running vs walking

moonfish

the age old question the advantages of walking versus running ...going start up one or the other was running a lot there last year but the missus went mad reckoned i was losing far to much weight ..since then ive started doing weights and feel a lot better about myself only now i feel i must get a bit of cardio just thinking would a brisk 30 min walk have much benefit cardiovascularly or would it have to running to benefit

Parsley

running vs walking - you'll burn the same calories if you cover the same distance, you'll just burn them faster if you run. if you're overweight, running can be bad for your joints bearing a heavy load considering the higher impact. the higher intensity of running will be better for cardiovascular conditioning but it all depends on what your goals are.

corkcomp

why not do both? its hard to give more specific advice without knowing your goals / stats too!

Firedance

Parsley wrote: »

running vs walking - you'll burn the same calories if you cover the same distance, you'll just burn them faster if you run. if you're overweight, running can be bad for your joints bearing a heavy load considering the higher impact. the higher intensity of running will be better for cardiovascular conditioning but it all depends on what your goals are.

its that really true? if I walk 3K I'll burn the same number of calories as I would if I ran 3K? That doesn't make sense to me as when I run I have to breathe faster, my legs tire out & its way more effort etc but if I walk I would rarely be able to walk fast enough to get out of breath. Surely the calories burned are directly proportional to the effort put in?..

marathonic

Firedance wrote: »

its that really true? if I walk 3K I'll burn the same number of calories as I would if I ran 3K? That doesn't make sense to me as when I run I have to breathe faster, my legs tire out & its way more effort etc but if I walk I would rarely be able to walk fast enough to get out of breath. Surely the calories burned are directly proportional to the effort put in?..

Yeah, it's true. A 3 mile walk will take about an hour whilst a 3 mile jog will take about 25 minutes. Both will burn 330 calories or so for the average person.

What you seem to be getting at is the fact that the calories burned -per minute- are directly proportional to the effort put in (the walk burns about 5.5 calories per minute whilst the run burns about 13.2 calories per minute)

Sparky_Larks

from a physics point of view, energy is equal to the mass by distance moved.
from a body point of view it is a little different, as we use muscles standing still .

for the average person walking(3mph) you will burn about 90 calories a mile, running about 110 calories a mile.

yes the faster you run the more calories per mile that you burn but it is only a slight increase. the big thing is the distance traveled.

Of course as said earlier, because running you cover more ground int he same time you tend to burn more calories per work out.

as most of use only have a set time to do our workout, running tends to be more effective than walking.

e.g. I have time to run 3 miles before work in the morning, I don;t have time to walk the same three miles

http://walking.about.com/od/calorie1/a/calorieswalkrun.htm

Seachmall

Firedance wrote: »

its that really true?

Simple answer: No. But it's more complicated than that and depends on your speed and form and many other variables but typically running will burn more calories over the same distance.

Runners World
Every Day Health
Running Planet
IPM
That's Fit

Gumbi

Seachmall wrote: »

Simple answer: No. But it's more complicated than that and depends on your speed and form and many other variables but typically running will burn more calories over the same distance.

Runners World
Every Day Health
Running Planet
IPM
That's Fit

From a common sense standpoint, this is what I would have guessed. I would have said walking is more efficient than running.

Thinking about it logically - it's possible to walk very long distances without stopping, the same is not true for running.

thesimpsons

myself and partner took up walking in December combined with a change in diet in effort to get fit and healthier following stern talking-to by the GP. We are now walking 4 miles a day virtually every day easily enough (6 miles on a sunday) at a 4mph pace. should we increase pace or distance? I think I would find it hard to increase pace without moving on to jogging though as we are both short legged and have a very short stride. don't particularly want to take up jogging cos of potential ankle/knee problems that most joggers our age seem to be afflicted by.

marathonic

thesimpsons wrote: »

myself and partner took up walking in December combined with a change in diet in effort to get fit and healthier following stern talking-to by the GP. We are now walking 4 miles a day virtually every day easily enough (6 miles on a sunday) at a 4mph pace. should we increase pace or distance? I think I would find it hard to increase pace without moving on to jogging though as we are both short legged and have a very short stride. don't particularly want to take up jogging cos of potential ankle/knee problems that most joggers our age seem to be afflicted by.

The problem with increasing distance is time constraints. Your sunday walk is taking about 1.5 hours. Do you have the time and motivation to go for much longer? You could consider adding another form of excercise as you're currently walking for 7.5 hours per week. Varying it up will reduce the potential boredom. Cycling is a good choice to avoid knee problems. Another option would be swimming.

Personally, I get slight knee discomfort when I jog over 5 mile but I completed a 65 mile cycle today with no problems - as did a lot of older club members. Obviously, you wouldn't need to be doing 65 mile cycles. A 20 mile cycle would be a good target to aim for for someone not looking to get competitive and would take about 1.5 hours for a beginner.

thesimpsons

cycling is an option and would do it in the summer time but will have to wait for brighter evenings to do it regularly. I've a walking partner half the time so boredom hasn't become an issue (yet anyway!) When it gets brighter I'll do every second day walk/cycle so. tks

Mellor

Gumbi wrote: »

From a common sense standpoint, this is what I would have guessed. I would have said walking is more efficient than running.

Thinking about it logically - it's possible to walk very long distances without stopping, the same is not true for running.

Thats true, but its not logic.

The reason we can walk longer distances is not because walking is more efficient than running. Is simple becasue we fatigue sooner when we put in more effort.

There is little difference in walking and running in terms of calories burned per mile (running is slightly ahead) but in terms of per minute the better option is obvious.