What burns more calories, walking or runninga mile?

They are equal I believe. The amount of calories burned is the same, but in other ways they develop the muscles differently. Running is harder and gets you into better shape but the calories burned is equal I believe.

The runner would probably only burn about 15 to 20 calories more per mile than that of the walker.

Its like this......

If you are a fat ass, then walking.

If you are in shape, then running.

no. they burn the same amount.

check it yourself. get on a treadmill and run a mile. then walk a mile. they will be the same.

a cal is a unit of energy which can be defined as the amount of energy needed to move a given object a given distance.

Treadmills are inaccurate.

You will burn more calories by walking fast, it's a more inefficient motion. Or, is would you do so by walking for ten minutes as opposed to running for ten minutes?

The Canadian wrote:

Treadmills are inaccurate.

You will burn more calories by walking fast, it's a more inefficient motion. Or, is would you do so by walking for ten minutes as opposed to running for ten minutes?

-"Treadmills are inaccurate"

agree. but if the one you use is off by 10% the same error would be consis over it. as such you can still compare.

-"walking 10 minutes as opposed to running 10 minutes"

running would burn more. why? b/c if you run for 10 minutes, as opposed to walking, you cover a greater distance. since you have moved the weight a greater distance you have burned more cals.

So which one is it? This is a confusing topic.

The Canadian wrote:

You will burn more calories by walking fast, it's a more inefficient motion.

If that were the case you would burn LESS calories walking since if it were more efficient you would be using less energy to move your body.

Just like a more efficient car burns LESS gas.

Eastsider wrote:

So which one is it? This is a confusing topic.

Energy expenditure is directly proportional to the amount of work performed. The rate of energy expenditure is proporational to power and thus would be higher for the runner.

Woops.

I mis-read. Thought you said "efficient." Sorry.

and that is the case. If one runner runs a mile and has terrible form and has his arms swinging all over the place and tons of uneeded motion, then he is going to burn more calories than someone who expends minimal energy

Let me settle this once and for all:

They will burn roughly IDENTICAL number of calories during the mile traversed.

However, running will increase the number of calories you burn afterwards as your heart rate will be elevated for an extended period of time.

But in terms of just going the distance, it doesn't matter how fast you go.

Even though running is harder they both burn the same amount of calories

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?

Racewalking is the least efficient out of regular walking, jogging, or running, so it burns the most kcal/mile.

If running above LT, then an elevated VO2 occurs above what would be predicted and that burns more calories than regular walking or jogging.

Dr. Doogie,

That doesn't make sense.

It's like saying that bench pressing a bag of donuts and 200 lbs. are the same thing in terms of calorie burning and the only difference is what happens afterwards.

What happens afterwards will certainly burn more calories but benching 200 lbs. has GOT to burn more calories than benching a bag of donuts.

by definition, work = force x distance

work, as we are talking about it in this example, would be the calories required.

therefore, the number of calories required is directly related to the force required times the distance.

since we're comparing walking and running over the SAME distance (1 mile), the only factor that will affect the number of calories required is the force required...so let's look closer at the force...

newton says force = mass x acceleration. We can safely assume that mass will be the same unless you chow down some burgers between the walk and the run, so it all comes down to acceleration. when you are in mid-stride (whether it's mid-stride walking OR mid-stride running), you must generate a certain amount of acceleration to MAINTAIN that speed. if we were to assume that one's stride and muscles used were EXACTLY the same when running as walking, then we could naturally assume that that acceleration requirement was the same, and therefore the number of calories burned would ultimately be THE SAME!!! BUT THEY'RE NOT THE SAME!

This is because our stride and muscles used ARE different between walking and running. heck, you swing your arms much more while running, and that too requires SOME acceleration.

As long as you agree that the extra arm and leg movements in running require more acceleration to maintain the given speed than walking, you have to admit that running a mile does indeed burn more calories than walking a mile.

teaser: the acceleration difference is probably pretty small, so the calorie difference really isn't that big.

you must also recognize that walking a mile takes longer than running it. So it would make sense that they are about equal as far as calories burned since running effort is harder, yet the time it takes to complete a mile is considerably shorter.

although it is poorly put, the dude said "more inefficient," not "more efficient." He should have just said "less efficient," but you should notice these things.