A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Walking vs Running



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 25th, 2003, 08:55 PM
Joe3000
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Walking vs Running

If you walk 3 miles will you burn off the same cals as running 3 miles?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 18/09/2003


  #2  
Old September 25th, 2003, 11:04 PM
George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Walking vs Running

"Ignoramus1857" wrote in message
...
In article , Joe3000 wrote:
If you walk 3 miles will you burn off the same cals as running 3

miles?

You burn slightly more by running. Maybe 40% more or so.


There was an advert on television here in the UK a number of years ago
that said you burn the same amount of energy walking a mile as running a
mile. Wouldn't that be the same for walking vs running any distance?
--
Remove N0_SPAM_PLEAZE to email
It's a spring thing
http://www.hookeslaw.com/mydiet.htm


  #3  
Old September 26th, 2003, 11:16 AM
Montgomery Hounchell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Walking vs Running

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:04:54 +0100, "George"
wrote:


If you walk 3 miles will you burn off the same cals as running 3

miles?


You burn slightly more by running. Maybe 40% more or so.


There was an advert on television here in the UK a number of years ago
that said you burn the same amount of energy walking a mile as running a
mile. Wouldn't that be the same for walking vs running any distance?


If you drive a car at ten miles and hour would you burn the same
amount of gas as when you drive it fifty miles an hour?

I think one would burn more calories the faster you move.

Monte


  #4  
Old September 26th, 2003, 12:11 PM
George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Walking vs Running

"Montgomery Hounchell" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:04:54 +0100, "George"
wrote:


If you walk 3 miles will you burn off the same cals as running 3

miles?


You burn slightly more by running. Maybe 40% more or so.


There was an advert on television here in the UK a number of years ago
that said you burn the same amount of energy walking a mile as running

a
mile. Wouldn't that be the same for walking vs running any distance?


If you drive a car at ten miles and hour would you burn the same
amount of gas as when you drive it fifty miles an hour?


You are not allowing for the fact that travelling faster gets you there
quicker so you are burning more calories but for a much shorter period,
therefore it may very well balance out to be roughly the same. If you
are talking about travelling for the same length of time while comparing
walking vs running then yes you will burn more running and cover a much
greater distance. In theory anyway. :-)


  #5  
Old September 26th, 2003, 12:31 PM
JayJay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Walking vs Running


"George" wrote in message
...
"Montgomery Hounchell" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:04:54 +0100, "George"
wrote:


If you walk 3 miles will you burn off the same cals as running 3
miles?


You burn slightly more by running. Maybe 40% more or so.


There was an advert on television here in the UK a number of years ago
that said you burn the same amount of energy walking a mile as running

a
mile. Wouldn't that be the same for walking vs running any distance?


If you drive a car at ten miles and hour would you burn the same
amount of gas as when you drive it fifty miles an hour?


You are not allowing for the fact that travelling faster gets you there
quicker so you are burning more calories but for a much shorter period,
therefore it may very well balance out to be roughly the same. If you
are talking about travelling for the same length of time while comparing
walking vs running then yes you will burn more running and cover a much
greater distance. In theory anyway. :-)



and to counter act that theory - you have the fact that if you plan to
exercise for 1 hr (60 mins) and you walk at a pace of 4 mph (a brisk walk)
for 1 hr you burn X calories per mile - *4. But if you ran at a pace of 6
mph, you'd burn Y at a rate of Y*6.

If Y is already greater than X, then Y*6 is much greater than X*4.

And if X and Y are the same - you are still increasing the number of
calories burned in the hour by 2/3.



  #6  
Old September 26th, 2003, 01:55 PM
Montgomery Hounchell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Walking vs Running

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:11:30 +0100, "George"
wrote:


You are not allowing for the fact that travelling faster gets you there
quicker so you are burning more calories but for a much shorter period,
therefore it may very well balance out to be roughly the same. If you
are talking about travelling for the same length of time while comparing
walking vs running then yes you will burn more running and cover a much
greater distance. In theory anyway. :-)


are you allowing for the wind resistance?



  #7  
Old September 26th, 2003, 06:07 PM
George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Walking vs Running

"Ignoramus14977" wrote in message
...
visualize walking vs. running. When you walk, your center of gravity
stays on the same plane. You barely lift your feet off the ground
(maybe 1 cm or so if you practiced walking) When you run, you jump up
and down a little with every step. That's much more work per mile.


Yes but when you run a mile it is over much quicker than if you walked
it. So you are burning calories faster but for a much reduced time. The
original question wasn't which one burns the most per hour but which
burns the most over a set distance. If it was per hour then yes it's
easy to see running would burn more. I'm just repeating what I've read
and heard on TV so don't quote me on it. :-)

I don't know, I'm only here 5 minutes and I've started something! hehe.

:-)


  #8  
Old September 26th, 2003, 08:10 PM
Fancy Pants NYC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Walking vs Running

"George" wrote in message ...
"Montgomery Hounchell" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:04:54 +0100, "George"
wrote:


If you walk 3 miles will you burn off the same cals as running 3
miles?


You burn slightly more by running. Maybe 40% more or so.


There was an advert on television here in the UK a number of years ago
that said you burn the same amount of energy walking a mile as running

a
mile. Wouldn't that be the same for walking vs running any distance?


If you drive a car at ten miles and hour would you burn the same
amount of gas as when you drive it fifty miles an hour?


You are not allowing for the fact that travelling faster gets you there
quicker so you are burning more calories but for a much shorter period,
therefore it may very well balance out to be roughly the same. If you
are talking about travelling for the same length of time while comparing
walking vs running then yes you will burn more running and cover a much
greater distance. In theory anyway. :-)


Walking requires less power (in the physics term) than running.

Both are related to the concept of work (force times distance) however
the reason you cover more distance quicker running is because your
velocity is higher. A higher velocity requires more power for a given
mass. Power is equal to work divided by time. More power requires more
energy.

Am I being clear? Bahh. Prolly not. I'm an idiot anyway. Hope it helps
some!

Fancy Pants
  #9  
Old September 26th, 2003, 09:17 PM
Owen Lowe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Walking vs Running

In article ,
"Joe3000" *o*m wrote:

If you walk 3 miles will you burn off the same cals as running 3 miles?


According to http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/Calories.html,and,
assuming a 150 lb person:

Walking:
2mph (90 mins) 315 cals
2.5mph (72 mins) 315 cals
3mph (60 mins) 300 cals
3.5mph (51.4 mins) 296 cals
4mph (45 mins) 300 cals
4.5mph (40 mins) 310 cals

Running:
4mph (45 mins) 329 cals
5mph (36 mins) 326 cals
6mph (30 mins) 360 cals
7mph (25.7 mins) 347 cals
8mph (22.5 mins) 354 cals
10mph (18 mins) 338 cals

So, it's practically a wash - one could spend 90 minutes burning off 315
walking calories or spend 18 minutes sprinting off 23 additional
calories.

Interesting fluctuations depending on speed - though if I understand
various other threads on the fitness groups - the higher intensities
would have longer lasting after-exercise calorie burns.
  #10  
Old September 26th, 2003, 09:30 PM
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Walking vs Running

In article , Fancy Pants NYC
says...

"George" wrote in message
...
"Montgomery Hounchell" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:04:54 +0100, "George"
wrote:


If you walk 3 miles will you burn off the same cals as running 3
miles?


You burn slightly more by running. Maybe 40% more or so.


There was an advert on television here in the UK a number of years ago
that said you burn the same amount of energy walking a mile as running

a
mile. Wouldn't that be the same for walking vs running any distance?

If you drive a car at ten miles and hour would you burn the same
amount of gas as when you drive it fifty miles an hour?


You are not allowing for the fact that travelling faster gets you there
quicker so you are burning more calories but for a much shorter period,
therefore it may very well balance out to be roughly the same. If you
are talking about travelling for the same length of time while comparing
walking vs running then yes you will burn more running and cover a much
greater distance. In theory anyway. :-)


Walking requires less power (in the physics term) than running.

Both are related to the concept of work (force times distance) however
the reason you cover more distance quicker running is because your
velocity is higher. A higher velocity requires more power for a given
mass. Power is equal to work divided by time. More power requires more
energy.

Am I being clear? Bahh. Prolly not. I'm an idiot anyway. Hope it helps
some!

Fancy Pants


Running takes more energy because you basically lift your body between strides,
while you arent' in walking. Working against gravity more.

One can walk fast, but I could never get myself to walk fast for a long walk -
I'd eventually slow down and be looking around. But if I run or at least jog, I
have to maintain some level of effort to continue in that mode. So I always got
a better workout running for that reason also. Dunno if that makes sense to
others...

Banty

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Has anyone tried "Nordic Walking" General Discussion 4 September 26th, 2003 02:42 PM
I'm running for Governor of California NR General Discussion 0 September 25th, 2003 04:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.