While this is completely unscientific… it is a very well observed fact. (by me anyway…) … you will ALMOST NEVER see a fat runner… but you’ll see MANY a obese walker.
To me, that’s explanation enough.
Link to column: Exercise! Does running burn more calories than walking? – CKDH
I think you’re more likely to see fat people walking as an exercise choice because it tends to hurt them to run. They get plantar fasiitis in their feet and aching joints when they run. They still burn about the same number of calories walking a mile as those who run it because it takes them longer and they have that load to carry.
After they lose weight then they often do start running but by then they’re that skinny person you see running. To answer the question: Minute per minute a person burns more calories running than walking; but it’s all good.
jester, when you start a thread, it’s helpful to other readers if you provide a link to the column. Yes, it’s today’s column, it’s on the front page, but in a week or so, it will fall into the depths of the Archives and require searching time. So, to help keep us on the same page (and to avoid having people repeat what Cecil has already said), it’s helpful to provide the link.
No biggie, you’ll know for next time. I’ve fixed it for you.
I read that one doctor posited that running burns a few more calories because there’s a little more “up-and-down” body movement than there is with just walking. Can’t vouch for it’s accuracy, but it is something else to consider.
If I take my Datsun out and put it in first gear, if I let totally off on the gas it will idle along without stalling at about 2 MPH. With a tiny bit of gas pedal pressure, I can double that to about 4.
Once upon a time, when I was about 17, the fuel pump died on a quiet residential street about 20 blocks from home, and I didn’t feel like paying for a tow truck, so I conned my friend into sitting perched on the radiator and spraying gasoline from a spray bottle down the neck of the carburetor while I drove one-handed with my head out the window. [Standard disclaimer. Kids: do not do this at home, etc.]. Casual experimentation yielded an ideal accelerator-pressure position that caused the car to lurch forward the farthest for each spritz of gasoline without increasing the frequency he had to spray it (~ 2 spritzes per second) and it was roughly the same position that would normally correlate to 4 MPH.
If, with the fuel pump repaired, I’d gone back, put the car in 1st gear, and floored it to the point of redlining the engine, it would attain ~ 25 MPH.
The car has to cover the same distance, and the engine itself actually has to make the same number of revolutions (since it’s the same gear), and at 25 MPH I don’t think wind resistance is a relevant factor.
Anyone want to argue that since it’s the same distance covered and the “gait” is the same I should get the same gas mileage either way?
IMHO the article omits an important factor: metabolism. When you run, your metabolism is elevated. Your heart beats faster, your inspiration rate increases, and most importantly chemical reactions take place at the cellular level (particularly in the mitochondrial in the form of using up ATP and reforming ATP, as well as other reactions). All of these take calories, causing running to use up more calories than walking irrespective of other considerations.
Sorry, that would be me; even without a link I should have known to look for an article, considering the section this was in.
According to the column, 75% of maximal heart rate is maximal aerobic capacity. For me, at age 23, that is a little above 150 beats per minute. Then the column says that recommended aerobic exercise is 20-60 minutes at 60-90% of the maximal heart rate, which for me, 118-177 beats per minute. Well, 177 is above the already stated maximal aerobic capacity. So wouldn’t 90% maximal heart rate be more than my body can handle? Is this a contradiction, or am I missing something?
Anaerobic exercise is still good cardiovascular exercise, if your heart rate stays high for long enough. You should be able to run at your aerobic threshold for 45 minutes to an hour, which is easily long enough to count as a cardiovascular workout. Basically, you want to sustain a high heart rate, and if you are running for 45 minutes, you are. If you are lifting weights or sprinting, your heart rate doesn’t shift into high gear until too near the end of the set to do you any good. You can, however, “superset” your workout. If you do a bench set, and then a lat pull down, and alternate between them with little rest, you can get a cardiovascular workout. In theory, you get just as good a muscle workout, because each muscle group has a chance to recover completely, while your heart rate stays elevated. I have not found that to be the case for me, however. My heart rate recovers very quickly, but my muscles less so.
In addition, it is not like your body completely shifts mechanisms at the threshold. Your anaerobic mechanisms pick up what your aerobic mechanisms can’t handle. Your aerobic mechanisms do not stop. So, if you run just over your aerobic threshold, you still get a great aerobic workout. (But, do not attempt run anaerobically more than every other day. You will fatigue and risk injury.)
Cecil also left out a point. I’ve noticed that runners and walkers both tend to exercise for the same length of time, not the same distance. For example, someone exercising, and sweating enough for a good cardio workout, over their lunch hour will want to shower. So, maybe the runner and the walker both go out for 45 minutes. An amateur runner might cover anywhere from 4 -8 miles. Four miles and hour is a pretty brisk walk, so that walker only covers 3 miles.
The formula 220-age being one’s MHR applies only to sedentary people, and not those physically fit. I’ve read two different methods of computing the MHR for the fit individual, but have conveniently forgotten them. BTW, I’m 67 and get my HR up to 156+ on the treadmill, and I’m not into anaerobic activity then, as I can maintain that for quite a while. I stay on for an hour (increasing my pace with time) with a 5-minute automatic cool-down. I check my HR every minute during the cool-down, and it drops 15-20 after one minute, another 10-15 after two, so with one minute to go my HR has dropped to around 100. I bring this up because a test to determine your fitness is how quickly hour HR returns to normal or near normal (which in my case is around 45-50; it would take quite a while to get back down there, but the quick drop in HR indicates good cardiovascular fitness).
Well, consider yourself to have received nine lashes with a nerf-shoelace. (Naw, it ain’t any big deal, it’s just better to have conversations where we’re all on the same page, and don’t repeat ourselves.)
I believe Earl Snake-Hips Tucker is correct. Running “wastes” a lot of energy with an up and down motion. While this is not good in a survival situation, it’s not bad for an exercise. The process of walking is actually the process of repeatedly falling over forward and catching yourself. You then sustain the blow to your leg and push off with a slight vertical and horizontal force to keep yourself up and to pick up any momentum lost from the catch.
Now the popular definition of running I’ve heard indicates that both feet must be off the ground at the same time. This means that you are in a state of free fall whenever there isn’t a foot planted. You’re fighting more gravity than walking, where one foot acts as a sort of pivot, and this gravity must be fought to stay up.
Now about the question does it burn more to walk a mile or run a mile; that’s really tough. Say running burns 17 cals/minute (number came from my butt) and idling burns 2 cals/minute (Ref: butt) for a particular person. After running a couple minutes if this person simply stops, the heart doesn’t just drop down to idle and neither does the rest of the system. It could be possible that in the actual distance the walker burns more, but then the runner burns more due to the residual effect on his system. Of course this entire paragraph is a guess.
Vertical motion is indeed, wasteful. However, you have that both running and walking. Cecil is correct in that which one is most efficient depends on your speed. Just because both feet leave the ground (at times!) when running does not mean you have more vertical motion running than walking. The transition is continuous, which is why race-walking has a maximum speed. An efficient runner will have very little up and down motion, and racers work at minimizing it.
I have read, but only in the popular press, that you burn as many calories after aerobic exercise as during it. In which case, both running and fast walking provide similar postexercise benefits, but the difference doubles.
I seriously doubt that you burn as many calories afterwards as doing the workout, but your metabolism remains increased for a while after a run. In addition, when you develop stronger muscles, they are more metabolically active, so one who has more muscles has a higher metabolism than one who doesn’t.
I agree with Barbitu8 that there is no question that running - even very slowly - elevates the metabolism much more than walking (unless very fast or uphill, maybe).
AHunter said:
Yeah, really. Go visit your local hospital burn unit and you’ll meet a whole bunch of guys with no faces who sprayed or primed their carburetors with gasoline.
Small nitpick: an increase in muscle strength doesn’t necessarily come from an increase in muscle mass. But other than that, yeah, you’re spot-on.
I did not say it did.