Is it true...
- Thread starter katia7
- Start date
Bobbi
Cathlete
Check out this link: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=6381
Bobbi http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/chicken.gif "Chick's rule!"
Bobbi http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/chicken.gif "Chick's rule!"
naughtoj
Cathlete
Whoa, Ajock...
Pretty sure they are the same, for a given DISTANCE. If it takes you 6 min to run a mile super fast, or 20 to walk a mile brisk, overall you burn the same TOTAL CALORIES. But, I think it is where those calories come from that differs in that with running you are burning a higher percentage of sugar and with walking a higher percentage of fat. These principles really only have to do with the intensity of the activity. Since running is automatically higher in intensity, you are burning more sugar (carbs).
Now, for a specific TIME, running burns more calories OVERALL then walking. So, if you were to run for 30 min or walk for 30 min, then YES, running would be a better option.
However, you do not get the same physiological conditioning from walking. It would be best to walk more so you can run a little (without dying, of course)
I was a little confused by the article Bobbi, when it said
"It is true that walking a mile will burn
more calories than running a mile"
What's up with that? This is my take. Maybe I am wrong, but I have heard this so many times now, I gotta know it.
Janice
Pretty sure they are the same, for a given DISTANCE. If it takes you 6 min to run a mile super fast, or 20 to walk a mile brisk, overall you burn the same TOTAL CALORIES. But, I think it is where those calories come from that differs in that with running you are burning a higher percentage of sugar and with walking a higher percentage of fat. These principles really only have to do with the intensity of the activity. Since running is automatically higher in intensity, you are burning more sugar (carbs).
Now, for a specific TIME, running burns more calories OVERALL then walking. So, if you were to run for 30 min or walk for 30 min, then YES, running would be a better option.
However, you do not get the same physiological conditioning from walking. It would be best to walk more so you can run a little (without dying, of course)
I was a little confused by the article Bobbi, when it said
"It is true that walking a mile will burn
more calories than running a mile"
What's up with that? This is my take. Maybe I am wrong, but I have heard this so many times now, I gotta know it.
Janice
Bobbi
Cathlete
It's because walking will switch you over to fat stores and fat has more calories per gram than carbs. Higher intensity exercise uses more carbs, lower intensity gets into fat stores. However, you will burn more overall calories with running since you can get more done in less time and the bottom line is total calorie expenditure, not which type of fuel stores the body uses.
Bobbi http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/chicken.gif "Chick's rule!"
Bobbi http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/chicken.gif "Chick's rule!"
naughtoj
Cathlete
Bobbi...
Reread your post, it makes no sense! When the doc says "while it is true that walking a mile burns more calories than running a mile", he is wrong then by what you are saying and with what I think....
I know fat has more calories per gram, but are you burning a gram of fat for every calorie expended walking? I think not. So, looks like what the sentence should have been is "...true that walking a mile burns more calories from fat than running a mile". I reckon this is what you were agreeing with. When I reread your post I see how you were looking at it. With that, I guess that sentence is wrong in that article.
It was just funny cuz we are actually trying to help this poor girl clear it up and are confusing ourselves in the process!! I want to know what AJOCK thinks...
Reread your post, it makes no sense! When the doc says "while it is true that walking a mile burns more calories than running a mile", he is wrong then by what you are saying and with what I think....
I know fat has more calories per gram, but are you burning a gram of fat for every calorie expended walking? I think not. So, looks like what the sentence should have been is "...true that walking a mile burns more calories from fat than running a mile". I reckon this is what you were agreeing with. When I reread your post I see how you were looking at it. With that, I guess that sentence is wrong in that article.
It was just funny cuz we are actually trying to help this poor girl clear it up and are confusing ourselves in the process!! I want to know what AJOCK thinks...
Bobbi
Cathlete
It brings us back to that burning question about which is best, high or low intensity training. In theory, low intensity workouts like walking are better because of the fuel used. But it's the total number of calories expended which determine how effective weight maintainance or loss will be and we always burn a mixture of fat and carbs whether we opt for low or high intensity training.
It IS true that you burn a greater percentage of fat during low intensity exercise (actually you burn the greatest percentage of fat during sleep which is the ultimate in low intensity activity). But, the total number of calories burned is less so the ABSOLUTE number of fat calories burned is less. During high intensity exercise, you burn a lower percentage of fat calories but a higher absolute number of fat calories due to the higher number of total calories burned. And you get home for your breakfast sooner too.
It's sort of similar to the idea that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to diet as well. With no regard to nutrients, no matter what you eat, if you exceed the number of calories your body needs, you put on pounds. But we all know it's important to eat complex carbs, lean protein and high quality fats. It's the same with exercise. Whether you are burning more fat or carbs, in the end, it's the totals that count.
I think a lot of doctors will use walking as the gold standard of exercise because many don't care for the wear and tear that high intensity exercise can place on the body. And they are probably trying to get patients to start an exercise program and waliking is a great place to start. I remember reading the high vs. low intensity exercise information and not being able to wrap my brain around the idea that low intensity was better because of the total fat calories burned. But as much as we despise fat and want to burn the heck out of it, the bottom line is the total calorie expenditure when it comes to working out and the total calorie intake when it comes to eating.
Bobbi http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/chicken.gif "Chick's rule!"
It IS true that you burn a greater percentage of fat during low intensity exercise (actually you burn the greatest percentage of fat during sleep which is the ultimate in low intensity activity). But, the total number of calories burned is less so the ABSOLUTE number of fat calories burned is less. During high intensity exercise, you burn a lower percentage of fat calories but a higher absolute number of fat calories due to the higher number of total calories burned. And you get home for your breakfast sooner too.
It's sort of similar to the idea that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to diet as well. With no regard to nutrients, no matter what you eat, if you exceed the number of calories your body needs, you put on pounds. But we all know it's important to eat complex carbs, lean protein and high quality fats. It's the same with exercise. Whether you are burning more fat or carbs, in the end, it's the totals that count.
I think a lot of doctors will use walking as the gold standard of exercise because many don't care for the wear and tear that high intensity exercise can place on the body. And they are probably trying to get patients to start an exercise program and waliking is a great place to start. I remember reading the high vs. low intensity exercise information and not being able to wrap my brain around the idea that low intensity was better because of the total fat calories burned. But as much as we despise fat and want to burn the heck out of it, the bottom line is the total calorie expenditure when it comes to working out and the total calorie intake when it comes to eating.
Bobbi http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/chicken.gif "Chick's rule!"
Bobbi
Cathlete
It is true but only at comparable paces and I don't know to many average or even the better than average fit buffs who are able to do that. My average walking pace is 4 miles per hour and that's brisk but I can run that same 4 miles in 28 minutes when I train my rear off.
My sister told me about a race walker who walked as quickly as some people can run and faster than many I know, myself included. I, for the life of me, can't remember her pace but it had my chin on the floor. Most of us just cannot walk that fast. When I was forced to walk, I found it incredibly difficult to not end up idling along, lost in my thoughts. Whereas, running I can do a 9 minute mile without interrupting my daily prayers and plans. But overall, people run faster than they walk and will never be able to make walking equal to running but it CAN be better. The mechanisms do not really apply to we mere mortals so most of us should chose running because it's our best option but from a strictly scientific point of view and if you are able to get comparable paces walking can be the better of the two.
Check this out:
"Walk This Way
By Joanne Chen
Convincing a runner to switch to walking is like persuading a mountain biker to trade in her Cannondale for a Huffy with a banana seat. A lifetime runner, I initially brushed off the walking-is-a-great-workout hype as one of those "burn 200 calories in five minutes" claims on late-night infomercials. Then Mark Fenton, a five-time U.S. Race-walking Team member, gave me a lesson in biomechanics: "Unlike running, walking requires keeping one foot on the ground at all times, so your muscles have to work constantly. Walk fast enough, faster than 5 miles per hour, and you burn more calories than running at the same speed." The catch is most of us, including hard-core runners, never reach that speed walking. It means walking so fast you feel as if it would be easier to break into a run. Walk any slower, says Fenton, and you just don't get your heart rate up to the ideal workout range.
In fact, walking 5.5 miles per hour can be as good a workout as running 6.5 miles per hour. Running might seem tougher, but only because you feel beat up from landing on your feet with the force of three times your body weight, says Fenton. A University of Colorado study compared race-walking with both running and step exercises. When all subjects worked at the same intensity level, they made similar gains in cardio fitness. The difference was that the runners missed an average of 11 workout days because of injuries, while the walkers lost only a day and a half. Fast walking also can give you a considerable abdominal- and butt-toning workout: Proper form dictates contracting these muscles while you work."
Bobbi http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/chicken.gif "Chick's rule!"
My sister told me about a race walker who walked as quickly as some people can run and faster than many I know, myself included. I, for the life of me, can't remember her pace but it had my chin on the floor. Most of us just cannot walk that fast. When I was forced to walk, I found it incredibly difficult to not end up idling along, lost in my thoughts. Whereas, running I can do a 9 minute mile without interrupting my daily prayers and plans. But overall, people run faster than they walk and will never be able to make walking equal to running but it CAN be better. The mechanisms do not really apply to we mere mortals so most of us should chose running because it's our best option but from a strictly scientific point of view and if you are able to get comparable paces walking can be the better of the two.
Check this out:
"Walk This Way
By Joanne Chen
Convincing a runner to switch to walking is like persuading a mountain biker to trade in her Cannondale for a Huffy with a banana seat. A lifetime runner, I initially brushed off the walking-is-a-great-workout hype as one of those "burn 200 calories in five minutes" claims on late-night infomercials. Then Mark Fenton, a five-time U.S. Race-walking Team member, gave me a lesson in biomechanics: "Unlike running, walking requires keeping one foot on the ground at all times, so your muscles have to work constantly. Walk fast enough, faster than 5 miles per hour, and you burn more calories than running at the same speed." The catch is most of us, including hard-core runners, never reach that speed walking. It means walking so fast you feel as if it would be easier to break into a run. Walk any slower, says Fenton, and you just don't get your heart rate up to the ideal workout range.
In fact, walking 5.5 miles per hour can be as good a workout as running 6.5 miles per hour. Running might seem tougher, but only because you feel beat up from landing on your feet with the force of three times your body weight, says Fenton. A University of Colorado study compared race-walking with both running and step exercises. When all subjects worked at the same intensity level, they made similar gains in cardio fitness. The difference was that the runners missed an average of 11 workout days because of injuries, while the walkers lost only a day and a half. Fast walking also can give you a considerable abdominal- and butt-toning workout: Proper form dictates contracting these muscles while you work."
Bobbi http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/chicken.gif "Chick's rule!"
Bobbi
Cathlete
There is one woman in Peoria, Illinois who does! LOL!
Bobbi http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/chicken.gif "Chick's rule!"
Bobbi http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/chicken.gif "Chick's rule!"
MadnNatsmom
Cathlete
I hope you'll allow me to jump in here.
Another way to look at this "speed-walking burns more calories than running" is to think of it this way:
Speed-walking is biomechanically inefficient: It is difficult for us to keep both our feet on the ground while walking at break-neck speed. It is easier for us to break into a jog at this point.
Therefore, in this case, we burn more calories walking than when we run at the same pace. (This is why we burn more calories at the initial break-in period of any new activity we undertake. As our bodies become more efficient, we actually burn fewer calories.)
There was a speedwalker I used to see when I first started running. My pace was probably 12 or 13 minute miles and she WALKED faster than I ran. She was fast (and rail-thin).
Another way to look at this "speed-walking burns more calories than running" is to think of it this way:
Speed-walking is biomechanically inefficient: It is difficult for us to keep both our feet on the ground while walking at break-neck speed. It is easier for us to break into a jog at this point.
Therefore, in this case, we burn more calories walking than when we run at the same pace. (This is why we burn more calories at the initial break-in period of any new activity we undertake. As our bodies become more efficient, we actually burn fewer calories.)
There was a speedwalker I used to see when I first started running. My pace was probably 12 or 13 minute miles and she WALKED faster than I ran. She was fast (and rail-thin).