PDA

View Full Version : cardio speed.....



One_Vision
01-27-2001, 10:20 AM
Is 3 miles of walking just as effective as 3 miles of running? Would your metabolism stay elevated as long afterwards and would the fat burning effects be the same?

Thanks alot to whoever responds...

One_Vision
01-27-2001, 05:37 PM
burp....

The_Chicken_Daddy
01-27-2001, 05:39 PM
That is rude. ;)

It really depends on what your doing it for.

To burn more calories then a 3 mile run is definatly better than a 3 mile walk. It's quite blatantly obvious when you think about it. Running is alot more demanding than walking...

Maki Riddington
01-27-2001, 06:20 PM
Actually if I remeber correctly they expend the same amount.
I will look into it but I remember back in one of my classes that they are equal.Don't quote me though.

chris mason
01-27-2001, 06:37 PM
Mac, what are you saying? Running definitely burns more kcals than walking. The intensity of the exercise is higher, the muscles are contracting at a higher rate per unit of time, and you are closer to your VO2 max. All of these things require more energy to occur. If your professor said differently he was wrong! I know you said not to quote you, so I won't hold this against you.

J-Flyer
01-27-2001, 07:17 PM
A big "NO" to answer the original question. To burn fat effectively, you have to train hard, ie. HIIT. (high-intensity interval training)

The fat burning effects "during" the actually excercise is minimal depending on the time; however, the body will burn MORE calories throughout the day following a HIIT cycle.

Example:
If you're on a treadmill and you "walk" for an hour. The monitor says you burn "X" (we'll call it 200 for argument sake) amount of calories. So for that exercise your body burnt 200 calories.

Now, you "run" only for 30 minutes. If you could monitor your calorie expenditure, you may only burn "Y" amount of caloires, however, you've set your body up to burn more calories for the rest of the day so you actully burn a lot more calories than what X would've been (200+), and in less time of exercising.

Hope that made sense. Basically, if you can read at the same time as you try to "burn fat", little progress will be made.

Adam
01-27-2001, 07:18 PM
i think i heard the same thing as Mac. If you walk for 10 minutes or ran for 10 running would burn more calories but since it is for a set distance you will have to walk longer. I guess the extra time makes up for the lack of intensity. "I" would still run though.

Maki Riddington
01-27-2001, 07:26 PM
I don't mind taking some flames for this.

chris mason
01-27-2001, 07:54 PM
I am going to recant my previous statement. I did some calculations based on running at 7.5 mph vs. walking at 2.5 mph. Running at 7.5 mph you burn roughly 9.4 kcals per minute per 100lbs of body weight. Walking (I am assuming 2.5 mph for a walk) you burn about 3.6 kcals per minute per 100 lbs of body weight. I did some quicky hand calcs and came up with 225 kcals burned for the run and 259 for the walk. I probably figured too low of a speed for the walk. So, it looks like I was wrong Mac, and you were right. As Getin said, the important thing I missed was that time was not a factor. It takes longer to walk the 3 miles so you end up burning the same number of kcals. Bravo guys!

J-Flyer
01-27-2001, 09:59 PM
But if you ran, you would "continue" to burn calories after you stopped.

ryuage
01-27-2001, 10:54 PM
isn't it all about heart rate? pulse

The_Chicken_Daddy
01-28-2001, 08:13 AM
But surely if you ran 3 miles then you would cover the distance quicker.

This means that the heart rate would increase more than what it would when walking, hence buring more calories.

Isn't that right?

One_Vision
01-29-2001, 09:08 PM
So walking is just as affective as running for fat loss....if so....walkin' it is.

gino
01-30-2001, 06:27 AM
J-Flyer - walking will boost the metabolism following the workout as well. Walking is a better fat burning workout if it's fat, not muscle, that you want to burn. Walking at a pace that keeps your heart rate @ 60% mhr is ideal. However, if you don't care, and just want to lose weight, I'd suggest running.

breeze
01-30-2001, 09:01 AM
If you walk a mile or run a mile your body will expend the same amount of calories. The difference is where the calories are coming from based on how fast you run. Basically, when you walk the most of the calories burned are coming from fat. When you run most of the calories are coming from carbs.

Albert
01-31-2001, 07:20 PM
An increased level of exercise intensity has a direct effect on the increase in fat expenditure during recovery after exercise. The greater the intensity you train with the more efficient your body becomes at burning fat during rest.

American Journal of Applied Physiology Vol. 89, Issue 2, 629-635, August 2000: "Exercise-dependent growth hormone release is linked to markers of heightened central adrenergic outflow":
This study concludes that a positive relationship exists between exercise intensity and both CHO expenditure during exercise and fat expenditure during recovery, and that the increase in fat expenditure during recovery with higher exercise intensities is related to GH release.

American Journal of Applied Physiology Vol. 86, Issue 2, 531-535, February 1999: "Norepinephrine response to exercise at the same relative intensity before and after endurance exercise training":

These results provide evidence that the NE response to exercise is dependent on the absolute as well as the relative intensity of the exercise.