Can Walking burn the same calories as running?

Reality_Check1

This is something I cant get my head around. Say for example a course is 5km long and for the purpose of this experiment 2 people Identical in every way are completing it. Will the person who walks the course burn the same amount of calories as the person who runs it?

Im basing this on walking will occur over a longer period of time and in relative terms the same amount of work needs to be done by the 2 people to finish the course

s.a.man

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

This is something I cant get my head around. Say for example a course is 5km long and for the purpose of this experiment 2 people Identical in every way are completing it. Will the person who walks the course burn the same amount of calories as the person who runs it?

Im basing this on walking will occur over a longer period of time and in relative terms the same amount of work needs to be done by the 2 people to finish the course

Definitely not, cause first of all the individual that runs will have a faster heart rate meaning more calories burned than the walker, but it also depends how fast you are walking BUT it will still not be the same amount! You will need to walk twice that to maybe burn as much calories.

The best way to know is to invest in a heart rate monitor that can tell you exactly how much you are burning through your exercise!

Have a look here....

http://www.argos.ie/static/Product/partNumber/9248784/Trail/searchtext%3EPOLAR.htm

Reality_Check1

s.a.man wrote: »

Definitely not, cause first of all the individual that runs will have a faster heart rate meaning more calories burned than the walker, but it also depends how fast you are walking BUT it will still not be the same amount! You will need to walk twice that to maybe burn as much calories.

The best way to know is to invest in a heart rate monitor that can tell you exactly how much you are burning through your exercise!

Have a look here....

http://www.argos.ie/static/Product/partNumber/9248784/Trail/searchtext%3EPOLAR.htm

Thanks that makes sense alright but say for example sake your HR during the run is 160 for 20 mins (not realistic Id say it would be higher but just for easiness) and for the walk it would be 80 for 40 mins (again would be higher) would that not average out as the same HR?

I know this is probably simple logic but I just cant see it at the moment

s.a.man

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

Thanks that makes sense alright but say for example sake your HR during the run is 160 for 20 mins (not realistic Id say it would be higher but just for easiness) and for the walk it would be 80 for 40 mins (again would be higher) would that not average out as the same HR?

I know this is probably simple logic but I just cant see it at the moment

Ok I will give you an example... I have a polar watch and when I walk, my heart rate is approx 135, when I run my hr is at 185 which is the best when wanting to gain the most from your exercise... You cannot look at it in the perspective of having a lower hr and doing more min because in the long run you would not gain as much as someone with a higher hr cause if the intensity of your exercise is not high than whats the use in doing exercise to start with!

Just my opinion!

Reality_Check1

s.a.man wrote: »

Ok I will give you an example... I have a polar watch and when I walk, my heart rate is approx 135, when I run my hr is at 185 which is the best when wanting to gain the most from your exercise... You cannot look at it in the perspective of having a lower hr and doing more min because in the long run you would not gain as much as someone with a higher hr cause if the intensity of your exercise is not high than whats the use in doing exercise to start with!

Just my opinion!

I get exactly where you are coming from and my intuition says that running burns the most amount of calories.

The thing thats annoying me is the science of physics and more importantly the work formula which is directly related to energy expenditure. Without getting too into it before I bore anyone to tears.

Work = Force x distance x velocity x time

The distance will always stay the same but the force velocity and time can all be changed by the effort being put in but the end figure for work would remain the same?

maddragon

I used use a treadmill alot to run the same distance every day. The time would vary depending on how motivated I felt but I always burned the exact same number of calories unless I changed the gradient. I think you will burn slightly more calories if you run but only because your arms are doing more work swinging than they would if you were walking. A treadmill will not reflect this.

maddragon

http://peakperformance.runnersworld.com/2012/05/running-vs-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn/

This link says that running a mile will burn 26% more calories than walking a mile.

Reality_Check1

maddragon wrote: »

http://peakperformance.runnersworld.com/2012/05/running-vs-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn/

This link says that running a mile will burn 26% more calories than walking a mile.

thanks a bunch thats exactly what I was looking for

TheChizler

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

The thing thats annoying me is the science of physics and more importantly the work formula which is directly related to energy expenditure. Without getting too into it before I bore anyone to tears.

Work = Force x distance x velocity x time

The distance will always stay the same but the force velocity and time can all be changed by the effort being put in but the end figure for work would remain the same?

Well work is actually force times distance so that might be the source of your confusion. It would be correct to say that the net energy required to move a block from a to b in a perfect system would be independent of velocity, but a person and track isn't a perfect system.

More energy is required to run as it is less efficient than walking. More energy is lost on the foot's impact with the ground, more heat is lost due to the increased respiration, increased energy lost through wind resistance etc, a greater velocity requires much greater energy put in (E = (1/2)*m*v^2) which you don't recover (gross energy consumed as opposed to net for the block example), albeit this won't contribute much relatively.

Edit: Apologies, your equation for work was in fact correct, just expressed in an unusual form. My bad.

2nd Edit: Actually force times velocity times time would have in fact been correct instead. I retract my first 'my bad' and replace it with a subsequent one.

Mellor

s.a.man wrote: »

Ok I will give you an example... I have a polar watch and when I walk, my heart rate is approx 135, when I run my hr is at 185 which is the best when wanting to gain the most from your exercise... You cannot look at it in the perspective of having a lower hr and doing more min because in the long run you would not gain as much as someone with a higher hr cause if the intensity of your exercise is not high than whats the use in doing exercise to start with!

Just my opinion!

A higher heartrate doesn't prove a thing in relation to total calories burnt. A higher heartrate means you burn calories at a higher rate, but saying this automatically means the total is more is ignoring the time spent completing the walk/run.

You had the right answer, but your reasons and example were completely wrong.



OP, running burns slightly more calories as it is less efficient, as TheChizler said above. An exception for walking at a very slow speed, which is very inefficient and burns more calories per km (but you don't cover many KMs).

But don't dwell too much on it, even if they burned the same amount over the same distance, running would have the advantage as you'd get more work done quicker.

Doug Cartel

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

The thing thats annoying me is the science of physics and more importantly the work formula which is directly related to energy expenditure.

That only applies to a closed system, and in reality not all the work we do while running gets translated to moving us forward.

Think about it this way, if it was really the case that you expended the same amount of energy whether you ran or walked, why would anyone walk? Everyone would run full clip all the time. In reality, walking makes much more efficient use of the expended energy, so we only run if we have to.