Does running burn more calories than walking?
If I recall correctly, if you do a Physics 101 calculation on energy spent elevating something up a hill, it doesn’t take into account how fast you want to do it. Of course the wattage changes, but the overall joules or calories doesn’t, right?
If that’s right, why is running so much better as a health benefitor than walking? Is it the increased muscle tone from the increased load per unit time?
Brisk walking. Some say it’s easier on the bod than jogging. (The skeleton) Just doesn’t look as cool.
Peace,
mangeorge
They burn approximately the same number of calories per mile (if you swing your arms while walking); but you can burn more calories per minute running, and you’ll probably get in better cardio shape by running, unless you walk really fast.
“Eppur, si muove!” - Galileo Galilei
Boy, this is really stretching my memory, but back in high school physiology we learned that when you increase your energy requirements beyond a certain level, you started burning calories in a less efficient way. Here, less efficient is good, because you burn calories faster. Therefore, running for a mile may burn significantly more fat than walking for a mile.
Ya know, I always thought skipping was an efficient method to get from point A to B. On the day we graduated from boot camp, my company skipped around the quad (in step, of course)for our morning laps. Ah, the look on the DIs’ faces . . .
“Sir, what are you going to do, draft me and send me to Viet Nam to get killed? Sir!”
Ranger Jeff
*The Idol of American Youth *
Of course running burns more calories than walking.
This is just crud I got from Army people, so believe it at your own risk.
When people run, they tend to bounce up and down. When they walk, they don’t bounce as much. This doesn’t apply to all people, just most of them. Some people have trained themselves to put more of the push forwards than up.
The energy used to push you upwards burns calories too, so you use more of them per mile. That’s also why you get more tired running 4 miles than walking 4 miles. Unfortunately, it also does more damage to your body when you come down.
possibly the world’s only naive cynic
[nickrz quote]
Of course running burns more calories than walking.
On It’s face this statement appears factual, but on closer examination, well of course it’s factual.
Sorry Nikrz, I know you need no help but I couldn’t resist.
In re Dawnbird’s Army “crud.” A speed-walker breaks stride if and when both of their feet are off the ground simultaneously. “Pacer” racehorses are under a similar constraint; they must have at least two feet in contact with the ground at all times.
It was not until the advent of high-speed (well, high speed for the time) photography were people who study such things able to agree that a horse in full gallop does indeed have all four feet airborne simultaneously.
Dave, Are you interested in losing weight or just getting into shape?
Walking is better for losing weight because you heart rate during the exercize is around 50-60% of your max. The body burns more fat in this range.
Runing on the other hand is better for your cardiovascular(sp?) system and will probably get you in shape faster.
Kinetic Energy = (1/2) * mass * (velocity)^2
Mass = constant
velocity = low for walking
velocity = high for running
Running Energy >> Walking Energy.
Energy source fat cells.
Therfore running burns more fat than walking.
Ah… So the answer is yes/no.
I see.
I’m sorry but I just don’t automatically buy the assertion that moving a weight in less time uses more energy than using more time. I believe that was my exact point. Wattage/horsepower calculations are not the same thing as joule/calorie calculations.
Does anyone claim to really know, with logic that is more convincing, or a reference that is more respectable?
Running is better for your heart. Walking fast is better to lose weight. It is said whichever one you choose you should always run or walk to you get your second wind. It is at that point your body stops burning carbs and is burning fat. Fat being a more effiecent fuel is what gives you a second wind.
In physics terms, delta-E is a state function. It doesn’t matter how you get to the top of the hill, the energy difference is the same.
On the other hand, it definitely matters to your body. You could run around and around and around the hill, or straight up it. One will take more time doing essentially the same activity and will therefore burn more calories (as if you ran up the hill and then jogged in place for a while).
So, yeah… the answer is yes and no; physics and physiology are related, but they’re not the same thing.
Good lord. I can’t think of a more straightforward question and answer combination. Creating all sorts of diversions and tangential qualifications does not change the answer to the question.
If you run and walk for the same period of time, you will travel a greater distance when running. Now, if you want to argue you can do MORE work using the same or less calories, then your physics are questionable, to say the least.
"Good lord. I can’t think of a more straightforward question and answer combination.
Creating all sorts of diversions and tangential qualifications does not change the
answer to the question.
If you run and walk for the same period of time, you will travel a greater distance when
running. Now, if you want to argue you can do MORE work using the same or less
calories, then your physics are questionable, to say the least. "
=================
Nick, please abandon your sarcastic attitude.
This is not as straightforward as you state, for the simple reason that I didn’t say that you run or walk for the same amount of time. Actually, I was assuming you do them for the same distance. So you completely read into the question and then called us doofuses for not reading your mind.
So, let me state it again, although I think torq has confirmed my theory.
If you run straight up a hill, and then walk straight up the same hill, which burned more calories? I think they’re very similar, with running winning by virtue of you sort of jumping up and down when you run.
My apologies for sounding sarcastic, however, I did not call you doofuses. I suppose I’m the doofus for not reading the question. (That’s not the first time I’ve done that. Sue me).
You’ll also find I answered the real question (albeit tangentially) in my second post. “A speedwalker breaks stride if and when both of their feet are off the ground simultaneously.” Running involves lifting the body free of the ground, whereas walking does not. Add up all those 3-inch “leaps” and you’ll have the additional height a runner must hoist his body over the course. Running burns more calories than walking the same distance.