Walking VS Running a mile - equal calories?

[d2bstud69]

One of my friends recently told me that walking a mile and running a mile burn about the same amount of calories(around 100), regardless of speed. Aerobic/Cardiovascular benefits aside, is this true? I do realize walking a mile means a lot more exercise time, but I still feel like running burns more calories.

[pats55583]

I personally don't believe it is the same. Running will elevate your heart rate much more, and is obviously much harder. Which in turn, I think also creates a greater post caloric burn afterwards

[kgitaitis]

One of my friends recently told me that walking a mile and running a mile burn about the same amount of calories(around 100), regardless of speed. Aerobic/Cardiovascular benefits aside, is this true? I do realize walking a mile means a lot more exercise time, but I still feel like running burns more calories.

i have heard that as well. it makes sense though. if you walk at 3 mph it'll take you one hour to burn those 300 calories.
if you run at say, 6 mph, you'll burn that 300 in less time (30 min.)
so might as well run, to get it done sooner.

running gets the heart rate up higher, though, which has benefits of its own. So for simply burning x amount of calories, then yea the same, but running, in my opinion has more benefits.

[Mnx4]

I really don't see how that's possible. If you walked and ran at the same speed, you'd still burn more calories running. If you jogged the same speed your friend walked at, you'd tire faster because of the difference in gait: walking is long strides, with arms loose and swaying whereas jogging is short strides, arms moving back and forth. You put in more effort jogging/running than walking.

If he were talking speed walking on an incline versus running on a flat surface, then maybe, but still.

[b.spencer]

Run, Don't Walk - The Truth About Running Versus Walking

By Rick Morris ( http://www.runningplanet.com/trainin...s-walking.html )


A line has been drawn in the sand. We are squaring off , choosing up sides. A major battle is beginning. Well. maybe not. But there is a debate going on in the world of exercise. It is running versus walking. For years fitness enthusiasts have believed that walking and running burned the same number of calories per mile. This old school thinking says no matter what speed we move, we are expending around 100 calories per mile when moving over level ground. If you crawled 1 mile you used up 100 calories. Did you just sprint a mile? You still burned 100 calories. We believed this because it is what we have been told for years and years. Since we have been told this for so long it must be correct, right? Not necessarily.

The study of exercise and human movement is just like any other science. It is a work in progress. We are always discovering new information that makes some accepted beliefs outdated. Don?t forget we used to think the world was flat. Aristotle dispelled the myth of a flat earth. This confusion over calories can be blamed on Sir Isaac Newton. It is Newtonian physics that shows it takes a specific amount of energy to move a specific mass a certain distance. In other words, physics tells us that it takes the same number of calories to move your body one mile no matter how fast you are moving.

According to science, the old school is correct. But wait, not so fast. The new school proponents believe that running burns more calories per mile than walking. A recent study on running versus walking seems to support the new school train of thought. Researchers at Syracuse University conducted a study in December of 2004 for the purpose of comparing the energy expenditure of walking and running with equations that predict energy expenditure. As a part of that study the researchers needed to determine whether differences exist in energy expenditure of walking versus running. The researchers measured the calorie burn of 12 male and 12 female subjects as they both ran and walked for 1600 meters on a track and a treadmill. Each subject ran at one specific pace and walked at one specific pace. The scientists, headed by Jill A. Kanaley, PhD in the Department of Exercise Science, found that the women expended about 105 calories while running versus only 74 when walking. The men had similar results of 124 calories when running compared with just 88 calories burned while walking. (Med Sci Sports Exerc.2004 Dec;36(12):2128-34). That seems like a big difference, but it is actually even larger. To get the true number of calories burned from exercise, you must subtract the calories you would have consumed at rest. After taking away those ?resting? calories, the net calorie burn for the women was 91 running versus 43 walking. For the men the net calories burned was 105 running versus 52 walking. So, in reality, the subjects were burning more than twice the calories when running versus walking.

It would be nice if the answer to the running versus walking question was that easy. But let?s take a closer look at this study. The subjects in this investigation walked and ran at only one pace. They walked at 1.41 meters per second and ran at 2.82 meters per second. At those specific paces, the subjects did average twice the calorie burn while running. But does that result hold up at all walking and running paces? Another study showed that it does not. This study was conducted by the Washington University School of Medicine for the purpose of investigating the energy expenditure and perceived exertion levels of walking and running at various speeds. The subjects each walked for 5 minutes at various paces ranging from 4 to 10.4 kilometers per hour and ran for 5 minutes at paces from 7.2 to 10.4 kilometers per hour. This study concluded that walking burns more calories than running at speeds greater than 8 kilometers per hour (5 miles per hour). The study also showed that walking felt harder than running at speeds over 5 miles per hour. (J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2000 Dec;40(4):297-302).

So, who is right? Does the old school thinking still hold up or is the new school correct? The answer is that both are right! Before you get mad at me for giving you a non-answer, please read on. Generally speaking, running does burn more calories than walking. Why is that? That is a very good question with a fairly simple answer. When we walk or run, each stride results in some impact force as our lead foot strikes the ground. The mechanics of running and walking are very different. When walking we always have one foot on the ground. Our body weight is always supported. Each stride results in a force equaling our body weight being applied to our leg muscles. If you weigh 150 lbs. each stride places about 150 pounds of load on your leg. Running is very different. When running you are completely airborne between foot plants. When your lead foot comes down, it is absorbing more than your body weight due to the effects of gravity. The force placed on your leg muscles with each running stride will vary depending upon how fast you are running. When you run faster your stride becomes longer. A longer stride equals more force with each stride. The impact for each stride will vary from 1.5 times to over 4 times your body weight, depending upon your speed. It requires many more calories to absorb these much higher impact forces and to propel yourself with the next stride.

In most cases running burns more calories than walking, but when walking at increasing paces you eventually reach a point at which the walking becomes more difficult than running. That point is called the preferred walk-run transition speed (PTS). It is at this point that walking begins to burn more calories than running. The study from Washington University showed that this point occurs at approximately 5 MPH. However, this will vary slightly depending upon your fitness level and how efficient you are at walking and running. One of the predictors of running performance is running economy. This is simply a measure of how efficient you are at running. If two runners of equal fitness levels were running a race, the runner that is the most efficient will win. That is because a more efficient runner is able to run faster with less effort. Running with less effort means you are burning fewer calories. A more efficient runner would probably reach the walk-run transition speed at slower speeds than a less efficient runner.

The bottom line is that the number of calories burned during walking and running is not a static number. It is a dynamic measure that will increase as your speed and effort level increases. Each of us will have a preferred walk-run transition speed (PTS). Running at speeds slower than your PTS will feel harder and will burn more calories than walking. Walking at speeds faster than your PTS will feel harder and will burn more calories than running. The average PTS is about 5 MPH but your individual PTS will depend upon your fitness level and your walking/running efficiency. Your calorie burn per mile will increase as you accelerate at speeds faster than your PTS.

As you can see, the answer to the question of calorie confusion is that both sides are correct. There is a point at which the calorie burn per mile of walking versus running is equal. There is also a level at which walking burns more calories per mile than running. But, at speeds of 5 MPH or faster, running will burn more calories per mile than walking. It is very difficult to estimate your exact level of calorie burn per mile without expensive laboratory analysis. In order to simplify things you will always get a fairly close estimate of your calorie burn by using the old accepted equation of 100 calories per mile. It will not be exact, but it will be close and easy.

[kgitaitis]

I have tested this out, and i suggest those who disagree to do the same.
Get on a treadmill and enter your weight.
Walk consistently for one mile (at the same pace, say 4 mph)
then
Run consistently for one mile (at same pace at say, 6 mph)

you will burn roughly the same amount of calories. Of course you'll be done with the run quicker.

The 100 calories per mile is an estimate as it is a base but is dependent on your weight. Some one 300 pounds may burn 150 calories per mile and someone who is a 100 pounds may only burn 85. So the 100 is an average.

[Mnx4]

Right. When speed is held constant, the calories should be the same. When time is constant, running burns more calories per unit time than walking.

[Tiffany_P]

I have tested this out, and i suggest those who disagree to do the same.
Get on a treadmill and enter your weight.
Walk consistently for one mile (at the same pace, say 4 mph)
then
Run consistently for one mile (at same pace at say, 6 mph)

you will burn roughly the same amount of calories. Of course you'll be done with the run quicker.

The 100 calories per mile is an estimate as it is a base but is dependent on your weight. Some one 300 pounds may burn 150 calories per mile and someone who is a 100 pounds may only burn 85. So the 100 is an average.

All you've proven is that the treadmill doesn't use mph in its calorie estimating algorithm.

[ironford]

Right. When speed is held constant, the calories should be the same. When time is constant, running burns more calories per unit time than walking.

did you read the first post? we allready know if you go off of time running is far better.

and yes if you go off distance you will burn close to the same amount of cals.

[kgitaitis]

All you've proven is that the treadmill doesn't use mph in its calorie estimating algorithm.

huh?
If you don't enter your weight on the tread it will give you the same results. But will be more accurate if you put in your weight
go do it and you'll see.

[hainter]

calories are a measure of energy. to move your body 1 mile it takes the same amount of energy no matter how fast or slow you do it. the difference is your body may be more efficient at one or the other and generally i think most people are more efficient at walking.

as to the health benefits of one verses the other....i will leave that to more qualified people than myself.

[post_terminal]

Good point hainter.
Although technically the "calories" used up may be the same for 1 mile walking vs running, but where the body draws those calories from may differ.
If i recollect correctly, walking would tend to burn more fat whereas running would draw energy from carbohydrates (and may be muscles). I may be wrong though, so please correct me if that.

[sokrispy]

step-for-step, the energy expenditure is probably close to equal, but you'll use more calories to repair your body after running. and complementary, walking is more likely to burn fat than glycogen because you're not exerting your muscles nearly as much.

I prefer a relaxed jog, pretty consistent heartrate and I can go much longer without stressing out my hip joints. best of both worlds I guess.

[Nara62629]

calories are a measure of energy. to move your body 1 mile it takes the same amount of energy no matter how fast or slow you do it. the difference is your body may be more efficient at one or the other and generally i think most people are more efficient at walking.

as to the health benefits of one verses the other....i will leave that to more qualified people than myself.

right, and since walking is more efficient its burns slighty less cals. Overall is it very close, unless you're comparing walking at 2mph compared to running at 8 mph. but walking 3mph vs. jogging at 5mph are very close to burning the same cals per mile. i mean, pushing yourself off the grounding running obviously takes a lil more energy.
I'm in the camp of do whichever you like best, they can both help. I actually do both, i'm doing a 5k interval program rite now. Right now, just jogging for 60 secs and walking for 90, and i do that for 40 mins.
but yes, running does burn a lil more cals, but it is very close, i have done the math b4 to figure cals/mile. at diff speeds.

[Dieteticz]

Running has superior caloric burn. One simple reason why: your body is losing more ATP as heat, which results in the higher core temperature your body reaches during running.

Simply put, you burn more calories running because lots of caloric energy is being lost as heat due to the motor inefficiency increase at higher body temperatures (think driving 95 mph vs. 55 mph and how much gasoline your engine uses mile per mile).

[Tiffany_P]

huh?
If you don't enter your weight on the tread it will give you the same results. But will be more accurate if you put in your weight
go do it and you'll see.

?? Who said anything about weight? Of course it takes weight into consideration. I'm saying that the treadmill's algorithm uses distance to estimate calories, not speed. The treadmill doesn't know if you're walking or jogging or crawling on your hands and feet. It doesn't know how hard you're working or which muscles you are using. It is merely estimating your calories based on what it thinks the average person of a given weight would burn.

Trying to use the treadmill's estimation of calorie expenditure to prove that walking burns the same calories as running is like trying to use BMI to prove that two people of the same height and weight have the same body composition.

[1fast68]

I know that I'm new to the board, but....if it takes more effort it burns more calories regardless of what movement it is.

[ironford]

Running has superior caloric burn. One simple reason why: your body is losing more ATP as heat, which results in the higher core temperature your body reaches during running.

Simply put, you burn more calories running because lots of caloric energy is being lost as heat due to the motor inefficiency increase at higher body temperatures (think driving 95 mph vs. 55 mph and how much gasoline your engine uses mile per mile).

yeah and if you run your body will also be hungrier though out the day.....

tons of pros and cons each way bottom like diet is number one walk vs running is close so pick on you will stick to

[kgitaitis]

I know that I'm new to the board, but....if it takes more effort it burns more calories regardless of what movement it is.

i am a runner.
The origonal question was, "if you were to walk 1 MILE AND RUN 1 MILE WOULD YOU BURN around 100 calories.
The answer is YES. But it will take a longer time if you were walking. But eventually, when you walk that mile, around 100 calories will have been burned.
if you ran it, you would burn that 100 quicker because you are using more effort.

[jonwilson]

what a bunch of bs, running for 10 minutes prolly burns more calories than an hour of walking. not to mention epoc.

[ironford]

what a bunch of bs, running for 10 minutes prolly burns more calories than an hour of walking. not to mention epoc.

wrong

[quickrob]

I would say the post calorie burn of running would be far superior. So while the time spent on the treadmill might yield the same the overall calorie burning benefit would go to running.

imho

[ironford]

i doubt it would be far superior lol mabye a little bit,

seriously anything debated this much back and forth doesn't have a huge advantage one way or the other

[bodydropcris]

just out of curiosity i tested my treadmill, and at 3% incline it gave 146 calories @ 2.8 mph (around 21 min), 182 calories at 6.5 mph (about 9 1/2 min), and 176 calories @ 10 mph (6 min)..... oh well....

[precisou2004]

regardless of how long it takes you to run/walk a certain distance, it will be burned the same calories.. you are still doing 1 mile whether u run or walk it.. its the same distance, same calories will be burned. Running it of course ull burn them faster than walking.....

plain and simple

[dark-m]

I have read some studies on this and this is what I understood from it:

yes generally you get the same calorie expenditure/mile walking or running


HOWEVER when running we are generally higher in the air and the effect of gravity when landing on the foot is much higher than when walking

so to launch ourselves back in the air it will take more energy for the muscle to negate the gravity effect. We feel the difference in the knees in running vs walking because of the harder impact, therefore its obvious the muscle will work harder in running vs walking.

Its logical and there is scientific proof, so I believe there is a difference and u spend more calories, but not much more


i personally walk most times

[SocratesTX]

Did you know that eating cheetos for an hour burns as many calories as an hour of HIIT cardio!?!? And all this time we though we had to work harder for better results. Seriously, anyone who thinks distance has anything to do with calorie expenditure is ridiculous. Also, for those saying a tread gives you information - they are horribly inaccurate. If you want to know what your expenditure is, get tested, get a HR monitor, set it correctly and then measure. Each and every person that is exactly the same age, height, weight and diet will have different expenditures.

[ironford]

Seriously, anyone who thinks distance has anything to do with calorie expenditure is ridiculous. .

ok ive read some bad info on here but this is about the worst lol

[thebm]

no matter how far you walk, you aren't gonna be dripping sweat and gasping for air when you're done. walking is for lazy people

[ironford]

no matter how far you walk, you aren't gonna be dripping sweat and gasping for air when you're done. walking is for lazy people

sweat has nothing to do with cals burnt