Tough Question??

[Maki Riddington]

Walking one mile burns slightly less calories then running one mile?

True or false.

[edge-man]

I would say TRUE, you are covering the same distance, however when running you hit the ground with more force on each step, so you are losing a little energy each time. I may be completely incorrect, however.

[BigCorey75]

ill say true

[Brawl]

Hmmmmm , I'll say true for one mile but when you add more miles and running is more intense than walking that more than a mile burns more .







C'mon Maki whats the answer ?

[rpffly]

Walking or running one mile burns the same amount of calories.

[chris mason]

I would say it is close or the same. Running will burn more calories in a given period of time, but it takes longer to walk the same distance. So, for example, if you burn twice as many calories running for a given period of time (as compared to walking), and you can run a given distance twice as fast as you can walk it, then covering the same distance walking or running would burn the same number of calories.

[WillKuenzel]

It depends on the intensity and duration, not necessarily the distance, of either exercise.

[bill]

I would false because of the time diff. in that your exercising longer and ONE mile could be a short easy distance. Prob depends on a persons physical condition generally I have heard people who are out of shape get more calorie burning from longer distance = time than say a short intense workout. Hey whats the prize. lol
and plus its prob false because you knew we would all say true. lol

[IRN-BRU]

Good question.

False. Walking a mile burns a lot less calories than running a mile. Roughly half.

I like how people answer without doing any research. Just like a lot of questions on here. I do wonder sometimes, 16 year old kids with no clue answering tricky questions and people listening to wrong advice because they sounded convincing.

Opinions are fine, but how can anyone seriously say "Walking or running one mile burns the same amount of calories.". Even in a strict test, comparing walking a mile with walking a mile, I doubt you'd burn the same cals both times.

[chris mason]

Good question.

False. Walking a mile burns a lot less calories than running a mile. Roughly half.

I like how people answer without doing any research. Just like a lot of questions on here. I do wonder sometimes, 16 year old kids with no clue answering tricky questions and people listening to wrong advice because they sounded convincing.

Opinions are fine, but how can anyone seriously say "Walking or running one mile burns the same amount of calories.". Even in a strict test, comparing walking a mile with walking a mile, I doubt you'd burn the same cals both times.


Lol, ok genius, prepare to eat your words.

Walking at a 3 mile per hour pace will burn roughly 8 calories per minute for a 220 lb man on a paved, flat surface. So, that means he will burn roughly 160 calories walking one mile.

The same man running 8.5 mph will burn roughly 23 cals per minute. It will take him roughly 7 minutes to run 1 mile and he will burn roughly 161 calories.

Did you read my above post before you went off on your self-rightous tirade?

[WillKuenzel]

Right.
http://www.dietpower.com/walkrun.htm

Do the math from there. Read that its calories per 20minutes, not per mile.

For a 190lb man, walking at 3.0mph takes roughly 20 minutes to get a mile and burns 93 calories. Running at 6.0mph takes about 10 minutes to get to a mile. In 20 minutes you'd burn 189 calories, in 10 minutes you'd burn 94.5. Seems pretty close to me. Not half like our buddy is saying.

[Nights]

For some odd reason, I find that all so funny.

That said, with no research, I'd say about the same. Yes, distance is same, but time variable changes alot. While running one minute vs walking one minute is different, I'd say effort is very similar in both cases above.

[IRN-BRU]

Suppose it depends on where you get your data.

According to fitday... for one mile...

Walking, 3.0 mph, level, moderate pace, firm surface 65 cals
Walking, 4.0 mph, level, firm surface, very brisk pace 58 cals
Running, 5 mph (12 min per mile) 108 cals
Running, 6 mph (10 min per mile) 116 cals
Running, 10 mph (6 min per mile) 116 cals

Fair enough their data may be inaccurate, but they show a big difference in cals between walking and running. Probably due to how much more efficient it is to walk because you bounce less etc. While 4mph burns less than 3mph, going to a run blows it out the water.

"Continuous running (whether slow or fast) burns about 100 calories per mile. If you're walking normally, you're burning about 50 calories per mile". http://www.doitsports.com/vt/program-day-view.tcl?target_day=79&program_id=651

Actually I found a quote that it's 100 cals per mile either way... Conveniently, I dont believe it though.

According to E=MC^2 I'm correct, so if you can disprove that, I'm all ears. :-)

I suppose the real answer is "it depends", as usual.

[IRN-BRU]

http://pwp.value.net/~fitness/graphics/crwmile.gif

source: http://pwp.value.net/~fitness/sreport1.htm

Some information on the web is oversimpified rubbish. This graph looks the business though. Efficiency is the key.

Make me eat the graph too? :drooling:

[IdaMAN]

Your data doesn't even make sense not to mention you seem to be comparing 3 mph to 5 mph and not how far they traveled.

So you insult people who you claim to do no research and then come on here showing that you found places that agree and disagree with you,then give your opinion. You still haven't given any reason for your opinion.

Oh wait, you said According to E=MC^2 proves you right? wtf?

oh and as for your graph, as long as what you find on the net agrees with what you believe, it is right and the rest is rubbish? Please....

[phatmike]

I like how people answer without doing any research. Just like a lot of questions on here. I do wonder sometimes, 16 year old kids with no clue answering tricky questions and people listening to wrong advice because they sounded convincing.



Sorry bro, but I will listen to and respect the opinions of those "16 year old kids" you speak of, way before I listen to anything you say. Maybe you should read the board a little bit before you start ripping on some of the most knowledgable people who are on it. I don't post often, but man, people like you just piss me off.

Oh yeah to get back on topic, I would say that cals burned would be roughly equal. :)

[thetopdog]

It takes more energy to move faster, just like driving from point A to point B uses more gas going 100mph than 60mph

[body]

It takes more energy to move faster, just like driving from point A to point B uses more gas going 100mph than 60mph

bad anaolgy
as your more fuel if you go at 5 MPH then 50MPH

[body]

walking it probably more effiecnty on kcal as you do not have the arm and hip movment that you use when running.
when you sprint these movement become even greater with arms and hips etc and you lean more forward. though you can't sprint a mile. but if you could this is likely to use up far more kcals.

[IRN-BRU]

Yep there's a most efficient speed. That graph is supposed to show what speed to do, for maximum efficiency. Used for athletes in long distance events. It does show that if you compare 1.8mph walking with 8mph running, it's the same. It can proove both sides of the argument with one graph, but on average with common speeds associated with walking and running, I think I'm right. Based firstly on my theoretical beliefs in energy conservation and efficiency, secondly on the data found that looks most scientifically convincing to me.

I didnt say the data I found was right, and everything else was rubbish. I just said some data is rubbish. You do have to judge it on its merits.

Sorry to stir things up, I didnt mean to specifically trash anyone in particular with my statement about people speading mis-information. I just used the "equal calories" statement as an example because it is written like an exact fact, when it's obvious that due to all the complex variables, the chances of it being true are practically zero.

Good debate or slanging match, this is quite amusing though, please dont take too much personal offence guys. :-)

[GonePostal]

It's a tricky question because there is other varibles other then the amount of energy expended due to running and walking. That is because you have a resting energy rate, where you would burn a certain amount of calories no matter what you are doing. For this to be an accurate comparision you would have to compare the 2 activities at equal time intervals. If you think that is wrong then I say that NOT RUNNING AT ALL burns more calories because it takes me like 20 hours to not run which equals like say 500 calories. While I only burn like 100 calories while walking a mile... So it takes you 10 mins to run a mile + 50 mins of not walking vs. 1 hour to walk that amount.

Running = (resting + running) * timer
Walking = (resting + walking) * timew
To see how the compare you need to do a ratio
Ratio = (resting + running) * timer
(resting + walking) * timew
if timer != timew then it distorts the ratio because of time not because you expend more engery because fo walking or running. So you need to account for the time that when you are finsihed running but still burning energy.
= resting*timer1 + running *timer2
resting*timew + walking*timew
where timer1 = timew so
= 1 + running*timer2/walking*timew

I'm too lazy to do this but im sure it will show you that running burns alot more energy then walking.

But if you are truely interested in the end product of "which one burns more" without thinking about the flaw in the logic of the question, then they are about equal.

[Ebu]

hmm, the only reason i would think you burn more running is because of heart rate. Good question for thought. So maki, what is it!?!?

[WillKuenzel]

Make me eat the graph too? :drooling:
Sure, if you look at certain points, they are burning the same amount of calories. Walking at ~1mph and running ~5mph is roughly the same. Walking at 5mph burns roughly the same amound of calories as 7-11mph. Just draw a line through graph to see where the kcalories match up. Studies have shown there to be dips around the 3mph when walking but getting up to 5mph they are roughly equivalent.

[Vido]

It depends on the intensity and duration, not necessarily the distance, of either exercise.

I like this answer because it includes intensity. "Walking" at 4.0mph is a more intense workout than "jogging" at 5mph. Someone pointed out that running burns more calories because you have more motion in your upper body (arms swinging, etc.). That's not true at all in my example above. This person would actually have more upper body motion during his brisk walk than his light jog.

My point is merely that the question cannot be answered due to a lack of information. There's so many variables that have the potential to be involved that giving a definitive answer is misleading. I think, depending on the circumstances, walking could burn more, less, or the same number of calories as running one mile. The only thing I can definitively say is that the guy who claimed walking burns half the calories of running is incorrect.

[TBone4Eva]

Meh, even if running a mile and walking a mile burn the same amount of calories this is only DURING the actual exercise. By running, you will continue to burn calories at a higher rate after exercise has concluded then if you walked.

[Vido]

Meh, even if running a mile and walking a mile burn the same amount of calories this is only DURING the actual exercise. By running, you will continue to burn calories at a higher rate after exercise has concluded then if you walked.

Good point.

[chris mason]

I think some of you are missing the point. That said, I will not debate further as I don't think it would serve any useful purpose.

[kozen]

so is it true or false

[Bruise Brubaker]

:withstupi

[body]

does it matter? we still do HIIT etc to loose weight and diet

[Organichu]

My answer: Maki wants us to fight. Attack him. <3

[PiKappaWRX]

i'm with body on this one, HIIT or MaxOT cardio is better than normal cardio anyways, so does it really matter?

[djreef]

You mean to tell me I've been doing sprints all along for nothing? I could have been walking the same distance the whole time, and barely breaking a sweat, while still burning the same # of cals? I'm sorry, but I can tell you first hand, that my fat ass burns a hell of a lot more cals sprinting than it does walking. There's this inertia/mass thing that we're all missing here. Hell, I'd be willing to bet that I'm burning more cals just from trying to slow this train down, then I am from walking. I think common sense precedes any studies in this case.

DJ
= 8-->{I>

[ronnie2004]

well whats the answer and more specifically why the answer.

[Vido]

You mean to tell me I've been doing sprints all along for nothing? I could have been walking the same distance the whole time, and barely breaking a sweat, while still burning the same # of cals? I'm sorry, but I can tell you first hand, that my fat ass burns a hell of a lot more cals sprinting than it does walking. There's this inertia/mass thing that we're all missing here. Hell, I'd be willing to bet that I'm burning more cals just from trying to slow this train down, then I am from walking. I think common sense precedes any studies in this case.

DJ
= 8-->{I>

That's why the question cannot be answered. He didn't specify that he was talking about a slow saunter vs. a full out sprint. Then again, it's not to say he didn't mean that.

[Maki Riddington]

As some of you have explained (Chris M being one of them) the answer is true. Of course it can be debated.......

[ronnie2004]

what factors would explain difference? when running you have increased heartrate...... and now im lost! ,can you give some technical insight to the answer maki?

[BigMatt]

Its All about Heart Rate...

[Decent]

Meh, even if running a mile and walking a mile burn the same amount of calories this is only DURING the actual exercise. By running, you will continue to burn calories at a higher rate after exercise has concluded then if you walked.
This is what I've always read in the numerous HIIT articles posted here

[BaamIce]

The higher the intensity of your cardio workout the higher your BMR will be so therefore the person that ran will burn more calories throughout the day and the person that walked will burn less. As far as the amount of calories expended during the time of exercise i think running will actually burn a little more calories than walking

[ElPietro]

Hey Mac, this is a big improvement over your, "Eating too many calories causes you to gain weight" thread. :D

[Maki Riddington]

That thread will never be forgotten. Thanks for reminding everyone Pete. No, really, I appreciate it.;)

[meltedtime]

Walking one mile burns slightly less calories then running one mile?


I can't agree with walking or running one mile burning the same calories. What you are saying is that no matter how long it takes you to travel one mile you will burn the same amount of calories. Bullpoop.

Perhaps a fast walk, max. speed vs. a slow jog would be close. I can see 15 min. of walking being almost the same as 10 min. of jogging if an equal distance is covered. I think the wider the gap in intensity between walking and running would change the calories burned. Not all calories are burned during exercise. Running would burn more cals. post workout than walking. Therefore, running burns more calories.


melt

[body]

I can't agree with walking or running one mile burning the same calories. What you are saying is that no matter how long it takes you to travel one mile you will burn the same amount of calories. Bullpoop.

Perhaps a fast walk, max. speed vs. a slow jog would be close. I can see 15 min. of walking being almost the same as 10 min. of jogging if an equal distance is covered. I think the wider the gap in intensity between walking and running would change the calories burned. Not all calories are burned during exercise. Running would burn more cals. post workout than walking. Therefore, running burns more calories.


melt

as some one mentioned above. even standing up burns kcals. eg say 80kcals a hour. so i walk very slow and it takes me 5 hours to walk a mile.
that would be like
81 kcal a hour * 5 hours = 405 kcals.
your not going to burn that many kcals running a mile even with the post work out recovery process.

[GrindingOut]

I was just going to ask about this...because i've been wondering...

It appears that the verdict is still out...

I'll just stick to HIIT where I switch up from walking pace, to jogging, to running within a 2 mile distance...in the end...i'll finish the 2 miles in about 25 minutes...