Running burns less calories then step???

[katia7]

I was thinking about calories burned while I was running...All the calculators say that you burn more calories doing step then running. It's really werid because running seems harder + it seems like it takes more steps to be running for an hr then doing step for an hr. Also, while running you're pushing yourself the whole time while in step there are some easier combos along with the harder once.
Any thoughts on that?

 

[lorihart]

I always thought that running burned more as well.I have read before that running for 1 hour burns 600 cals, while stepping burns 400 cals.Your suppose to burn 100 cals for every 10 min of running.I don't know, you got me.
Lori

 

[StepEdith]

I use step in the winter and summer to train for jogging in spring and fall and that darn jogging feels harder to me, the impact is a lot more.

Edith

 

[atiman]

Hi,
I'm 5' foot and I've used at heart rate monitor to track my cals burned. I burn about 88 cals for every mile. It's seems like nothing for what I consider harder work than stepping.

The impact of jogging/running is harder.

Oh!!!! I wish I burned more per mile, because I feel that with any high impact exercise, I seem to burn roughly the same cals as running. However, I do enjoy the outside activity.

 

[kathryn]

I'm almost positive that step burns fewer calories than running. Most "calories burned per X amount of time" charts I've seen put jumproping and running in the top.

 

[KayLaw]

It seems to me it would be hard to compare the two and come up with a pat answer. Sometimes slow running doesn't feel too hard to me. And besides speed are we talking hills, mountains, flat land? Then there's step height to consider and are we doing simple, not-too-fast moves, or are we jumping and flying? Speaking of step height, I think I broke a month-long plateau by adding the second riser to my step - suddenly 2 1/2 were gone. Of course, the plateau could have ended anyway, still...