Walking V's Running

Khannie

Does running a short distance (say 5-6K per day) require any more recovery than walking the equivalent distance?

I walk about 6K to and from work every day (3K each way, give or take) and was thinking about running it. I know the calorie burn is similar enough (or so similar that I wont get upset about it) but running has the benefit of improving cardio fitness.

Of course, this is on top of all my other exercise so I don't want to burn myself out.

cowzerp

Walking is for old people, unfit people or people with injuries!

Running is for anyone who is capable to do it, i hate walking, its only usefull to get me from a to b without been sweaty!

3K wont burn you out, go for it-leave the walking to the lazy people or the unable.

d-gal

You will burn a hell of lot more calories, probably double the amount. The extra fitness is no harm and it should only take you around 12-15minutes, bit of extra sleep in the morning then and home earlier for the dinner

rccaulfield

Walking does not burn anywhere near the same amount of calories as running. All you're doing is burning the fuel thats in ur legs, Running on the other hand burns fat once all that fuel is gone along with the extra air your body takes in.
Also to answer your question- its whatever your body tells u-i dont know your circumstances- But u shouldnt need any recovery after walking- Ul need a day off every now and then if running(At least 2 a week)

BossArky

You'll burn the same amount of calories walking or running 3km.

Advantages of running: save time, increased cardio fitness

Advantages of walking: no need for shower after, you won't have to gulp down as many fumes if in the city, slightly safer

cowzerp

BossArky wrote: »

Advantages of walking: ,you won't have to gulp down as many fumes if in the city,

So breathing in dirty air over 30 mins is better than breathing it in over 10 mins now? wear a scarf over your mouth if your that worried!

cozmik

BossArky wrote: »

You'll burn the same amount of calories walking or running 3km.

I think you would burn more calories running.

celestial

Running burns more calories than walking, at speeds above ~5km/h. And considering that anything below that speed could not really be considered running, rest assured that you should be running for fat loss and fitness, not walking!!

r3nu4l

cowzerp wrote: »

So breathing in dirty air over 30 mins is better than breathing it in over 10 mins now? wear a scarf over your mouth if your that worried!

It's how deep you breathe it into your lungs that's the problem when running in the city, also you tend to breathe far more frequently and heavily when running, it's nowhere near the same amount.

cowzerp

apart from you stating the obvious, I dont think so, Dublin is not that bad! your going to breath in for much longer and take in as many if not more breaths in a longer time span.

TBH i dont think its even a valid argument as its certainly not going to make much difference either way.

BossArky

cowzerp wrote: »

So breathing in dirty air over 30 mins is better than breathing it in over 10 mins now? wear a scarf over your mouth if your that worried!

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt and snot rags as evidence.

I used to walk ~3km to work (in London), then 3km back a few years ago. Every now and again I'd run it. Blowing my nose after running deposited much more gunk in the tissue. Runing causes you to breath heavily and suck in more crap. Running caused me to get a tad wheezy / coughy, walking didn't (and I was fit enough for the running).

cozmik wrote: »

I think you would burn more calories running.

No, you are moving a fixed weight over a fixed distance. The energy required to do this is the same, .. the only thing which varies is the time.

If you want to get really anal you can say that at a really slow walking speed you will actually have to expend a tiny few extra calories to walk 3km than run 3km.

e.g. take 1 step, stop for a second.. take another step, etc, etc...

You have to overcome inertia each time you want to start from a stop. When running or walking quickly you don't have to overcome this stop.... so really slow walking burns more calories.

cozmik

http://www.runningplanet.com/training/running-versus-walking.html

davyjose

cowzerp wrote: »

Walking is for old people, unfit people or people with injuries!

Running is for anyone who is capable to do it, i hate walking, its only usefull to get me from a to b without been sweaty!

3K wont burn you out, go for it-leave the walking to the lazy people or the unable.

People who are lazy walk to work??? And what about the people who drive? Or get the bus? Not wishing to pick you up over a simple remark, but calling people who walk lazy is unfair IMO, it's a lot better than many.

rccaulfield

BossArky wrote: »

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt and snot rags as evidence.

I used to walk ~3km to work (in London), then 3km back a few years ago. Every now and again I'd run it. Blowing my nose after running deposited much more gunk in the tissue. Runing causes you to breath heavily and suck in more crap. Running caused me to get a tad wheezy / coughy, walking didn't (and I was fit enough for the running).



No, you are moving a fixed weight over a fixed distance. The energy required to do this is the same, .. the only thing which varies is the time.

If you want to get really anal you can say that at a really slow walking speed you will actually have to expend a tiny few extra calories to walk 3km than run 3km.

e.g. take 1 step, stop for a second.. take another step, etc, etc...

You have to overcome inertia each time you want to start from a stop. When running or walking quickly you don't have to overcome this stop.... so really slow walking burns more calories.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=P4teZRbYZiw
Tell me your not serious!
I would advise walking to be used to start off with for very heavy people! Or elderly people!

Reyman

BossArky wrote: »

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt and snot rags as evidence.




No, you are moving a fixed weight over a fixed distance. The energy required to do this is the same, .. the only thing which varies is the time.

If you want to get really anal you can say that at a really slow walking speed you will actually have to expend a tiny few extra calories to walk 3km than run 3km.

e.g. take 1 step, stop for a second.. take another step, etc, etc...

You have to overcome inertia each time you want to start from a stop. When running or walking quickly you don't have to overcome this stop.... so really slow walking burns more calories.

I'm afraid I'm on the other side of the fence on this one. Running definitely burns more calories than walking. The critical factor is the wind resistance which rises at approximately the square of the speed you're travelling at.

More resistance means more calories consumed.

Think of a car going at 30mph it gets 60mpg. Drive it faster at 60mph it gets 35mpg. i.e it uses more energy at the higher speed.

cowzerp

davyjose wrote: »

People who are lazy walk to work??? And what about the people who drive? Or get the bus? Not wishing to pick you up over a simple remark, but calling people who walk lazy is unfair IMO, it's a lot better than many.

im talking about for exercise purposes, thats what the op is asking about.

madmik

i have heard this argument many times and i firmly believe the running is much more difficult,better for fitness,should be done by everybody whos able for it,requires more stabilising muscles,more explosiveness,and exerts the muscles more

it also stretches the heart and lungs and increases cardiovascular function

walking is better than driving and its a good start for the drastically unfit who cant even jog for a minute on minute off

but its definately not equal to running

even if the energy expenditure were the same and im not saying that it is but the running would also speed your metabolism up and this would put u in a fat burning state for 24+hours after the run

on top gear the bugatti veyron has 1000 horse power

it uses only 200hp to get to 200kmh and it needs to use an additional 800hp to get from 200kmh to 400kmh because the faster u go the more the wind resistance multplies slowing you down

Khannie

Lads, you're splitting hairs here. My understanding is that there's a similar number of calories burned for the same distance and I haven't read anything that contradicts that. I'm not really concerned about that anyway....

What I'm looking to find out (and thanks to those who did give answers) was whether this would place an extra strain on an already strained body since the amount of effort expended was roughly equivalent. I work out twice a day most days and I was concerned that swapping 6K of walking for 6K of running might do more harm than good.

celestial

Khannie wrote: »

Lads, you're splitting hairs here. My understanding is that there's a similar number of calories burned for the same distance and I haven't read anything that contradicts that. I'm not really concerned about that anyway....

What I'm looking to find out (and thanks to those who did give answers) was whether this would place an extra strain on an already strained body since the amount of effort expended was roughly equivalent. I work out twice a day most days and I was concerned that swapping 6K of walking for 6K of running might do more harm than good.

It's a question no-one can answer cos it is individual-specific, so you will know best! Key to this is listening to your body - when am I feeling lazy vs. when am I genuinely tired, when to rest and when to push yourself.

BossArky

Reyman wrote: »

The critical factor is the wind resistance

madmik wrote: »

the faster u go the more the wind resistance multplies slowing you down

rccaulfield wrote: »

I would advise walking to be used to start off with for very heavy people! Or elderly people!

You are all correct... but the context of this thread is walking 3km to work vs running 3km to work for someone who is not elderly or sumo heavy (Khannie - correct me if I am wrong). We are not talking about run speeds to equal the olympic distance 100m. Therefore, the calorific expenditure will be pretty similar.

I guess Khannie would be travelling at somewhere between 10-12kmph, covering the 3km distance in 15 to 18 minutes. Factor in stops for crossing roads, weaving through people, traffic lights etc and you loose more speed/time/intensity.

Wind resistance is only a factor if you are going a lot faster.

hunnymonster

or the wind is very very strong but again that's unlikely in an urban area. BossArky is right, caloriewise there will be little difference between running and walking similar distances.

Khannie

BossArky wrote: »

not elderly or sumo heavy (Khannie - correct me if I am wrong).

Haha. Definitely not elderly or sumo heavy.

edit:

cowzerp wrote: »

Dublin is not that bad!

I'd agree with this. The air quality in Dublin is about the best of any city it size IMO. First thing in the morning it's actually really fresh in the city.