly sugar, or
carbohydrates, which is how your body gives you fast energy in bursts.
When you walk a mile, it gives your metabolism time to switch from
burning carbohydrates to burning fat."

WebMD - Dean Ornish, MD Q A:

That's a stupid comment...I don't need a doctor to tell me that running an hour burns more calories than walking a hour. No $hit! -- you're running roughly twice as far compared to walking for a hour. It all goes back to the distance traveled....not how hard you worked to get there.

Granted, there are other benefits to running vs. walking, but from a calories consumption standpoint, they are essentially the same over the same distance.

[Edit] I'm not pushing walking over jogging/running...walking is for pvssies.

 

[StageLeft]

It is true that walking a mile will burn
more calories than running a mile -- although it takes longer to do
so. When you run a mile, you're burning mostly sugar, or
carbohydrates, which is how your body gives you fast energy in bursts.
When you walk a mile, it gives your metabolism time to switch from
burning carbohydrates to burning fat

WTF? So carbs don't have calories? What a moron, besides the fact that running a mile DOES damn well burn more calories than walking a mile, regardless of source.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: BlueWeasel

Originally posted by: robothouse77
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=6381

"All things being equal, you will burn more calories by running an
hour than walking an hour. It is true that walking a mile will burn
more calories than running a mile -- although it takes longer to do
so. When you run a mile, you're burning mostly sugar, or
carbohydrates, which is how your body gives you fast energy in bursts.
When you walk a mile, it gives your metabolism time to switch from
burning carbohydrates to burning fat."

WebMD - Dean Ornish, MD Q A:

That's a stupid comment...I don't need a doctor to tell me that running an hour burns more calories than walking a hour. No $hit! -- you're running roughly twice as far compared to walking for a hour. It all goes back to the distance traveled....not how hard you worked to get there.

Granted, there are other benefits to running vs. walking, but from a calories consumption standpoint, they are essentially the same over the same distance.

I don't understand your logic. Running is a less efficient method of transportation than walking. By your logic, roller skating should burn the same amount of calories.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: notfred
Walking 3 miles, or running 3 miles?

From a physics standpoint, they both should use the same amount of energy, and therefore the same amount of calories, since they both are the same amount of work. However, fitness and physics seem to have inconsistencies.

Does running burn significantly more calories per mile than walking?

you my friend, are an idiot.




are you looking for an excuse to walk and not to run?

Ah, so I'm an idiot because I'm unsure of something that everyone in this thread is actively debating, because there's no obvious concensus on which answer is correct.

I guess I can put you on my list of people who's opinions can be ignored.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Don't forget to add the bell curve in there. Your benefits of running long distance decrease the further you run. Studies show that if you run 12-14 minutes twice a day, it'll be more beneficial to your heart health than running once for 24-28 minutes.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: notfred
Walking 3 miles, or running 3 miles?

From a physics standpoint, they both should use the same amount of energy, and therefore the same amount of calories, since they both are the same amount of work. However, fitness and physics seem to have inconsistencies.

Does running burn significantly more calories per mile than walking?

you my friend, are an idiot.




are you looking for an excuse to walk and not to run?

Ah, so I'm an idiot because I'm unsure of something that everyone in this thread is actively debating, because there's no obvious concensus on which answer is correct.

I guess I can put you on my list of people who's opinions can be ignored.

He never said most of the rest of us aren't idiots.

Although I should note from your OP, I'd say you probably are oversimplifying the physics of running vs walking.

 

[AdvancedRobotics]

directly from time magazine: for a 180lb person, you burn:
17.0cal/min running
13.9cal/min jogging
9.7cal/min brisk walking

edit:

personally, walking does NOTHING for me, nor jogging for that matter. I run 7+ miles per day at 6:40 pace (I always stay under 7min pace at least, even on longer runs). I say running is significantly better for burning calories. I guess it depends on how good of shape you're in. Just my take on this.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: AdvancedRobotics
directly from time magazine: for a 180lb person, you burn:
17.0cal/min running
13.9cal/min jogging
9.7cal/min brisk walking

So how much is that per mile?