What burns more calories, walking or runninga mile?

bump

Walking burns about 60% of the calories of running per mile. This is due to the fact that walking is a much more efficient movement than running. According to www.wvda.org (West Virginia Dietetic Association), a 150 pound male walking 4 mph will burn 68.25 kcalories per mile. According to the same source, running at 6 minute mile pace will burn 109.1 kcalories per mile.

>>>>How about biking a mile?

Different from running, with cycling you actually burn more calories per mile at the faster speed.

http://www.stpetecycling.com/fitness6.html

This seems to make sense to me but I could be wrong. If I run a hard mile I am working much harder than if I go out and walk a mile. If I am working harder than wouldn't I be burning more calories, regardless if I only take 5mins to do it versus 20 if I walk it? On a similar note, what's the difference between a kcal and a cal? Please excuse my ignorance but I am a product of the metric system...

runher wrote:

Walking burns about 60% of the calories of running per mile. This is due to the fact that walking is a much more efficient movement than running. According to

http://www.wvda.org

(West Virginia Dietetic Association), a 150 pound male walking 4 mph will burn 68.25 kcalories per mile. According to the same source, running at 6 minute mile pace will burn 109.1 kcalories per mile.

[quote]HHH wrote:

This seems to make sense to me but I could be wrong. If I run a hard mile I am working much harder than if I go out and walk a mile. If I am working harder than wouldn't I be burning more calories, regardless if I only take 5mins to do it versus 20 if I walk it?

On a similar note, what's the difference between a kcal and a cal? Please excuse my ignorance but I am a product of the metric system...[quote]runher wrote:

The fact that it "seems to make sense" to you doesn't mean its right. Work determines energy expenditure, while the rate of work (power output) determines the rate of energy expenditure. Running does burn more calories per unit TIME, but approximately the same per unit DISTANCE.

A kcal (or Calorie with big C) is simply 1000 calories. This is the metric system you idiot.

aff wrote:

The fact that it "seems to make sense" to you doesn't mean its right. Work determines energy expenditure, while the rate of work (power output) determines the rate of energy expenditure. Running does burn more calories per unit TIME, but approximately the same per unit DISTANCE.

YES!

why is this so hard?

runher wrote:

Walking burns about 60% of the calories of running per mile. This is due to the fact that walking is a much more efficient movement than running. According to

http://www.wvda.org

(West Virginia Dietetic Association), a 150 pound male walking 4 mph will burn 68.25 kcalories per mile. According to the same source, running at 6 minute mile pace will burn 109.1 kcalories per mile.

i could not find that info on the wvda website.

i did find a calculator that lets you enter your weight and minutes of activity. you can choose from dif pre-determined activities.

using the the calculator on the website you cited as support for walking and running burning sig diff amounts of cals - 2 examples, both with 150 lb person.

1)for a 150 lb person doing 60 minutes of running at 10 mph - 6 min miles

= burns 1091 cal - covered 10 miles.

= 109.1 CAL/MILE

2) for a 150 lb person doing 60 minutes at 5 mph - 12 min miles

= burns 545 cals - covered 5 miles

=109 CAL/MILE

BOTH BURN ABOUT 109 CAL/MILE FOR A 150 LB PERSON.

runher,

my apologies. i found on the website how you cam uo with 68 cal/mile for walking 4 mph - you used the same calc i used.

the calc can not be right. if you believe it, at 4 mph you burn 68 cal/mile, at 5 mph you burn 109 cal/mile, at 10 mph you also burn 109 cal/mile.

According to dietbites.com it is the same.

http://www.dietbites.com/diet-calories-burned-running.html

Here in another site that supports the they burn the same amount view.

http://www.uticaboilermaker.com/running/columnists/lafountain/2004_07_02.htm

What is interesting about the second one is that it refs a Duke University study of this issue and came to the same conclusion.

In a somewhat convuluted answer weightwatchers comes to the same conclusion.

http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?art_id=10561&tabnum=1&sc=0&subnav=Fitness+Q%26A

That being said, I did find a few sites that disagreed.

You got it backwards wrote:

ou got it backwards. The anaerobic energy systems are more efficient than the aerobic ones; that is why they are able to provide the energy for high intensity (defined as power output) activities. Simply put, aerobic systems produce ATP too slowly to meet the energy demands of high intensity exercise.

Anaerobic energy systems rely on Glucose (derived from glycogen or endogenous sources) which has an RER=1. Aerobic systems, on the other hand, primarily use fats (RER=0.7). So as the body moves from utilizing fats to carbohydrates the RER increases and so does the efficiency of the system.

Before coming here with more of your BS, go to the library and actually read something on the subject. You'd be amazed at what you can learn!

Before coming here with more of your BS, go to the library and actually read something on the subject. You'd be amazed at what you can learn![/quote]

No, it's you who needs to go back to the library. During Aerobic activity the primary fuel source is still CHO, specifically coming from glycogen through aerobic glycolysis.

The calories that are actually listed on food labels are kilocalories. This is why the word Calories is often capitalized on food labels, as these are the big calories. It takes 1000 calories (lowercase) to equal one kilocalorie. Our bodies just operate on a larger energy scale, so most people just drop the 'kilo' prefix from the word.

Like someone else said earlier, walking slowly burns fewer calories per mile than walking fast (at 5 mph), due to the inefficient movement of race walking. Therefore, power walking would burn more calories per mile than just a stroll in the park (which makes sense). Furthermore, some people actually break into a running motion at 5 mph (believe it or not), which would also cause the person to burn 109 calories per mile. I learned this info last year in a course called health/fitness applications. To bad, I had to turn the book back in to athletics, because it is written by ACSM and provides wonderful insight to this concept.

During Aerobic activity the primary fuel source is still CHO, specifically coming from glycogen through aerobic glycolysis.[/quote]

__________________________________________

You're right that carbohydrates still provide most of the energy during aerobic exercise. Neglecting protein metabolism, the energy system contribution during a marathon is about 75% slow glycolysis, 20% beta oxidation of FAs, and 5% liver glycogen (taken from Granier et al 1995). However, what I was referring to was the general shift in substrate utilization as one moves from a resting state (as in general daily living) to an exercising state. During this transition, there is a shift from FAs (which provide UP TO 90% of the energy in a resting state) to carbohydrates as the intensity increases. The basic point still stands: anaerobic energy systems are more efficient and that is why they provide the energy for high intensity exercise.

As you might expect this is not a simple question to answer, it depends on the speed of walking. It does however depend less on the speed of running.

Different people have different ideas

http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/energyexp.htm

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/technote/walkrun.htm

This can be summarised, at comfortable walking speed it uses less energy to walk a mile rather than run a mile, while at running speeds it uses less energy to run a milev rather than walk a mile.

At optimum speeds for walking and running, it is somewhat more economical to walk rather than run.

I would suspect the reason that everybody is coming up with conflicting studies on this topic is that there is not really any real way to measure how many calories the body is using, is there?

Ask any exercise physiologist

Running burns twice as many calories as walking does.

If you want to see the math, just reply and say that I am wrong, and I will show you.

You don't get it.....so, yes, you are working MORE when you run, but you get done with the mile QUICKER when running than with walking.....let's say you do a hard workout for 15 minutes and burn 400 calories.....now let's say you do a less intense workout for 30 minutes and burn 400 calories......get it? Running is shorter and more intense, walking is longer and less intense. But in the end, it works out equally (IF you are measuring by distance, not time.) SO, if you run 40 MINUTES (we're not talking miles anymore) and walk 40 minutes, the running is harder. You people have to start using simple logic, this is not that difficult to understand. Don't think in terms of time, think in terms of distance. Running a mile takes less time, walking a mile takes more time. Going the same distance produces the same caloric expenditure......going the same TIME does not produce the same caloric expenditure. If you are still not able to understand, you need to start taking the short yellow bus to school, Jimmy.

Your simple logic is wrong.

Just because running a mile doesnt take as long means that things balance out.

The amount of calories a person burns in a given activity is based upon the met level (or VO2max) that the person is working at.

Take the average person, for example:

If John weighs 75 kg, his VO2 while walking on a treadmill at 3mph is 11.5 ml/kg/min. The met value of his exercise is his VO2 divided by 3.5, which equals 3.3 mets. The amount of caloris he is burning a minute is equal to (mets/60) x (weight in kg), which equals 4.1. So, at 3mph, it will take him 20 minutes to walk a mile, so he is therefore burning 82 cal/mile. (His net energy cost is 57 calories because everybody burns 1 met at rest).

However:

If John weighs 75 kg, his VO2 while running 8:34 pace is 41 ml/kg/min. The met value of his exercise is 11.7 mets. He is now expending 14.6 calories per minute and 124.1 calories per mile. His net energy cost is 113.5 per mile because everybody burns 1 met at rest.

Energy cost goes up with running because more muscles are recruited and your body has a higher need for oxygen (heart rate goes up).

There you have it.

According to Dr. Stone, who is the Head of Sports Physiology at the USOC:

"RATE of energy expenditure is dependent upon:

1. System mass

2. Intensity of exercise

3. Work efficiency

TOTAL energy expenditure is proportional to:

the total amount of work accomplished."

To anyone who disagrees: give me a citation from a peer reviewed journal that says running and walking a mile do not burn approximately the same number of calories. I will be waiting the rest of my life to receive this because such a thing simply does not exist. You can make up numbers all day and find some crazy calculator to justify your reasoning, but I'm not interested in that crap. ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS THE JOURNAL CITATION THAT SUPPORTS YOUR REASONING. If so many exercise physiologists believe this, then it should take you no time at all.

I'd really love to read it because it would be groundbreaking research. I'd also love to read what mechanism the authors are proposing to explain such findings since they completely go against the laws of physics.