What burns more calories, walking or runninga mile?

Running burns more. In addition to what people have already stated work should be summed in total forces, so other variables include the force of gravity (through potential and kinetic energy) and the force of friction. Both of which are increased while running in comparison to walking.

chris rock wrote:

Running burns more. In addition to what people have already stated work should be summed in total forces, so other variables include the force of gravity (through potential and kinetic energy) and the force of friction. Both of which are increased while running in comparison to walking.

Do you have any evidence for this or are you just talking out of your ass?

chris rock wrote:

Running burns more. In addition to what people have already stated work should be summed in total forces, so other variables include the force of gravity (through potential and kinetic energy) and the force of friction. Both of which are increased while running in comparison to walking.

So you are telling us the FORCE OF GRAVITY changes when you run?

You may have misunderstood the discussion on this thread. I think everyone is assuming the walker and runner are both ON THE EARTH and we are not discussing a walker on one planet and a runner on another.

But thank you for playing.

the one thing that differentiates running from walking: having both feet off the ground in between every stride (thats why racewalkers look stupid cause they have to keep one foot on the ground at all times).

obviously when running you have to overcome gravity every stride, much more so than when walking, so yes the effect of the force of gravity changes greatly.

"All things being equal, you will burn more calories by running an

hour than walking an hour. It is true that walking a mile will burn

more calories than running a mile -- although it takes longer to do

so. When you run a mile, you're burning mostly sugar, or

carbohydrates, which is how your body gives you fast energy in bursts.

When you walk a mile, it gives your metabolism time to switch from

burning carbohydrates to burning fat."

WebMD - Dean Ornish, MD Q A:

>>>>the one thing that differentiates running from walking: having both feet off the ground in between every stride (thats why racewalkers look stupid cause they have to keep one foot on the ground at all times).

obviously when running you have to overcome gravity every stride, much more so than when walking, so yes the effect of the force of gravity changes greatly.

Gravity is gravity. Even with walking (normal, power or racewalking) you also have one foot off the ground as well....it still has to push off at the rear and leave the ground just like a runner.

A lot of people seem to have it wrong. Walking is a different activity from running in terms of biomechanics, so it does not burn the same as running, although walking a mile at different paces burns roughly the same energy, and running a mile at different paces burns roughly the same energy (for the same weight individual).

From the ACSM position stand "Appropriate Intervention Strategies for Weight Loss and Prevention of Weight Regain for Healthy Adults" (Table 2, p. 2152):

Energy cost of walking 1 mile at 3 mph for a 140 pound male:

74 kcal (300 kcal in 81 minutes)

From the ACSM Position Stand on "Nutrition and Athletic Performance" (p. 2132):

Energy cost of running 1 mile at 6:00 pace for a 140 pound male:

96.53 kcal (0.253 kcal/min/kg)

This month's ACSM journal, Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise, has a validation study of equations that estimate the energy cost of walking vs. running 1600 m.

Here is the pub med link to the abstract.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15570150

The conclusion of the study was that running 1600 m required 481 kJ (115 kcal) and walking 1600 m required 340 kJ (81 kcal). 1 kcal=4.187 kJ.

The references of this article also lists many other studies that show the different energy cost required for walking compared to running.

I am glad we are finally getting some science-based answers on this topic.

This is how I would approach this question if it were in one of my former engineering classes.

I believe Chris Rock meant in a sort of half-assed answer is the following:

There are forces that are a result of friction (this would stay constant) and gravity (this varies with height). Because we are dealing with work, W = Fd, we can also use potential and kinetic energy (for you kiddies check the units they match!).

In the case with running, as someone previously stated, both feet leave the ground resulting in a change in height (thanks for the back up by the way). Taking into consideration the force due to gravity or F=mg and taking the difference in height = h we have PE = mgh. Knowing that forces act independent of each other, in other words forces in the x-direction (back and forth if you will) have no effect of forces in the y-direction (up or down if you will) we can state that the KE required for the y-direction is where KE=PE or in other words 0.5mv^2=mgh. Therefore we can determine the KE require used during stride upward.

KE forward would simply be Total Energy = KE + Frictional Forces*distance or in this case 1mile (Ffriction*d). It should be noted that the energy exerted to move forward should be use to overcome friction which brings your overall x-direction velocity down. If you can determine your velocity without friction perhaps that would be easier, but then again we dont have those types of surfaces in reality.

For simplicity I purposely disregarded geometry, but of course this SHOULD be included for both the x and y-directions.

Knowing the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy can not be created or destroyed, it is safe to assume that the KE required to move at a specific pace would be the same energy the body must produce. In other words the KE from running (external) = Energy in Body (internal).

This is not a perfect explanation, but it is clear that walking velocity is much slower than running velocity and that there is a significant difference considering velocity in squared.

If you have the ability to get a physics book, I would suggest making a few assumptions such as the angle at which you leave the ground, using a point source (the center of your bodies gravity) the difference in height between the point source and above the ground, forces of friction from both shoes and ground, and the velocity at which you wish to run. Some of these you dont have to assume because you can measure them on your own. To have a better understanding drawing a diagram would help determine your forces and trajectory.