What burns more calories, walking or runninga mile?

2xTrinity wrote:

HFrom what I understand anaerobic performance is far less efficient than aerobic. Wouldn't running a mile at a very hard pace burn more calories than doing the same at an easy pace?

NO. It doesn't matter how hard you go for a mile. DISTANCE is not the variable here, TIME is! If you are measuring effort*time, harder effort would burn more calories. If you are measuring effort*DISTANCE, it does not matter if you run dead-out-sprint (someone is hunting you down and is going to rape you and eat you alive) effort or a crawl-so-slow-it's-like-you're-a-snail effort. As long as you complete the DISTANCE, it doesn't matter how hard you completed it. Yeah, you sprinted it in 3 minutes, but you weren't moving for an hour.

you are inbred wrote:

DISTANCE is not the variable here, TIME is!

i think you meant to say the reverse of that, because your logic is right but you reversed distance and time. just trying to clear up others' confusion...you and i are on the same page and we're right. Distance IS the variable, time is not. work = force x distance

so what weighs more, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?

jaybird wrote:

so what weighs more, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?

gold?

Sorry, meant to move those two around. Had a couple dissarono (sp?) martinis at dinner tonight....

midas wrote:

jaybird wrote:

so what weighs more, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?

gold?

Which falls faster? LOL

so what weighs more, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?

Feathers, gold is measured using troy ounces, only 14 ounces to a pound, rather than 16 like the feathers.

Best riddle ever.

2xTrinity wrote:

so what weighs more, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?

Feathers, gold is measured using troy ounces, only 14 ounces to a pound, rather than 16 like the feathers.

Best riddle ever.

damn, you stole my punch line!!! but isn't gold measured in avoirdupois ounces (12 ounces to the pound)?

I think my first reply should simplify it for you. The difference is pretty neglegible. But running does burn slightly more because of the arm swing and speed at which one is maintaining.

What burns more calories, running a mile or swimming a mile?

swimming a mile burns more calories

How about biking a mile?

How about hopping a mile?

Hopping a mile definitely burns more calories.

stop it

Good idea, still some problems. Don't forget that the stride length for a runner is greater. This is one reason why running takes less time. Since the stride length is greater/total time is less the walker takes more steps. This means more accelerations per mile.

Eastsider wrote:

My girlfriend had a question on an exam that said "what burns more calories, running a mile or walking a mile?"

Which one is it? It's got to be running.

simple: they are the same. we covered it in my personal trainer prep class this summer. when i find my notes, i'll post them.

Work does equal force times distance, but when you run, or walk, the force you use isnt necesarilly moving you straight forward. Both have different motions and in that different true distances traveled

Exactly. When I run, I bring my knees up higher, my heels up higher, swing my arms more...all of these actions apply a force to move something (arm, foot, knee) a certain distance (up, back, across). When taking this extra force and distance into account, how can running and walking be equal?

They would only be equal if my stride stayed exactly the same, and speed was the only variable.