walking VS running

[l337g0g0]

I am starting to workout, i want to build muscle and lose fat.
I was wondering....

Is all that matters is hitting your target heart rate or is there more to it?
Im asking because i use to run 6-7 mph on a treadmill for 30 minutes with cooldowns and i use to feel weak and wish the time would go faster.
It was tough.
Just today i was on a new machine that holds your heart rate at 147 for me.
I walked 2.5 mph and the machine inclined 14 degrees avg,it put me up 15 degrees and down 13.5 degrees to keep my heartrate at 147.
It did a good job and i was sweating like a bitch, i never walked and it caused me to sweat like that.
Heres my point....
I ran and didnt like it and it was hard, walking was easier and i could have went for more. i hit 30 minutes and could have did 30 minutes more.

So am i missing somthing not running? should i just walk? or can i do a mix?
I read that someone recomended running at 80% for 3 to 5 minutes and the 40% or something like the for one minute, repeat for 30 minutes i guess.

Whats a good plan to lose fat and not lose muscle?
I feel like the walk was working my ass and leg muscles different than running.
It could have been that i was on a incline.

Im on a diet so i think im good in that department, i just need to know a good cardio that i will lose fat and i will not lose my muscles as i build them.

Thanks...

[cbrowns21]

As long as you're in the same heart rate zone for the same time period, it probably matters little what the method is. Do what you enjoy.

[mugugaipan]

Theoretically you will burn the same calories if you walk or run 1 mile, the only difference should be the amount of time it takes you. Do whichever you can maintain for 30-60 minutes more easily without getting burned out. Also look into HIIT.

[joeedoom]

IMHO, I think HIIT is the best way to lose fat. I think the optimum heart idea is a fad (generated by those who made your machine) and have no idea how the optimum rate for burning fat can be the same for everyone. It has to be within a range and the best way to hit that range multiple times is HIIT.

HIIT will improve your cardiovascular conditioning and respiritory conditioning also.
Add in the fact that if your doing HIIT correctly, 30 minutes might make you throw up... its more time efficiant.

[l337g0g0]

Theoretically you will burn the same calories if you walk or run 1 mile, the only difference should be the amount of time it takes you.

Would i get stronger big muscles in my legs running VS walking?

If you run you sweat, if you walk you dont.
Is it not good to sweat? as it uses fat to cool you down? so does sweating use your fat under the skin as Persperation?

Thanks...

[Wowzer]

Theoretically you will burn the same calories if you walk or run 1 mile, the only difference should be the amount of time it takes you. Do whichever you can maintain for 30-60 minutes more easily without getting burned out. Also look into HIIT.

Actually no. The different movement mechanics of the body mean that running burns roughly twice the net calories than walking the same distance.

[Wowzer]

as it uses fat to cool you down? so does sweating use your fat under the skin as Persperation?

Thanks...

No. Sweat is water. Sweat is just a mechanism to cool down the body and quite often has no relation to how hard you are working (think of a hot day sitting on your arse yet sweating like a pig).

Without resistance training, your legs are unlikely to get muscular with running or walking.

[PhobosWebDev]

Target heart rate isn't something that is made up by machine manufacturers.

Low intensity cardio where you break a sweat but don't get out of breath is the best cardio you can do in order to burn more fat calories than muscle.

[Berts]

Target heart rate isn't something that is made up by machine manufacturers.

Low intensity cardio where you break a sweat but don't get out of breath is the best cardio you can do in order to burn more fat calories than muscle.

Based on personal experience, for my body at least, this is true

[TulsaCoker]

Actually no. The different movement mechanics of the body mean that running burns roughly twice the net calories than walking the same distance.

I beg to differ. Calories are basically energy expended. It takes (basically) the same energy to move your body for over a set distance. Hence you burn roughly the same calories.

[AndrewChan]

Target heart rate isn't something that is made up by machine manufacturers.

Low intensity cardio where you break a sweat but don't get out of breath is the best cardio you can do in order to burn more fat calories than muscle.

I agree, I use to do high intensity until I found out I just shrank overall as a person. I lost fat AND muscle.

Low intensity helps preserve muscle. But of course diet supersedes all types of cardio.

[k0bun]

The energy used when walking or running is not exactly the same but very similar. This of course assumes we are talking about distance not time. Let's say it takes you 20 minutes to walk a mile and 7 minutes to run it. Let's say you need 1000 units of energy to make your body travel 1 mile. Every step your body exerts 1 unit of energy. So in 1000 steps your body has exerted 1000 units of energy and traveled a distance of 1 mile(it took 20 min). Now let's say that you are running. Your body still needs 1000 units of energy to travel 1 mile that hasn't changed because the distance hasn't changed. However your body now uses 3 units of energy per stride but each stride covers 3x as much distance as a walking step. It uses more energy per unit of movement but the distance traveled differs per step and stride. Since you are covering more distance running you will reach the 1 mile mark sooner (7min) but the same amount of energy is exerted.

What I think confuses people is they are thinking more along the lines of time, not distance. If you were to walk for 20 minutes you would not burn as many calories as you would if you ran for 20 minutes. Simply because you are exerting a larger amount of energy over the same amount of time.

I realize the figures are not accurate but I was just using them as an example to try and better illustrate the correlation between calories burned running vs walking.

[Wowzer]

I beg to differ. Calories are basically energy expended. It takes (basically) the same energy to move your body for over a set distance. Hence you burn roughly the same calories.

What you say is true for the same movement type. However, the mechanics of the movements are different and require different amounts of energy. Running involves a flight phase, walking does not. The flight phase requires energy to be spent against gravity, which walking does not.

You can beg to differ all you like, but the fact is running burns more energy than walking for the same distance.

Have a read:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

PURPOSE: This study established the published prediction equations for the energy expenditure of walking and running compared with the measured values. To make this comparison we first determined whether differences exist in energy expenditure for 1600 m of walking versus running, and whether energy expenditure differences occur due to being on the track or treadmill. METHODS: Energy was measured via indirect calorimetry in 24 subjects while walking (1.41 m.s(-1)) and running (2.82 m.s(-1)) 1600 m on the treadmill. A subgroup also performed the 1600-m run/walk on the track. The measured energy expenditures were compared with published prediction equations. RESULTS: Running required more energy (P < 0.01) for 1600 m than walking (treadmill: running 481 +/- 20.0 kJ, walking 340 +/- 14 kJ; track: running 480 +/- 23 kJ, walking 334 +/- 14 kJ) on both the track and treadmill. Predictions using the ACSM or Leger equations for running, and the Pandolf equation for walking, were similar to the actual energy expenditures for running and walking (total error: ACSM: -20 and 14.4 kJ, respectively; Legers walking: -10.1 kJ; Pandolf walking: -10.0 kJ). An overestimation (P < 0.01) for 1600 m was found with the McArdle's table for walking and running energy expenditure and with van der Walt's prediction for walking energy expenditure, whereas the Epstein equation underestimated running energy expenditure (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Running has a greater energy cost than walking on both the track and treadmill. For running, the Leger equation and ACSM prediction model appear to be the most suitable for the prediction of running energy expenditure. The ACSM and Pandolf prediction equation also closely predict walking energy expenditure, whereas the McArdle's table or the equations by Epstein and van der Walt were not as strong predictors of energy expenditure.

[l337g0g0]

Target heart rate isn't something that is made up by machine manufacturers.

Low intensity cardio where you break a sweat but don't get out of breath is the best cardio you can do in order to burn more fat calories than muscle.

Can anyone break this down for me?
I would like to understand why running fast burns fat and muscle VS going slower would only burn fat and not muscle.
I want to burn fat and not muscle so im curious as to how this works.
Berts and AndrewChan could you guys elaborate? or anyone wants to chirp in to.

Thanks.

[AndrewChan]

Can anyone break this down for me?
I would like to understand why running fast burns fat and muscle VS going slower would only burn fat and not muscle.
I want to burn fat and not muscle so im curious as to how this works.
Berts and AndrewChan could you guys elaborate? or anyone wants to chirp in to.

Thanks.

I'm not a scientist or PHD student, so I can't give you a definitive scientific answer. I just know that from personal experience, I use to workout for about 1 hr lifting heavy weights, and then I would go hit the treadmill using high intensity interval training. I would run at a fast speed (like 12.0 mph) or so for 1/3 of a mile and then walk for 5 min. After doing so for a few months (stupid of me) I realized that I wasn't getting the ripped look that I saw in magazines and posters.

Then I came across Bob Chic's thread:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=107989831

He's an advocate of slow cardio (too slow if you ask me, he advises you to walk at 3.0 mph, no incline).

I started carb cycling, started doing slowER cardio and I'm still pretty lean.

Here's another place where you can read more articles:

www.jamesdawsonmartin.com

This guy had an amazing transformation and I've followed alot of what he's written.

[TheSovereign]

you guys are making this way too hard....

1) yes, there are different "zones" for your heart rate that are for different goals ranging from aerobic to anaerobic conditioning

2) the actual walk vs run depends on your goal, are you a cross country runner or a sprinter?

3) to improve your conditioning, all you need to do is elevate your heart rate for an extended period of time. If walking (with or without an incline) does this for you, feel free to walk. For most active people, walking will not increase their heart rate significantly and they will not come close to their target heart rate

4) slow cardio does not waste away your muscles, however it does work slow twitch muscle fibers opposed to fast twitch muscle fibers used when lifting weights

5) burning calories - simply physics here... if you travel the same distance in less time, you exert more energy ... calories = energy, traveling the same distance in less time (or at a faster pace) burns more calories

6) that being said, you can't just sprint 40 yrds and assume u did the same "amount" of cardio as 1 mile jog. cardio is about pushing your blood pumping and respiratory efficiency, which usually means a prolonged effort

[DH87]

Actually no. The different movement mechanics of the body mean that running burns roughly twice the net calories than walking the same distance.

Yerp...Read This:

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/...8402-0,00.html

[Wrestleislife]

There is some false information in this thread. If you walked a distance that would burn the same amount of calories as running, you would not be burning the same amount of calories. Haha, I know that sounds stupid but after a high intensity run your body will continue to burn a lot of calories which is not true of low intensity walking.

[SocratesTX]

If you understand basic physiology/body mechanics you will know that running will burn more calories than walking even at the same distance. The mechanics of the action make this possible. Those who claim that running and walking a mile will burn the same amount of calories would also have to claim that walking a mile with a 100 lb. backpack would burn the same amount as walking without one and we know that isn't true.

Bottom line, running burns more calories over time and distance period.

[NathanTurner]

If you understand basic physiology/body mechanics you will know that running will burn more calories than walking even at the same distance. The mechanics of the action make this possible. Those who claim that running and walking a mile will burn the same amount of calories would also have to claim that walking a mile with a 100 lb. backpack would burn the same amount as walking without one and we know that isn't true.

Bottom line, running burns more calories over time and distance period.

That's not true: they would simply have to claim that walking that same distance with a 100lb backpack would expend as much as running with it, which would be more than walking/running without one. Your statement is like saying a 220lb person would expend as much as a 320lb'er at the same activity, which is ludicrous, and I don't think advocates of the "walking is the same as running" idea would ever say that. Or even think it.

[gixxer0.6g]

CLIFFS because this gets covered every dam day....

HIIT's/running- Best for weight loss at the sacrifice of muscle mass

Walking- Great fat burner and helps you maintain muscle mass

[k0bun]

If you understand basic physiology/body mechanics you will know that running will burn more calories than walking even at the same distance. The mechanics of the action make this possible. Those who claim that running and walking a mile will burn the same amount of calories would also have to claim that walking a mile with a 100 lb. backpack would burn the same amount as walking without one and we know that isn't true.

Bottom line, running burns more calories over time and distance period.

No because now you are moving a different mass. Physics is physics, you can't change it's rules. However given that the body has different energy expensing characteristics than an inanimate object I will concede and try and learn more from the info provided.

[Pelk]

I'm no physicist but it seems to me that it definitely takes more energy to travel a set distance in a shorter amount of time than it does to travel it slower. The "power" required is simply greater, therefore requiring greater fuel usage. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[SocratesTX]

Its all a simple matter of force and exertion. It takes more force and exertion to go one mile running than it does walking. Your body is being worked harder and burning more fuel.

[IrishPilot]

You dont have to be exhausting yourself to lose fat. Though you may be burning more cals with HIIT, it doesnt mean you are burning more fat...just more weight. Also, it really varies from person to person. Many people have had great luck with HIIT. Many people have great luck with LISS. Look how many people lose tons of fat by simply walking in the morning or evening around the neighborhood...my street is full of them.

Personally, through experience and bodpod evals, I burned the largest percentage of fat with low intensity, and when I added HIIT is when I started to lose some muscle. Again, this was not determined by looking in the mirror. I closely tracked my body with bodpod evaluations. Now this could be because of a wide variety of variables: scheduling, volume, diet, the fact that it was my first cut in years, etc. so your experience may vary.

I prefer x2 30 Minute LISS periods a day...when I have time. Otherwise 30-45 minutes a day post weights.

[earthcrisis]

You could say the energy expenditure for walking and running the same distance is VERY similar but what is not is the source of energy consumed.
Just remember if you are out of breath, your body will look to carbs, if no carbs are available, muscle becomes the source

[Destined2MakeIt]

Wait a minute... I thought HIIT was an effective way for burning fat AND a way for not losing muscle mass?

So If I want to start cutting, should I do LISS? So much information out there that someone says one thing and someone else says another...

[NathanTurner]

Wait a minute... I thought HIIT was an effective way for burning fat AND a way for not losing muscle mass?

So If I want to start cutting, should I do LISS? So much information out there that someone says one thing and someone else says another...

If you have a good caloric deficit and you're lifting heavy to preserve lean mass, doing steady state low intensity cardio to further expend calories will be effective. If you add in HIIT with a caloric deficit, coupled with low carb intake and intense lifting, you run the risk of depleting glycogen which then leads to muscle loss. Also, you may impede recovery which will lead to overtraining.

In either case, you won't be able to do nearly as much HIIT as low intensity cardio and maintain your lean mass/not hamper recovery. It may be best to begin with 3-4 sessions of 30 minute low intensity cardio per week, and gradually add in one or two sessions of HIIT as your progress starts to stall.

[Destined2MakeIt]

If you have a good caloric deficit and you're lifting heavy to preserve lean mass, doing steady state low intensity cardio to further expend calories will be effective. If you add in HIIT with a caloric deficit, coupled with low carb intake and intense lifting, you run the risk of depleting glycogen which then leads to muscle loss. Also, you may impede recovery which will lead to overtraining.

In either case, you won't be able to do nearly as much HIIT as low intensity cardio and maintain your lean mass/not hamper recovery. It may be best to begin with 3-4 sessions of 30 minute low intensity cardio per week, and gradually add in one or two sessions of HIIT as your progress starts to stall.

Thanks. I guess I'll start doing the low intensity cardio for now. Ive only been doing HIIT for about 3 weeks so its not a big deal.

[TulsaCoker]

Its all a simple matter of force and exertion. It takes more force and exertion to go one mile running than it does walking. Your body is being worked harder and burning more fuel.

For a shorter period of time. I agree you are burning more calories per second or minute then walking but your "burning" it in less then half the time.