Burning calories - running/walking
Discussion
Howitzer said:
Think about doing the same in a car, you would burn more by doing it faster.
Dave!
Yes but my "human" engine doesn't quite work in the same way. Dave!
Walking may be a more efficient way of moving human weight a certain distance but then there is also running technique which probably plays a part in how efficient one is using energy whilst doing so.
Essentially, yes. You would burn a *few* more calories because you would be pumping your arms more vigorously, and also in your body's sweating/cooling mechanisms (could be more or less depending on the relative efficiency of each technique), but otherwise, yes, it's the same net energy expenditure. Of course, your rate of expenditure would be far higher when you move faster, but it would not be for as long.
200 X 10 or 20 X 100...works out the same.
200 X 10 or 20 X 100...works out the same.
Edited by just me on Sunday 28th December 09:49
just me said:
Essentially, yes. You would burn a *few* more calories because you would be pumping your arms more vigorously, and also in your body's sweating/cooling mechanisms, but otherwise, yes, it's the same net energy expenditure. Of course, your rate of expenditure would be far higher when you move faster, but it would not be for as long.
200 X 10 or 20 X 100...works out the same.
although I have heard that 80% of one's energy whilst running is consumed by the body's cooling system. When walking, the cooling system is used far less, so maybe significantly less calories burnet per 100m when walking?200 X 10 or 20 X 100...works out the same.
As an example.
Many moons ago I used to instruct people on how to get over Obstacle courses.
Doing this slowly to check everyones technique was just a very mild workout.
Doing it as a race made me nearly vomit with exertion at the end.
A massive difference in caloris consumed and energy used.
Dave!
Many moons ago I used to instruct people on how to get over Obstacle courses.
Doing this slowly to check everyones technique was just a very mild workout.
Doing it as a race made me nearly vomit with exertion at the end.
A massive difference in caloris consumed and energy used.
Dave!
You will raise your metabolic rate while running as well as moving the arms a greater distance.
If you're looking to burn calories, drink a cup of coffee (black, no sugar, no milk) half an hour beforehand. It encourages the breakdown of fat cells.
Or you could buy one of those diet (caffeine) pills at £10 a pot.
If you're looking to burn calories, drink a cup of coffee (black, no sugar, no milk) half an hour beforehand. It encourages the breakdown of fat cells.
Or you could buy one of those diet (caffeine) pills at £10 a pot.
Edited by ShadownINja on Sunday 28th December 10:08
There's an optimum heart rate for beneficial exercise - I think it's 80% of max, but I could be wrong. In most people, sustaining that is a reasonably paced jog, rather than a sprint.
That's not just about burning calories though, but an overall thing, including CV fitness as well.
Although I seem to remember interval training (run flat out for a minute, walk for 2, or whatever the figures are) is good for building up stamina.
That's not just about burning calories though, but an overall thing, including CV fitness as well.
Although I seem to remember interval training (run flat out for a minute, walk for 2, or whatever the figures are) is good for building up stamina.
Famous Graham said:
There's an optimum heart rate for beneficial exercise - I think it's 80% of max, but I could be wrong. In most people, sustaining that is a reasonably paced jog, rather than a sprint.
That's not just about burning calories though, but an overall thing, including CV fitness as well.
Although I seem to remember interval training (run flat out for a minute, walk for 2, or whatever the figures are) is good for building up stamina.
Depends what you mean by "Beneficial". Your exercise (training) work rate needs to match your sport. For example, a sprinter will do a lot of training to maximise their lactate tolerance, which will be done at a high HR-Max %. Conversely, endurance athletes will utilise a lower HR-max % during their training. Horses for courses.That's not just about burning calories though, but an overall thing, including CV fitness as well.
Although I seem to remember interval training (run flat out for a minute, walk for 2, or whatever the figures are) is good for building up stamina.
rhinochopig said:
Famous Graham said:
There's an optimum heart rate for beneficial exercise - I think it's 80% of max, but I could be wrong. In most people, sustaining that is a reasonably paced jog, rather than a sprint.
That's not just about burning calories though, but an overall thing, including CV fitness as well.
Although I seem to remember interval training (run flat out for a minute, walk for 2, or whatever the figures are) is good for building up stamina.
Depends what you mean by "Beneficial". That's not just about burning calories though, but an overall thing, including CV fitness as well.
Although I seem to remember interval training (run flat out for a minute, walk for 2, or whatever the figures are) is good for building up stamina.
Famous Graham said:
rhinochopig said:
Famous Graham said:
There's an optimum heart rate for beneficial exercise - I think it's 80% of max, but I could be wrong. In most people, sustaining that is a reasonably paced jog, rather than a sprint.
That's not just about burning calories though, but an overall thing, including CV fitness as well.
Although I seem to remember interval training (run flat out for a minute, walk for 2, or whatever the figures are) is good for building up stamina.
Depends what you mean by "Beneficial". That's not just about burning calories though, but an overall thing, including CV fitness as well.
Although I seem to remember interval training (run flat out for a minute, walk for 2, or whatever the figures are) is good for building up stamina.
Edited by rhinochopig on Sunday 28th December 10:30
I always thought that walking on an incline burnt more calories than running, if you keep your heart-rate between 60%-70% of your max. Above that is more for cardio training.
http://www.howtobefit.com/five-heart-rate-zones.ht...
http://www.howtobefit.com/five-heart-rate-zones.ht...
Edited by Arese on Sunday 28th December 10:40
You'd burn far more running as you will be raising your legs higher and further as well as your arms pumping harder and your torso twisting more. Also, there is an optimum heart BPM for burning calories which will be met under running and not walking (unless you are really THAT unfit).
mcflurry said:
Silver993tt said:
Would I burn the same calories if I walked 10km or ran 10km?
Yes. Walking = aerobic respiration, more efficient at using energy.
Running = anaerobic respiration, less efficient at using energy.
Running also has other benefits, which have been mentioned above, but the OP's question was whether (roughly) the same amount of energy would be used by running and walking an identical distance. It would.
Running and walking the same distance from a purely theoretical standpoint will burn the same amount of calories. In the real world, you will burn more from running - the increased wind resistance from going at speed and your (assuming your not a runner) very inefficient running technique will lead to burning more calories. As you run more and develop a more efficient stride pattern, the calories burned will be much closer - elite athletes will need to take on fewer calories during a long race than an average joe weekend warrior due to better technique.
The main difference is in where these calories come from - at lower intensities where your HR is lower, you will be burning more from fat, and less from carbohydrate. As you up the work rate and get closer to your max HR, you will be burning almost exclusively carbohydrates, as your body needs the energy fast and fat burns much slower. So if your a fatty with high fat% long walks are the way to go, if your looking to get fit, running will do a lot more for your CV system than walking will.
As for the dreadmill calorie counter being close - i wouldnt count on it. I have a power meter on my bike, so i know pretty much exactly how many calories i burn on a ride (work = power * time) and the gym bikes are often out by up to 200 calories for a 1 hour session. Considering this and the increased variation in running styles - you could be doing the worm on the treadmill for all it knows - i would take the readings with a big pinch of salt.
The main difference is in where these calories come from - at lower intensities where your HR is lower, you will be burning more from fat, and less from carbohydrate. As you up the work rate and get closer to your max HR, you will be burning almost exclusively carbohydrates, as your body needs the energy fast and fat burns much slower. So if your a fatty with high fat% long walks are the way to go, if your looking to get fit, running will do a lot more for your CV system than walking will.
As for the dreadmill calorie counter being close - i wouldnt count on it. I have a power meter on my bike, so i know pretty much exactly how many calories i burn on a ride (work = power * time) and the gym bikes are often out by up to 200 calories for a 1 hour session. Considering this and the increased variation in running styles - you could be doing the worm on the treadmill for all it knows - i would take the readings with a big pinch of salt.
I'm pretty sure that if you want to burn fat you need to keep your heart rate at no more than 65% or 75% of its max.
This means somewhat less than vigorous exercise. If you do faster running you'll get fitter and stronger but the energy to do so is taken from the glycogen stores in the muscles (built up by eating carbs) rather than fat reserves.
ETA Balls, missed the boat.
This means somewhat less than vigorous exercise. If you do faster running you'll get fitter and stronger but the energy to do so is taken from the glycogen stores in the muscles (built up by eating carbs) rather than fat reserves.
ETA Balls, missed the boat.
Edited by Driller on Sunday 28th December 11:16
Skyrat said:
mcflurry said:
Silver993tt said:
Would I burn the same calories if I walked 10km or ran 10km?
Yes. Walking = aerobic respiration, more efficient at using energy.
Running = anaerobic respiration, less efficient at using energy.
Running also has other benefits, which have been mentioned above, but the OP's question was whether (roughly) the same amount of energy would be used by running and walking an identical distance. It would.
If I sit on a rowing ergometer and row for 2000m in a time of 9 minutes, and then do it over a time of 6 minutes, I'm pretty sure I would have burnt more calories in the six minute session.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff