Jogging vs Walking

tommyombomb

My friend and I have been having an argument in relation to calories burnt.

We have being arguing over the following:

If done over 10km, is there the same calories burnt the same for the period involved to complete the distance.

hegarty147 is the guy who thinks runnig is the same as walking so not my fault if this sounds stupid

JimmyCrackCorn

Do you really need an answer to this question or is it a wind-up?

long range shooter

WALK*

RUN**



CALS/MILE

88.9*

112.5**



CALS/MINUTE

4.78*

11.25**



AFTER-BURN/MILE

21.7*

46.1**



NEW TOTAL/MILE

110.6*

158.6**



CALS/MINUTE

5.95*

15.86**


*one mile walk in 18:36; ** one mile run in 10:00

Woofstuff

long range shooter wrote: »

WALK*

RUN**



CALS/MILE

88.9*

112.5**



CALS/MINUTE

4.78*

11.25**



AFTER-BURN/MILE

21.7*

46.1**



NEW TOTAL/MILE

110.6*

158.6**



CALS/MINUTE

5.95*

15.86**


*one mile walk in 18:36; ** one mile run in 10:00

what about hills. If half of the run is up a steep hill. You haven't accounted for that!!

long range shooter

Woofstuff wrote: »

what about hills. If half of the run is up a steep hill. You haven't accounted for that!!

Well its just to show the difference between walking and jogging,like OP asked for.
And to walk up a hill or run it,i think thats quite obvious where you use the most calories.

darlett

Afraid to say I'm with your mate Hegarty147-the difference would be negligible. It is of course tempting to think running burns more but I think its something of a trick.

If you take calories as a measurement of energy. It takes energy to do work. Energy is defined as the capacity to do work. Simple physics will state Work = Force * Distance. The Distance stays the same. Force is Mass X Acceleration-If you jog at a steady rate then acceleration at the very beginning is the main source of difference. The Mass stays the same. Essentially the only difference is time. And time does not come into this. Neither do hills. The same object is being moved through the same conditions.

robinph

Who uses the most energy between Bolt doing a 200m sprint in the Olympics, and the kid walking to the finish line carrying his tracksuit?

More energy has to be used to accelerate and then maintain the speed when running when compared with walking.

robinph

darlett wrote: »

Afraid to say I'm with your mate Hegarty147-the difference would be negligible. It is of course tempting to think running burns more but I think its something of a trick.

If you take calories as a measurement of energy. It takes energy to do work. Energy is defined as the capacity to do work. Simple physics will state Work = Force * Distance. The Distance stays the same. Force is Mass X Acceleration-If you jog at a steady rate then acceleration at the very beginning is the main source of difference. The Mass stays the same. Essentially the only difference is time. And time does not come into this. Neither do hills. The same object is being moved through the same conditions.

If you were wearing rollerskates then you could eliminate the acceleration from the equation, but it is not possible to free wheel when running and you use a lot of energy to maintain the speed.

darlett

robinph wrote: »

More energy has to be used to accelerate and then maintain the speed when running when compared with walking.

Yes running uses more energy than walking. But you run for a shorter time. Walking uses energy for a longer time. The object is essentially moved from A to B.

Run 10km in maybe 60 minutes, then sit down put your feet up. The walker is probably at 5km at that stage. By the time the walker hits 10km its maybe 2 hours. Very much the same work has been done calorie-wise.

darlett

robinph wrote: »

If you were wearing rollerskates then you could eliminate the acceleration from the equation, but it is not possible to free wheel when running and you use a lot of energy to maintain the speed.

To put things in terms of your choosing, a rollerskater or simpler still a cyclist travelling on a flat track can not actually free wheel if they want to maintain speed. They have to put in a level of effort to keep that going at say a speed of 20km/hr. But if starting from a standstill, they have to put in a greater effort to reach that speed initially. That's your acceleration.

Acceleration and maintaining speed are two completely different factors. And the difference in calories spent by the jogger accelerating to jogging speed compared to the walker is negligible.

Woofstuff

darlett wrote: »

Yes running uses more energy than walking. But you run for a shorter time. Walking uses energy for a longer time. The object is essentially moved from A to B.

Run 10km in maybe 60 minutes, then sit down put your feet up. The walker is probably at 5km at that stage. By the time the walker hits 10km its maybe 2 hours. Very much the same work has been done calorie-wise.

A car travelling at 160kmph will travel 160km in an hour.

A car travelling at 80kmph will travel 160km in two hours.

Which uses more fuel? Www.mpgforspeed.com

I don't know if the same principles apply to walking and jogging but my uneducated guess is that they do.

darlett

Woofstuff wrote: »

A car travelling at 160kmph will travel 160km in an hour.

A car travelling at 80kmph will travel 160km in two hours.

Which uses more fuel? Www.mpgforspeed.com

I don't know if the same principles apply to walking and jogging but my uneducated guess is that they do.

On a side note, I do like when someone on a quiz show, often a contestant on the Eggheads takes what they call an educated guess-and proceed to pick the wrong answer.

Your point about efficiency is hitting the nail on the head. Straight dope attempts to answer it. He basically concludes that running does use more calories but that is only because energy is lost to impacting into the ground-and that actually if you walk really fast that becomes similarly inefficient. FWIW I quote from his point 3 that "Gait is the critical issue, incidentally--running speed is irrelevant". Of course he could be wrong too but its much more complex an issue than it seems.

Granted people walking for exercise may do so with purpose but dont speed walk and wont reach the suggested speed of 5mph in order for their walk to become sufficiently inefficient so I'll admit defeat* but I'm going to leave an asterisk beside it. :pac:






*I'm RIGHT again

robinph

darlett wrote: »

Yes running uses more energy than walking. But you run for a shorter time. Walking uses energy for a longer time. The object is essentially moved from A to B.

Run 10km in maybe 60 minutes, then sit down put your feet up. The walker is probably at 5km at that stage. By the time the walker hits 10km its maybe 2 hours. Very much the same work has been done calorie-wise.

I'd have my feet put up long before then.

darlett wrote: »

To put things in terms of your choosing, a rollerskater or simpler still a cyclist travelling on a flat track can not actually free wheel if they want to maintain speed. They have to put in a level of effort to keep that going at say a speed of 20km/hr. But if starting from a standstill, they have to put in a greater effort to reach that speed initially. That's your acceleration.

Acceleration and maintaining speed are two completely different factors. And the difference in calories spent by the jogger accelerating to jogging speed compared to the walker is negligible.

There is significantly less energy required to keep something with wheels moving at the same speed than there is something balancing on a pair of legs.