Calories burned running versus walking.....

wow....I thought it was the opposite as your result. I thought running a slower mile burned more calories as a result of the longer time duration it takes to complete the activity....But then again we're basing our result off of a treadmill so its not necessarily a reliant source...

The treadmill simply takes your weight and uses simple equations to find total calories burned. If you don\'t set your weight on the treadmill most treadmills are preset at 150lbs. Yes walking a mile will burn slightly less than running a mile. It\'s not going to be an exact match walking vs running.

ACSM's Metabolic Equations:

Walking (speeds of 1.9-3.7 mph):

VO2= (0.1 * S) + (1.8 * S * G) + 3.5

Running (speeds of 5 mph or if person is truly jogging/running):

VO2= (0.2 * S) + (0.9* S * G) + 3.5

S= speed in meters/second (mph x 26.8)

G= percent grade

L/min 02 = 5 cal/min

Sol Rosenberg wrote:

I always though you burned the same amount of calories running 1 mile as you do walking 1 mile. It just obviously takes you less time to run it.

Is this correct? When I run on my treadmill it says I burn 112 calories per mile, but when I walk a mile on it, it says I've burned 82 calories.

???????

i used to think the same thing.

running one mile burns more calories than walking one mile.

below is a great article by amby burfoot explaining why.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Yes walking a mile will burn slightly less than running a mile.

from burfoot's article:

"Thanks to the Syracuse researchers, we now know the relative NCB of running a mile in 9:30 versus walking the same mile in 19:00. Their male subjects burned 105 calories running, 52 walking; the women, 91 and 43. That is, running burns twice as many net calories per mile as walking. And since you can run two miles in the time it takes to walk one mile, running burns four times as many net calories per hour as walking."

"slightly less" can be twice as much for the same distance and if you add in the added distance you would cover running in the time it takes the walker to cover the lesser distance it can be as much as 4x as many calories.

i have never seen a person walk themselves thin.

Walking's way more efficient; running wastes energy all over the place.

How significant is the energy used to repair damage caused by the workout after completion of the exercise (I beleive this is termed "after burn" by some)? I'd imagine that this would cause an even greater difference between running and walking in the end.

I see lots of people walking in the gym. They NEVER lose weight. The ones who pick up running, or using the elliptical, anything at a moderate to high intensity, they lose tons!

Alan

Old thinking was that a mile burns the same amount of calories regardless of speed. Obviously wrong.

Run a 5 mile race and compare how long afterwards you are heated to a 5 mile easy run. Heat is a by product from the expenditure of calories.

The faster you run the less efficiently you burn fuel. Just like a car. You use more calories per mile when running full out.

TickTock wrote:

Walking's way more efficient; running wastes energy all over the place.

It depends on the velocity. At 15 min/mile walking is more economical than running. At 9 min/mile running is more economical than walking at that same pace.

I wonder if it takes more fuel/calories for a plane to take off from a large treadmill or a runway ?? What a minute, can a plane even take off from a large treadmill ???

Having been shot off the back of a treadmill, I'd say yes...though I'm not an airplane.

So what burns more calories per mile:

running a mile in 4:30, 5:30, 6:30....etc?

what kind of slope are we dealing with....there should be a chart of this somewhere...

This is a start:

http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm

Harry Kooter wrote:

How significant is the energy used to repair damage caused by the workout after completion of the exercise (I beleive this is termed "after burn" by some)? I'd imagine that this would cause an even greater difference between running and walking in the end.

my guess, is that the number would not be all that different. keep in mind, 3,500 calories is what it takes to get rid of ONE pound.

a can of regular coke is 150 cals. for most people to get rid of a can of coke's cals you need to run about a mile. that means more than a mile of walking.

the so called "after burn" is something that in MY experience is what fat people talk about. they talk about how they walked a mile in the morning to get their "metabolism up" so they will burn "extra" calories all day. the are all still fat. so that after burn must be a pretty weak fire that burns itself out pretty fast.

what i have read about it in more "serious" sports articles, the consensus seems to be that it goes away quickly and does not burn many calories.

Burfoot refers to a "net calorie" - what is that?

How about the equation to calculate the calories from the varible: Distance or Speed or Heart rate or any else? I wanna know about I need to walk or run how long to use my target calories?

A nice rule of thumb:

For a 140 lb. human on level ground, running a mile burns about 100 kcal, walking about 85 kcal. Energy expenditure is roughly proportional to weight of individual. So, in terms of a formula, kcals per mile running = .7 * weight in pounds. This is not precise, but it will put you in the ballpark.

Chimpy wrote:

I wonder if it takes more fuel/calories for a plane to take off from a large treadmill or a runway ?? What a minute, can a plane even take off from a large treadmill ???

Ahahah, and does .999999999 =1?

Talent or Hard work? wrote:

Ahahah, and does .999999999 =1?

No. But .9999999...=1