Which is more important?

Walking 2km and Running 2km will burn roughly the same amount of calories.

However walking will take you twice as long.
 
austin_88 said:
Walking 2km and Running 2km will burn roughly the same amount of calories.

However walking will take you twice as long.
Click to expand...

Ya know, I'm not sure that's the case. It's quite the interesting concept though and I've seen some very well-read individuals make the same claim. In fact, I thought this up until only a year or so ago.

One of my clients asked me a question that led me to do some research and I was quite surprised with what I found.

This was the primary one I found that stood out to me:

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Dec;36(12):2128-34.Click here to read Links
Energy expenditure of walking and running: comparison with prediction equations.
Hall C, Figueroa A, Fernhall B, Kanaley JA.

Department of Exercise Science, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA.

PURPOSE: This study established the published prediction equations for the energy expenditure of walking and running compared with the measured values. To make this comparison we first determined whether differences exist in energy expenditure for 1600 m of walking versus running, and whether energy expenditure differences occur due to being on the track or treadmill. METHODS: Energy was measured via indirect calorimetry in 24 subjects while walking (1.41 m.s(-1)) and running (2.82 m.s(-1)) 1600 m on the treadmill. A subgroup also performed the 1600-m run/walk on the track. The measured energy expenditures were compared with published prediction equations. RESULTS: Running required more energy (P < 0.01) for 1600 m than walking (treadmill: running 481 +/- 20.0 kJ, walking 340 +/- 14 kJ; track: running 480 +/- 23 kJ, walking 334 +/- 14 kJ) on both the track and treadmill. Predictions using the ACSM or Leger equations for running, and the Pandolf equation for walking, were similar to the actual energy expenditures for running and walking (total error: ACSM: -20 and 14.4 kJ, respectively; Legers walking: -10.1 kJ; Pandolf walking: -10.0 kJ). An overestimation (P < 0.01) for 1600 m was found with the McArdle's table for walking and running energy expenditure and with van der Walt's prediction for walking energy expenditure, whereas the Epstein equation underestimated running energy expenditure (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Running has a greater energy cost than walking on both the track and treadmill. For running, the Leger equation and ACSM prediction model appear to be the most suitable for the prediction of running energy expenditure. The ACSM and Pandolf prediction equation also closely predict walking energy expenditure, whereas the McArdle's table or the equations by Epstein and van der Walt were not as strong predictors of energy expenditure.
Click to expand...

To boot, all these nifty toys like Body Bugg tend to show a difference between walking and running over equal distances. Usually when I've got decent research and anecdote... I'm sold.

It's definitely an interesting topic.

Here was an interesting read I came across when I was doing some searching. I think I have some more research/links on my work computer from back when I was looking at this stuff.
 
Steve said:
Ya know, I'm not sure that's the case. It's quite the interesting concept though and I've seen some very well-read individuals make the same claim. In fact, I thought this up until only a year or so ago.

One of my clients asked me a question that led me to do some research and I was quite surprised with what I found.

This was the primary one I found that stood out to me:



To boot, all these nifty toys like Body Bugg tend to show a difference between walking and running over equal distances. Usually when I've got decent research and anecdote... I'm sold.

It's definitely an interesting topic.

Here was an interesting read I came across when I was doing some searching. I think I have some more research/links on my work computer from back when I was looking at this stuff.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this! I have always thought... "hmm but if you are walking/running the same distance shouldn't you burn the same amount of calories?"

But it kinda makes sense. I feel MUCH more exhausted after a 7km run rather than a 7km walk.
 
I had hoped to do some more digging. I recently saw some discussions from other strength coaches regarding this same data and they were going down the same path of realizing running vs. walking aren't equivalent in the context of equal distances. I tend to focus a lot of my research on strength training so I'm a little lax on this front. It still interests me a lot though, this topic.
 
so I get the answer to your question is 'the time it takes to run the distance' as opposed to one or the other!
 
Isn't it the time factor?
Just like when increasing intensity during resistance training but cutting rest periods, your doing the same amount of work over a shorter time it definitely feels more taxing.
 
As far as I am aware it isn't as simple as running verse walking. The quicker you are going over a set distance the more calories you will burn. I think that once you break past running speeds of around 13-14km/hour the benefits become even greater i.e. changing from 10-11km/h will give less benefit in calories burnt then changing from 15-16km/h.

To answer the OP distance and time are both important, however I would try to make sure you exercise for at least 15 minutes to benefit your cardiovascular fitness.
 
It's not so simple. You've got to delve into a bit deeper to see why many intelligent people thought walking vs. running equidistances led to similar caloric expendtures.

For instance:

work = force * distance
 
Steve said:
It's not so simple. You've got to delve into a bit deeper to see why many intelligent people thought walking vs. running equidistances led to similar caloric expendtures.

For instance:

work = force * distance
Click to expand...

I've been thinking about this one for a while now. Work = (force * distance / efficiency) - losses. Walking is one of the most efficient ways to move a body. Robotic scientists are now copying the movements of walking to decrease battery expenditures. This tells me that walking will burn less energy then the less efficient mode of running. The less efficient the manner of transport, the more work it takes to move the mass. Also, the faster you go, the more losses you have due to wind resistance and friction loss.

I do think that the way to burn the most calories is to do your exercise in the least efficient way possible. Of course, you still have to increase your endurance, so that you can do these exercises for longer periods of time.
 
I just want to add that for people looking to lose weight other side aspects can be quite important. I find that I do not eat during time that I am walking so the more time that I spend walking has a really positive impact on things. It is not so much in the calories burnt as in those not consumed.
 
Omega said:
I just want to add that for people looking to lose weight other side aspects can be quite important. I find that I do not eat during time that I am walking so the more time that I spend walking has a really positive impact on things. It is not so much in the calories burnt as in those not consumed.
Click to expand...

Hee, hee. That's how I think about sleeping, too. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top