What burns more calories?

[StageLeft]

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

Nobody is quiestining which burns more/minute ,but rather which burns more per distance travelled.

 

[tm37]

SEX

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: 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?

I guess it would depend on how fast you walk vs. run.

 

[notfred]

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

Yes, probably, but I'd like see explanations for anything I left out that indicates why one is better than the other.

 

[MrChad]

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

By that logic, if I run a mile in 9 minutes I'll burn 153 calories. If I walk a mile in 20 minutes, I'll burn 194 calories.

 

[shud]

Ok, I get off work at 5pm and usually go and play basketball (1-2 hours, always games not just shooting). Should I eat dinner at 5 when I get back and then just a light snack (some baby carrots or pretzels or something) later? Right now I'm just going straight to bball and eating dinner afterwards. Problem is, I go to bed around 1am or so, I'm not sure when the "never eat past 7" thing would work for me.

 

[Landroval]

Originally posted by: 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.

There may be some issues of efficiency as well, but I have not seen any specific research on the subject.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: notfred

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

Yes, probably, but I'd like see explanations for anything I left out that indicates why one is better than the other.

See above. Unless you mean to exclude the actual workings of the body, in which case the difference in physics is less important, though still noticeable. When you run, you move vertically more than you do when walking. Well, at least, most people do. Generally you also needlessly move your arms more when running, although I have seen some people who don't.

 

[Toastedlightly]

so, power = joules / time

shorter time, more power

Joules is the same for both (same distance x mass)

P = J / T = walking

P = J / (.5T) = running

Which one uses most power?

Thought I would bring some physics up in her'

PS: Power = watts

Work = Joules

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
so, power = joules / time

shorter time, more power

Joules is the same for both (same distance x mass)

P = J / T = walking

P = J / (.5T) = running

Which one uses most power?

Thought I would bring some physics up in her'

PS: Power = watts

Work = Joules

The distance is not the same for both. This is the mistake many people are making. You can get from point A to B many different ways. When running you are travelling slightly more distance due to the fact that you are oscillating up and down more than when walking. Kind of like how if you constantly change lanes while driving a car, you are going further.

That's in addition to the physiological results pointed out above.

 

[BlueWeasel]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: 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?

I guess it would depend on how fast you walk vs. run.

Well, for that study, what speed is considered running? jogging? walking?

 

[edro]

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

Says Clausius and Carnot... Sorry, I am reading a book on thermodynamics and I just read the part about when Clausius and Carnot discovered that energy was the basis, not heat.

Anyways... Keeping your heart rate in the 100-120 bpm zone is the best place to burn fat. Anything over that and it is burning carbs and protein more. If you walk, you are burning mostly fat and carbs, but you aren't burning very many of them.

 

[mercanucaribe]

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that running a mile burns more calories than walking a mile. You people need to get out of your "high school physics" mindset. Work is not "the distance you move an object".

Another thing, what's with people claiming that humans are natural long distance runners? Is that true? If it is, how come I can't run for sh!t? I'd say we're long distance walkers, just like every other migrating mammal, since we can walk all day on level terrain and not get very tired.

 

[BlueWeasel]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that running a mile burns more calories than walking a mile. You people need to get out of your "high school physics" mindset. Work is not "the distance you move an object".

Work = Force x Displacement

What's your defintion of work, then?

 

[91TTZ]

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 suck at physics.

 

[91TTZ]

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

qft

 

[EKKC]

Originally posted by: tm37
SEX

for 3 hours

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: BlueWeasel

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that running a mile burns more calories than walking a mile. You people need to get out of your "high school physics" mindset. Work is not "the distance you move an object".

Work = Force x Displacement

What's your defintion of work, then?

I'm guessing it involves the human body and not some theoretical device where the amount of force exerted does not have any additional results on the thing exerting the force.

Anyway if you really do want to include high school physics, don't forget the amount of distance that your heart muscles travel. I mean a heart beating faster must expend more energy, right? That is unless you believe that the total number of heart beats when walking a mile is the same as running since one takes longer than the other. Which is probably not true unless you are really out of shape.

 

[cavemanmoron]

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:

 

[BlueWeasel]

The Dean Ornish response only makes sense if you read the original question. He just contradicts himself.

Question: I just read your article "Walking vs. Running for Weight Loss." You said if one wants to lose weight, it is better to walk for a longer time than to run the same distance. But I run for an hour at a time. If I walked, I would walk for only that hour, as that's all the time I have. So is it better for me to walk for that hour or run? I would rather walk, but I would think running is better.

Answer: 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.

The first sentence is obvious - only the dumbest of morons couldn't figure it out. It's pretty safe to assume that most people probably run/jog at about twice as fast as they walk. So, if you walk 3 miles in that hour, then you ran 6 miles in the same amount of time. I think we all agree that the calories burned in 3 miles would be much less than those burned doing 6 miles.

His second sentence disputes everyone that is quoting him to backup their belief running the same distance as walking burns more calories. If walking a mile burns more calories than running a mile as the doctor says, then why wouldn't that same theory apply to 2 miles? 5 miles? 10 miles?

 

[ManyBeers]

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.

I think when you run your doing more work because your muscles are going through more "cycles per second" depending on how fast your running thereby using more resources.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: BlueWeasel
The Dean Ornish response only makes sense if you read the original question. He just contradicts himself.

Question: I just read your article "Walking vs. Running for Weight Loss." You said if one wants to lose weight, it is better to walk for a longer time than to run the same distance. But I run for an hour at a time. If I walked, I would walk for only that hour, as that's all the time I have. So is it better for me to walk for that hour or run? I would rather walk, but I would think running is better.

Answer: 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.

The first sentence is obvious - only the dumbest of morons couldn't figure it out. It's pretty safe to assume that most people probably run/jog at about twice as fast as they walk. So, if you walk 3 miles in that hour, then you ran 6 miles in the same amount of time. I think we all agree that the calories burned in 3 miles would be much less than those burned doing 6 miles.

His second sentence disputes everyone that is quoting him to backup their belief running the same distance as walking burns more calories. If walking a mile burns more calories burns more calories than running a mile as the doctor says, then why wouldn't that same theory apply to 2 miles? 5 miles? 10 miles?

I was thinking the same thing. He's wrong.

There's no way that running x miles is more energy efficient than walking x miles. Going faster always uses more fuel, especially when the mode of locomotion becomes more awkward. Since you're exerting yourself when you run, you're dissipating more heat, breathing more oxygen, etc.

 

[Kelemvor]

When you run the mile you are only getting a workout for 6-10 minutes (depending on how fast you run. When you walk the mile, you're gettin gmuch less intense of a workout but you're doing it for much longer... So in the end it's probably not all that different if the distance is the same. But I'd still think thr unning would do more.

Of course if you equal it out by time (walk for 10 minutes, run for 10 minutes) then obviously the running would burn more because you're body is working a lot harder.

 

[BlueWeasel]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: BlueWeasel
The Dean Ornish response only makes sense if you read the original question. He just contradicts himself.

Question: I just read your article "Walking vs. Running for Weight Loss." You said if one wants to lose weight, it is better to walk for a longer time than to run the same distance. But I run for an hour at a time. If I walked, I would walk for only that hour, as that's all the time I have. So is it better for me to walk for that hour or run? I would rather walk, but I would think running is better.

Answer: 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.

The first sentence is obvious - only the dumbest of morons couldn't figure it out. It's pretty safe to assume that most people probably run/jog at about twice as fast as they walk. So, if you walk 3 miles in that hour, then you ran 6 miles in the same amount of time. I think we all agree that the calories burned in 3 miles would be much less than those burned doing 6 miles.

His second sentence disputes everyone that is quoting him to backup their belief running the same distance as walking burns more calories. If walking a mile burns more calories burns more calories than running a mile as the doctor says, then why wouldn't that same theory apply to 2 miles? 5 miles? 10 miles?

I was thinking the same thing. He's wrong.

There's no way that running x miles is more energy efficient than walking x miles. Going faster always uses more fuel, especially when the mode of locomotion becomes more awkward. Since you're exerting yourself when you run, you're dissipating more heat, breathing more oxygen, etc.

I'm just playing the devil's advocate anyway...I can't understand myself how running a mile in a world record time of 4 minutes burns the same calories if I walked that mile in 30 minutes.

It doesn't make sense to me, but 40 or so posts into this discussion and I don't really see overwhelming support for either side.

 

[BlueWeasel]

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
When you run the mile you are only getting a workout for 6-10 minutes (depending on how fast you run. When you walk the mile, you're gettin gmuch less intense of a workout but you're doing it for much longer... So in the end it's probably not all that different if the distance is the same. But I'd still think thr unning would do more.

Of course if you equal it out by time (walk for 10 minutes, run for 10 minutes) then obviously the running would burn more because you're body is working a lot harder.

Exactly, but are you burning more calories in that 10 minutes because you physically ran further than walking or because you worked harder?