Walking versus running the same distance

If you walk a certain distance, do you burn the same amount of calories than if you run that distance?

Suppose you can run a mile. If you walked that same mile, it’d take longer, but would you burn the same amount of calories and get the same health benefits as if you had run that mile?

According to a source that I can’t find (but I did write down): no. A 200 lb man walking a 17-minute mile burns 90 calories. A 12-minute mile burns 140 kC. A 10-minute mile burns 150 calories.

I’m no expert (but am an avid runner), but the last time this came up, someone posted this excellent article which suggests males burn 50% more calories running a given distance and females about 33% more. This is in contrast to the common wisdom that says walking and running a given distance burn about the same amount of calories.

(Now given you’re in Montreal, I don’t know what the impact of sliding all over the sidewalks in the winter has on calories burned!)

Depends on speed. A 12 min. mile is about the same whether walked or run.
Calories per hour.

In general, while you get some benefits from just being on your feet, you won’t really condition your heart for more vigorous activity by just strolling. You need to make an effort. On the other hand, you can’t fully prepare for all day hiking by running five miles. There is some cross-over but not total.

Cecil actually already answered this exact question once, but I’m out of time and can’t post the link. Basically, it depends on the gait or speed of your walk/run.

Generally, walking is more efficient than running, so you burn slightly less calories. But if you walk fast enough, the motion becomes inefficient and you can actually burn more by “speed walking” a distance than by jogging it. Sprinting, I believe, is generally the least efficient mode of transportation, so I think it always burns the most calories.

This is just my memory and I hope someone will come up with the link to the article from our perfect master.

Cecil-Running Vs. Walking.

It’s pretty certain, as mentioned above, that running introduces some inefficiencies (like a lot more up and down movement), and thus burns more calories.

Now, as to other ancillary “health benefits,” which was the other part of the question, who knows. . .

Huh? That means your running speed is the same as your walking speed. If it takes you 12 minutes to walk a mile, wouldn’t you do it in less time when running?

Well, this reminds me of a woman who exercised at my gym once. She would lift very small weights, like 10 pounds. When others tried to tell her that she wasn’t getting any training benefit from this, she responded that lifting 10 pounds, say, 5 times, was the same as lifting 50 pounds. Eventually people just left her alone.

Outside of calories, they certainly aren’t the same level of exertion. So, no, I don’t think you get the same health benefits from walking as from running.

For the purposes of this thread the difference between walking and running is gait, not speed. You can go from a very slow run to a quick walk without decreasing your speed, and vice versa.

If I go on a long run that ends up a little too long for my conditioning level, towards the end I’ll sometimes be “running” so slowly that I’m almost just hopping in place. Switching to a walk will actually make me speed up sometimes (and save my joints).

No, it means you are walking as fast as you would run, which can definitely be done; the only real difference between walking and running is the gait (when walking, one foot is always on the ground), regardless of how slow/fast they are.

There is also a crossover point where running is more efficient than walking and vice-versa:

As far as health benefits go, they are the same (plus walking is better on your joints) if done around the crossover point.

Thanks, all :slight_smile: