Please help me settle an argument with a friend of mine. I say that brisk walking for 10 miles will burn almost the same amount of calories that jogging the same distance would. My friend maintains that jogging will burn far more. I googled but couldn’t find anything specifically stating one side or the other. Anyone know of a good cite I can show her? Thanks!
Here’s a chart that lists jogging at 740-920 calories burned per hour (depending on speed) versus 240-440 for walking (depending on speed).
Bongmaster, my recent experience on the treadmill says that burn 150 calories per mile (regardless of speed), I have been suspect of this though because I would have thought I would have burned more at a higher speed.
I think the treadmill may just make estimations based on distance.
KTK, of course you will burn more going faster in an hour. You traveled more distance.
Walking one mile burns about as many calories as running for one mile. You will generally burn more calories running for 10 minutes then walking for 10 minutes because you will run farther then you walk.
The general rule of thumb is about 100 calories per mile. This is a bit different per person based on how much they weigh and what kind of physical shape they are in.
Sorry, I was going to let the OP to do the math. 
A person walking 10 miles at 4.5 miles per hour would walk for 2.22 hours and would (according to that chart) burn 977.77 calories. A person jogging 10 miles at 5.5 miles per hour would jog for 1.81 hours and would burn 1345.45 calories.
I’m not disputing other posters, just doing the math. Correctly, I hope, but Gaudere’s Law will surely bite me.
No problema KTK, I didn’t want to do the math either.
BM, I just relaized the chart KTK provided is based on a 150 lb person so you will have to adjust for you own weight. Which leads me to wonder if my treadmill uses a different weight as its standard.
I am a curious however why the chart says you burn 120 calories per mile at 2 MPH but only 106.6 calories per mile at 3 MPH?
This seems the same for running 7MPH vs 10 MPH. Well different calories but burned more per mile at the lower speed.
Because KneadToKnow is the only one that has a cite, I’m going with the jogging burns more calories than walking.
(Anecdotally, too, I know that jogging one block will get my heart rate up to a level that it wouldn’t ever reach while walking. It makes sense too – jogging is a more inefficient movement than walking, involving more up and down motion, pumping of arms, etc.).
Well, the cite shows that an hour of jogging will burn more calories than an hour of walking which makes sense, you go further. What I really need is a cite that shows how jogging and walking the same distance, not time, will be roughly equal to each other in calories burned. I’ve seen and heard many references to the fact that its about the same, but unless I show her hard data she won’t believe me.
Thanks for the info so far guys!
I also suspect that you will burn more jogging, but…
Based on pure physics, moving a body a certain distance will use up exactly the same amount of energy whether you get it there in ten seconds or ten years. What generally matters is that you jog further in a specific unit of time than you would walking the same amount of time, hence more calories are burned.
My feeling is that you are elevating your heart rate into a ‘target zone’ with jogging, which will burn calories faster than walking. We may need a kineseologist to settle this, however.
a very good point to note:
brisk walking burns a better energy ratio, if one apires to drop fat, BUT SAVE MUSCLE. running for an hour will burn much much much more muscle (and glycogen) than walking for an hour. and at the same time it will not burn very much more fat. the fat: carbs/muscle used while jogging is very low. the fat:carbs/muscle ratio for walking is very high. fat is the long-term energy provider, why not make your activity less intense, but make it longer? forgoe the unnecessary catabolism assoc. with running and walk.
walking to lose fat will take longer… more sessions. but you will come out looking much better walking than running (assuming you lift weights at the same time, if not you will probably lose the same amount of muscle)
with this said, there are those people with stubborn bodies that it will take some extreme running sessions, but they are the vast minority.
summary: walk (and lift weights) to look better, run to weigh less. all depends on your goal.
by the way, i realize that my last post seems to disagree with the “fat burning zone” of your heart rate. not true. my point was that, yes, you do burn more fat while jogging, but only at the expense of burning much more muscle. that’s why i said it would take more session to burn same amount of fat. but remember, if you are preserving muscle, you won’t even have to lose as much fat in order to look the way you want.
just thought i would clarify.
To answer the OP once again. (He is asking about calories burned walking and runing the same distance)
Moving your body one mile takes about the same amount of calories no matter how fast you move it. It doesn’t matter how fast you move only how far you move.
http://home.sprynet.com/~holtrun/calories.htm
http://www.internetfitness.com/articles/pump.htm
http://www.runnersworld.com/home/0,1300,4-113-139-1031,00.html
to comment on the OP, it depends on how fast you run and walk. (but, as i stated in my previous, the ratio will be different.) here’s the dope:
the body is like a car. if you just idle your big TAHOE along for 10 miles, trying to save gas, you will use WAY more gas than if you go 40 mph. and if you think you can save gas by getting there as quick as possible going 110 mph, you will be using much more horsepower, and hence much more gas. the human body is the same way. you cannot hope to inch your way along for 10 miles taking 10 years, according to PHREESH. your body also has an idle (resting heart rate) and that energy consumption will destroy your “mileage” over the ten years. the most efficient way to go ten miles would probably be a brisk walk.
put mathematically, the efficiency graph would be U-shaped one, with mph on the x axis and calorie per mile on the y.
this argument does not take into consideration the resting metabolism of the person. let’s say the average person burns 150 calories just standing for an hour. now, tell that person to walk ten miles at .5 mph. it will take him 20 hours. 20 hours * 150 calories = 3,000 cals, and then adjust that number further because he is no longer standing but walking, so we’ll add another 200 cals to that for 3,200 cals to walk a mile!!!
i’m sorry In Conceivable, you are not necessarily wrong, but those sites are mistaken.
Those sites? There are hundreds of sites that same the same thing. I just listed ones from the first page of my google search.
Do you have a site supporting your position? Because frankly I am not really understanding it.
i just realized those sites are contrasting brisk walking with jogging, and i have been contrasting brisk walking with running. brisk walking and jogging are just about the same mph, so we are both right. sorry that i overlooked that.
i was really just commenting on PHEESH’s comment about taking 10 years to go 10 miles… inching along for 10 miles will burn WAY more calories than jogging for 10 miles.
In conceivable: you don’t understand energy efficiency? my post described energy efficiency is well as is possible. go to howstuffworks and read about gas mileage of cars. it’s the same idea.
So you don’t have a cite?
My some of my cites compared running and walking.
Of course your body is going to burn a certain amount of calories even if you are sleeping. We are talking about additional calories burned when running vs. walking.
P.S. Our bodies aren’t cars…
read my post about 3,200 cals for walking 10 miles again. it is a fact. all YOU are saying is that YOU will burn about 1000 cals running 10 mph for 10 miles, and then adding onto that the rest of the calories burned while waiting for your walking partner (.5 mph for 20 hours) to arrive at the finish line. this will end up being 1000 + 19 hours*150 cals for resting metabolism = 2,850 calories. given the rough math, 2850 for running and 3200 for walking is about the same.
again, i say, we are both right. however, i was more technically correct about distance, you were talking about distance and then time tacked on the end.
it was rather foolish to say “our bodies are not cars”… i said the IDEA is the same for DISTANCE.