Running or Walking?

[sexy-lexi]

Hey guys,
what burns more fat, running or walking?

If I run for 60 mins (with intervals of walking), is that going to burn the same amount of fat as walking for 60 mins

thanks and have a great day yall

[Want2BeStrong]

Higher Intensity is almost always better, even if the duration is shorter.

I would rather run as fast and hard as I can for 10 minutes than walk or jog for an hour.

Of course, walking for 60 minutes is better than no exercise, but if you really want to lose the fat you should push yourself to the limit. Chances are, if it seems like it would be harder to do, it is probably a better exercise for you.

[Heman3341]

wantotbestrong is correct but if your having a hard time running for a long period of time try jumproping. 10 mins of jumproping is equivalent to 30 mins of jogging. (boxers mainly use this but its great for overall defnition and endurance) if you got one give it a try even if its for only 3-5 mins it kills .

[aiming45]

First and foremost... OMG! Big ups on that avatar! One of the best I've seen in a long time.

Second of all, this issue was recently tackled on another post. Sounds like the jury honestly is still out. There are proponents on both sides that say they're equal or running is better both during and after. I personally don't see the argument that says that expending less of an effort for the same amount of time equals a more strenuous effort over that same period of time. One of the articles posted there was;

Run, Don't Walk - The Truth About Running Versus Walking
By Rick Morris ( http://www.runningplanet.com/trainin...s-walking.html )

Your suggestion of doing a run/walk also feels more like a HIIT workout, which to me is the best of both worlds.

I don't/can't run in the midwest during our winters, and I refuse to run on a treadmill, so if you can spend some quality time on a run outdoors where you are enjoy! You look like you're on the right track with whatever you're currently doing.

Take care.

[KaBone]

Forgive me for getting technical on you, but the question should be 'which burns more calories...' All things being equal, running. Although it is possible to run slower than you can walk there're other little things going on that gives running the edge. For example, there's the vertical aspect of the running stride that walking doesn't have. If you want to lose body fat, it takes a lot of running. Remember, the miles that really count are the ones you do after you feel like stopping (unless it's pain related).

[Slim Tom]

Ok, I'm new to the whole running/jogging on the treadmill. On the treadmill there is a fat burn setting that says you should stay at a constant pace where your heart rate stays at around 130. Anything higher and youre doing a high intensity run, which I prefer. But, I dont get it, how does jogging at a slower pace burn more fat, If I have enough energy to run for 30 minutes straight at a high intensity pace, why not. I dont know if I believe what the treadmill says about you will burn more fat if you keep your heart rate lower.

[ironlung]

The whole fat burning zone is BS. Kick up your intensity, the bigger picture is total caloric expenditure.

[-Aaron-]

Running, walking, having sex, who cares as long as your get your heart rate up.

Originally Posted by ironlung

The whole fat burning zone is BS. Kick up your intensity, the bigger picture is total caloric expenditure.

Actually, it's not B.S.

You need evidence to back up claims like that.

[King Bangladesh]

Originally Posted by -Aaron-

Running, walking, having sex, who cares as long as your get your heart rate up.



Actually, it's not B.S.

You need evidence to back up claims like that.

I think he just means that no little chart pasted on a machine can tell at what intesity you will start burning fat, seeing as everyone's resting heartrate is different.


Now for the topic at hand: Of course running burns more calories, but its really just about cardiovascular fitness (its called cardio for a reason) and your rate heart.

[ponshoe]

Low-medium intensity cardio burns more cals from fat because its the primary source.

High intensity cardio burns more cals from carbs ( glycogen depletion ) because the body its giving the max the primary source its carbs.

but BOTH BURN CALS and BOTH WORKS.

[Malice84]

low intesity burns more ffa's (fatty acid)
high intesity burns more calories so is better for short periods but low intensity is good to just as long as you do more of it.

[Keys89]

what about doing 3mph(in between walk and jog) on a treadmill at a high incline?

[kondor]

The whole fat burning zone is BS.

Source?

From what i understand, the difference in fat loss between "cardio zone" and "fat loss zone" is minimal. However you do burn more fat in cardio (just not a lot more) and you use a hell of a lot more calories (not really something that fits with big guns is it?)

[crunchymilk]

Originally Posted by Keys89

what about doing 3mph(in between walk and jog) on a treadmill at a high incline?

do whatever it takes to get your heartrate around 75-80% max. That has worked great for me so far.

[aiming45]

Originally Posted by -Aaron-

Running, walking, having sex, who cares as long as your get your heart rate up.

Actually, it's not B.S.

You need evidence to back up claims like that.

Gotta agree with the -Aaron- guy, man, dude.

I think you really just have to get your arse moving, and keep moving a couple two tree times a week and your good like that.

[slipmac]

fisrt time i tried to get in shape i ran as much as i could only on sundays every weekend, i lost about 35 pounds in 3 months (2003)

now i have been working out for almost 7 months now
i treadmill for an hour every day (or at least aim for 7 days a week)
and i walk at about 3.2 - 3.5 mph at a 5.0 - 7.0 incline
not to mention im eating a lot better then i was the first time
and just now in month 7 im at a total loss of 40 pounds (2007)

so from personal experience im gonna have to say running is better
however its worse on the knees and the faster you lose the more likely you are to gain it back

the pluss side of walking is the longer it takes you to get rid of the fat the more likely you are to keep it off and its not so hard on the joints

i didnt want to start running but after reading all the replys and typing what i think i guess im gonna have to start running as i am growing tired of such slow loss

im not a trainer or anything all i know is from experience
anyway hope this helps

Decide, Commit, Succeed!

[MrSinister]

stairclimbing >>>>>>>> running

[faisji]

If It Is Fat Loss You Seek Walking Is The Way To Go.especailly If You Want To Retain The Muscle Tissue.there Is Less Stress On Muscles And Consider Someone Who Is 160 Lbs At 3mph Will Burn 275 Caloires In A Hour 70% Fat Of Those To Lose A Pound Of Fat You Are Looking At 19 Hours .so You Can Easily Shift 2 Lbs Of Fat A Month.
You Eill Need To Walkrunning Will Burn Fat As Well As Deplete Muscle Especailly At The Back Of Hard Training When They Are Already Stressed.running Is Good If You Want Aquick Dip In Wieght Helps You Through Water Loss More Than Anything.

[ironlung]

Originally Posted by -Aaron-

Running, walking, having sex, who cares as long as your get your heart rate up.



Actually, it's not B.S.

You need evidence to back up claims like that.

To clarify my statement... I'm talking about the widely spread misconception that keeping your heart rate at a target "fat burning zone" and not going over that or doing too high intensity or you will loose the benefit of fat loss that has been a common untruth for years.

Sure any movement is better than no movement, but if you want to be serious about shedding lard in the most time efficient matter, turn the cardio up a few notches. A half hour of running will create a much larger caloric deficit than an hour long 70% hr mind numbing treadmill walking will.

Without getting into a huge debate over low intensity or high intensity cardio and to keep the origional post on track, simply compare a marathon runner to a sprinter. Which physique would you rather have?

As long as your diet is in order and pre/post feeds are taken into account, one will not burn loads of muscle and/or jeopardize your "big guns" doing shorter high intensity not too frequent cardio training.

[wannabemeso]

Originally Posted by ironlung

The whole fat burning zone is BS. Kick up your intensity, the bigger picture is total caloric expenditure.

To an extent, he's right. The whole "Fat Burning Zone" says you have to stay in this heart rate zone, for x amount of time, or you're just burning carbs/sugar because of the intensity, which is true, but if those aren't burned they get turned to fat anyway. Bottom line is, if you're moving your burning. Move however you want, as much as you want, and you're burning. It's all working for the same goal.

Don't worry about the FBZ. Anything that tells you to not work as hard just isn't right. IMO, it encourages reasons to slack.

[Tysken]

Originally Posted by -Aaron-

Running, walking, having sex, who cares as long as your get your heart rate up.



Actually, it's not B.S.

You need evidence to back up claims like that.

Ok, let's get some Science into this.
http://www.ast-ss.com/research/cribb...t.asp?rrID=395
"Body fat utilization only comes from elevating the metabolism and burning more calories than you put in on a daily basis. Low intensity aerobic exercise doesn't burn calories and stoke the metabolism the way intense exercise does."
"Long-term Studies from Laval University have confirmed that people who train intensely have more muscle and less body fat, even though they exercise for less time."

http://www.ast-ss.com/research/cribb...t.asp?rrID=248

"Understanding Cardio?s Effect on Fat Metabolism

Energy expenditure during cardio is very misunderstood. What is even more misunderstood is energy expenditure after cardio as a result of the cardio. When doing cardio, the primary energy source your body uses is glycogen. Your body uses very little, if any, fat stores for energy during cardio. Even if you haven't eaten food for several hours your body still uses glycogen as its primary energy source. You must let go of the wrong assumption that you are actually burning fat while you are doing cardio. You are not!

The benefit you get from cardio, from a fat burning standpoint (there are many other health benefits), is its effect on your resting metabolic rate. Your resting metabolic rate is the amount of energy your body expends when you are not exerting yourself, at rest. Cardio training, and especially Max-OT Cardio, has a dramatic elevating effect on your body's resting metabolic rate.

When you increase your resting metabolic rate, you increase your body's overall fat burning capabilities - you make your body much more efficient at burning body fat. Max-OT Cardio will make your body a 24-hour a day fat burning furnace. The problem with conventional, long duration, low intensity cardio is that it has minimum impact on increasing your resting metabolic rate. However, long duration, low intensity cardio will deplete glycogen stores. When this happens, you will start primarily utilizing lean muscle for your energy needs. Long duration cardio will break down muscle tissue.

A good real-world example of the difference in effect of Max-OT Cardio and long duration cardio has on athlete?s physiques is to look at sprinters and long distance runners. Sprinters are very lean and extremely muscular. Long distance runners are lanky, frail, with little muscle yet possess higher body fat levels than the sprinters.

Sprinters train in a manner that is very similar to the Max-OT Cardio principles ? short burst of maximum intensity - whereas long distance runners train more inline with the conventional cardio approach - low intensity for longer periods of time. What type of physique would you rather have?"

Any more questions?

[-Aaron-]

Originally Posted by Tysken

Ok, let's get some Science into this.
http://www.ast-ss.com/research/cribb...t.asp?rrID=395
"Body fat utilization only comes from elevating the metabolism and burning more calories than you put in on a daily basis. Low intensity aerobic exercise doesn't burn calories and stoke the metabolism the way intense exercise does."
"Long-term Studies from Laval University have confirmed that people who train intensely have more muscle and less body fat, even though they exercise for less time."

http://www.ast-ss.com/research/cribb...t.asp?rrID=248

"Understanding Cardio?s Effect on Fat Metabolism

Energy expenditure during cardio is very misunderstood. What is even more misunderstood is energy expenditure after cardio as a result of the cardio. When doing cardio, the primary energy source your body uses is glycogen. Your body uses very little, if any, fat stores for energy during cardio. Even if you haven't eaten food for several hours your body still uses glycogen as its primary energy source. You must let go of the wrong assumption that you are actually burning fat while you are doing cardio. You are not!

The benefit you get from cardio, from a fat burning standpoint (there are many other health benefits), is its effect on your resting metabolic rate. Your resting metabolic rate is the amount of energy your body expends when you are not exerting yourself, at rest. Cardio training, and especially Max-OT Cardio, has a dramatic elevating effect on your body's resting metabolic rate.

When you increase your resting metabolic rate, you increase your body's overall fat burning capabilities - you make your body much more efficient at burning body fat. Max-OT Cardio will make your body a 24-hour a day fat burning furnace. The problem with conventional, long duration, low intensity cardio is that it has minimum impact on increasing your resting metabolic rate. However, long duration, low intensity cardio will deplete glycogen stores. When this happens, you will start primarily utilizing lean muscle for your energy needs. Long duration cardio will break down muscle tissue.

A good real-world example of the difference in effect of Max-OT Cardio and long duration cardio has on athlete?s physiques is to look at sprinters and long distance runners. Sprinters are very lean and extremely muscular. Long distance runners are lanky, frail, with little muscle yet possess higher body fat levels than the sprinters.

Sprinters train in a manner that is very similar to the Max-OT Cardio principles ? short burst of maximum intensity - whereas long distance runners train more inline with the conventional cardio approach - low intensity for longer periods of time. What type of physique would you rather have?"

Any more questions?

Blah, blah, blah... I find it funny you created a new account, probably a known member worried about reps, to post that.

[Tysken]

What are you talking about? First you want "evidence" and then when someone comes up with it you just ignore it? I didn't know about this site until a few weeks ago, since I'm just a Swedish student currently studying in Santa Barbara. What do you mean with "reps" in this context?
Did you take my comment personal? Just check out the links and after that you can google the references.

[epson2007]

i used to take it easy on the treadmil at first - "the fat burning zone" i eat well (same as im doing now) and was on treadmil for an hour (6-9km), i never lost weight/fat in a month.

2 and a half months ago i upped my workout on the treadmil (11/13km) on treadmill for 30mins. ive lost a stone and 4 pounds.

high intensity imo is better, the fat burning zone imo is for people who convince themselves its better so they can do less, i can understand that as not many people here like cardio (a weights loving forum). Also im about 100000000x fitter now doing high intensity than i was doin lower intensity on the "fat burning zone"