# Calories burned: walking vs running **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 11, 2007, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563 "2007-01-11T16:02:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/1 "2007-01-11T16:02:45Z")
Simple question. Does walking five miles burn the same number of calories (approximately or exactly) as running the same five miles? Note that I’m not asking which form of exercise is better for you, or the difference in cardio impact, or anything like that. Seems to me it’s more of a physics question, in terms of “work done,” except that it’s a human being doing the work. I just don’t know if there are any other wrinkles to it. I heard this claim made recently and thought I’d get the SDMB’s expert opinion. I have no opinion on the issue; I don’t know enough about this to consider the plausibility of it being either true or false. Hence, the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/2 "2007-01-11T16:11:45Z")
Theoretically, as you say, the work done would be the same, but one thing I’ve read is that running burns \*more in calories because there’s more vertical movement than just walking. Also, I wonder if there is a measurable increase in expenditure due to increased drag? \*FWIW, the article (in a weekend newspaper supplement) said “up to 20% more,” which seems a little high to me. ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/3 "2007-01-11T16:11:58Z")
Running burns more. I’ll leave the calculation to you. > **[NutriStrategy - Examples of Calories Burned During Exercise, Running,...](http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm)** > > NutriStrategy chart shows calories burned during exercises, activities and sports, including running, swimming, and walking. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/4 "2007-01-11T16:12:21Z")
That’s a good question. I’ve been told they would work out about the same, since the running is more active but for a shorter time to reach the 5 miles. ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/5 "2007-01-11T16:15:46Z")
[QUOTE=Earl Snake-Hips Tucker] Theoretically, as you say, the work done would be the same, but one thing I’ve read is that running burns \*more in calories because there’s more vertical movement than just walking. Also, I wonder if there is a measurable increase in expenditure due to increased drag? \*FWIW, the article (in a weekend newspaper supplement) said “up to 20% more,” which seems a little high to me. [/QUOTE] The work done is equal, but the energy expended to acomplish said work is not. For example, does a car get better fuel economy going 45 or 95? Yes, the force to to drag is proportional to velocity squared. Measurable, yes, significant? Depends on wind speed, frontal body area, etc. 20% seems about right, based on the numbers in the link above. I didn’t run them, but it seems reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Trunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@Trunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trunk)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/6 "2007-01-11T16:54:29Z")
[QUOTE=Pygmy Rugger] The work done is equal [/QUOTE] Why would you say that? Sure, work is defined as force times displacement (well, dot product), but to claim the work is equal (seemingly) just considers horizontal displacement. Generally speaking. . .there’s more vertical displacement with each running stride, wouldn’t you agree? And, yes, the wind resistance would increase the amount of force needed to jog, also, but I bet that factor is much less than the springing/landing nature of running as compared to the falling/planting nature of walking. ---
**Author:** ![wasson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/4da419/32.png) [@wasson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wasson)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/7 "2007-01-11T16:55:20Z")
[http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050121.html](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050121.html) ---
**Author:** ![Bobalude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5fc32e/32.png) [@Bobalude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bobalude)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/8 "2007-01-11T17:43:43Z")
Personal experience tells me that I _feel_ like I’m still burning calories a lot longer post-exercise if I went running compared to walking… that is my body stays warm/metabolism seems higher, which I would assume means burned calories. ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/9 "2007-01-11T18:26:04Z")
[QUOTE=Trunk] Why would you say that? Sure, work is defined as force times displacement (well, dot product), but to claim the work is equal (seemingly) just considers horizontal displacement. Generally speaking. . .there’s more vertical displacement with each running stride, wouldn’t you agree? And, yes, the wind resistance would increase the amount of force needed to jog, also, but I bet that factor is much less than the springing/landing nature of running as compared to the falling/planting nature of walking. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Pygmy Rugger] The work done is equal,\*\* but the energy expended to acomplish said work is not.\*\* For example, does a car get better fuel economy going 45 or 95? Yes, the force to to drag is proportional to velocity squared. Measurable, yes, **significant?** Depends on wind speed, frontal body area, etc. [/QUOTE] Sure, there’s vertical work done with each leg thrust, but you get it back on the way down. Physical work doesn’t always relate to how hard it is to do something. For example, the classic calculus problem of pulling a bucket connected to a chain out of a well. The math says that there is less work performed as you pull the bucket up, because the weight of the chain is “decreasing”, because there’s less of it. But if you were pulling the bucket up, it would get harder on your arms and back with each stroke, due to muscle fatigue. Hence my statement, “the energy expended to accomplish said work is not (equal).” I also agree that the springing force of landing and taking off while running is more significant to your muscles than the increased wind resistance. The OP asked if change in wind resistance was measurable. It is. I questioned its significance. What I’m saying is, yes, your body works harder. But, using the physics definition of work, it is the same. Same word, two different definitions. ---
**Author:** ![Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/c4cdca/32.png) [@Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quiddity_Glomfuster)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/10 "2007-01-11T18:44:05Z")
[QUOTE=Pygmy Rugger] Running burns more. I’ll leave the calculation to you. [http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm](http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm) [/QUOTE] Running burns more calories _per hour_ because you cover more distance running for an hour than you do walking for an hour. When I’ve hunted this down before, I’ve found sources that agree with [this article](http://wuphysicians.wustl.edu/newsArchive.asp?navID=1&ID=157) (all due respect to Himself) that says both running and walking expend roughly 100 calories _per mile_, all fancy calculations aside. ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/11 "2007-01-11T18:56:58Z")
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster] Running burns more calories _per hour_ because you cover more distance running for an hour than you do walking for an hour. When I’ve hunted this down before, I’ve found sources that agree with [this article](http://wuphysicians.wustl.edu/newsArchive.asp?navID=1&ID=157) (all due respect to Himself) that says both running and walking expend roughly 100 calories _per mile_, all fancy calculations aside. [/QUOTE] According to the website I cited, for a person weighing 155 lbs, running at 10 mph for one hour (10 miles) would burn 1126 calories. Walking at 2 mph would burn 176. If you do this for 5 hours, you would go 10 miles and burn 880 calories. 1126/880 = 1.28, or a difference of about 30 percent. Yes, you’re right, they both burn _roughly_ 100 cal/hr. But walking (using the numbers in my above calculation) uses 88, while running uses 113 per hour. They are both _roughly_ 100, but they are not equal. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/12 "2007-01-11T20:46:58Z")
[QUOTE=Pygmy Rugger] The work done is equal, but the energy expended to acomplish said work is not. For example, does a car get better fuel economy going 45 or 95? [/QUOTE] The work done in the two scenarios is the car example are \*not \* equal. Work is force through the distance, and a car at 95 exerts a greater force through the same distance, primarily due to air resistance. However, the whole work-is-equal notion is a bit of a red herring, because work doesn’t tell you much about how much energy was consumed. The same car will use different amounts of energy at the same distance and speed if it’s in two different gears in the two trials. Energy consumption is more of an engineering issue regarding efficiency. Others are discussing the efficiencies of running vs. walking so I won’t try to get into that. ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/13 "2007-01-11T21:00:48Z")
[QUOTE=CookingWithGas] The work done in the two scenarios is the car example are \*not \* equal. Work is force through the distance, and a car at 95 exerts a greater force through the same distance, primarily due to air resistance. > [@](#): > > Yes, you’re right. I was trying to put the problem into a more familiar context, but you’re completely correct. **However, the whole work-is-equal notion is a bit of a red herring, because work doesn’t tell you much about how much energy was consumed**. The same car will use different amounts of energy at the same distance and speed if it’s in two different gears in the two trials. Energy consumption is more of an engineering issue regarding efficiency. [/QUOTE] Exactly. This is what I was trying to say. You worded it much better than I have. ---
**Author:** ![Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/c4cdca/32.png) [@Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quiddity_Glomfuster)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/14 "2007-01-11T21:15:30Z")
[QUOTE=Pygmy Rugger] Yes, you’re right, they both burn _roughly_ 100 cal/hr. But walking (using the numbers in my above calculation) uses 88, while running uses 113 per hour. [/QUOTE] No, per mile. So it would take you 140 miles to take off one pound more running than you would if you were walking 😃 Thanks but I’ll save my joints 😛 ---
**Author:** ![TYOV](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/48db29/32.png) [@TYOV](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TYOV)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/15 "2007-01-11T22:18:11Z")
You don’t get the work out of the downfall. Same as a ball doesn’t bounce as high on subsequent bounces. However, you do have to elevate to the same height with each stride or you will trip and fall. Increased wind resistance is one component of going faster, whether driving or running. An engine has efficiency curves, and so does the body. The body is more efficient maintaining a walking speed than a running speed, so fuel (calories) are consumed (burned) at a faster rate. This question is so old and easily answered from numerous other websites, I’m curious why it still lingers. A better question would be, which burns more calories, running on a treadmill or running on the sidewalk? The answer is the sidewalk because you have to push off the ground in order to move forward. The treadmill moves for you, so all you’re doing is lifting your legs (i.e running in place) ---
**Author:** ![TYOV](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/48db29/32.png) [@TYOV](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TYOV)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/16 "2007-01-11T22:32:38Z")
edit - you don’t all the work out of the downfall ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2007, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/17 "2007-01-12T01:59:25Z")
[QUOTE=TYOV] A better question would be, which burns more calories, running on a treadmill. . . . [/QUOTE] Just. . .don’t. . .go. . .there 😃 ---
**Author:** ![GingerOfTheNorth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/cdc98d/32.png) [@GingerOfTheNorth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GingerOfTheNorth)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2007, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/18 "2007-01-12T02:44:14Z")
According to an activity calorie calculator [website](http://www.my-calorie-counter.com/Activity_Calorie_Calculator.asp) I use frequently: A 170 pound person walking 2.5 mph for two hours burns 464 calories. A 170 pound person running 5.0 mph for one hour burns 618 calories. ---
**Author:** ![Sleel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/73ab20/32.png) [@Sleel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleel)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2007, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/19 "2007-01-12T07:48:53Z")
The intensity of your exercise makes a big difference in how your body allocates resources and adapts to the activity. There are different pathways for metabolism and they have different rates of efficiency. The physics of it has some bearing, but it’s not as relevant as the biological side of things, I think. Intensity also has an effect on your overall and cardiovascular fitness, which in turn has an effect on your non-exercising metabolic rate. In fact, basal metabolic rate accounts for the majority, around [70%](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate) of the calories used by your body every day, and different forms of exercise have very different effects on that. When you see tables that have X calories burned over Y time, those are averages of the energy expended in that time and place by the people they used in whatever study they did to compile the information. It’s good for general information purposes but can’t be taken as a true answer for any particular individual. In addition, it doesn’t measure effects for people of varying fitness levels, and it doesn’t take into account any effects on metabolism outside of the actual time of direct measurement. Someone who runs 3 miles a day at a good rate of speed will almost certainly be more fit than someone who takes ambling walks 3 miles a day. And I’d be willing to bet that the runner will have lower body fat, assuming all other factors are balanced. ---
**Author:** ![Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swallowed_My_Cellphone)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2007, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/387563/20 "2007-01-12T13:22:31Z")
[QUOTE=GingerOfTheNorth] According to an activity calorie calculator [website](http://www.my-calorie-counter.com/Activity_Calorie_Calculator.asp) I use frequently: A 170 pound person walking 2.5 mph for two hours burns 464 calories. A 170 pound person running 5.0 mph for one hour burns 618 calories. [/QUOTE] That amthes what the treadmill says at the gym. (I trian indoors in the winter because I’m a wuss who hates the cold). You plug in your weight, and it calculates your workout based on the incline that you set the treadmill, your speed, and the time you spend on it. Yes, if I run an hour, I definitely use up more calories than if I walk an hour. I also cover a _lot_ more distance. But that’s the PER/HOUR difference. If I walk the same distance that I run, I’d be on the treadmill all afternoon.