Cherry Blossom 35 Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 I like running because I feel like I'm really burning calories, but some days I just don't have the energy to run 4-5 miles. What if I walked 4-5 miles instead? Like, at a quick pace? Would that be a good calorie burner as well?
sally4sara Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 Not as much as running. I dietician once told me that you burn the same amount of calories briskly walking around the block as you do typing a term paper. The only added benefit was brisk walk elevated your heart rate more and therefore was the healthier exercise. I say you may prefer running, but when you can't, walking is better than nothing.
Trialbyfire Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 http://walking.about.com/library/cal/uccalc2.htm This is an online walking calorie calculator. I'm assuming that since you run regularly, you already know about that.
Author Cherry Blossom 35 Posted August 7, 2009 Author Posted August 7, 2009 Actually, I don't know how many calories I burn while running. I just know how far I go and how awesome I feel afterwards If I am tired or it is hot outside, I just can't do the running. Sometimes I will alternate between running and walking in those cases. Sometimes I just feel like walking. I used the calculator, and it says I would burn 420 calories at the pace and distance I usually walk. That sounds pretty good to me. I guess it just doesn't feel like you are really burning that many calories. At the very least, I get to enjoy nature and clear my head from the daily stresses of life. Thank you!!
Bayern Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 In terms of calories, running is much better. In terms of health and well-being of your legs? Walking. Running on the streets (if that is what you're doing) is extremely bad on your joints.
EddieN Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 The relationship between energy used and speed is exponential, not linear. In other words, the difference between the energy used to run 5 miles at 10 MPH and 9 MPH is more than the difference between the energy used to run the same distance at 9 MPH and 8 MPH. So, walking 5 miles at a nice 4 MPH pace is going to burn a lot less calories than running the same distance at a faster pace. Our bodies need a lot more power and energy just to go a bit harder.
shadowplay Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 Running is more trying on your body. Not just your joints, but your heart.
big_girls_rock Posted August 9, 2009 Posted August 9, 2009 I was informed that you burn as many calories running as you do walking in some cases. Running wears away at your joints but you get results a lot faster, walking takes time, is easier on your joints, but you progress slowly. Burning calories depends on the time doing the excercise as well as how much you weigh, a bigger person walking more slowly is going to burn more calories then a fit person running.
Meaplus3 Posted August 9, 2009 Posted August 9, 2009 Never one to be much of a runner here, but I do enjoy power walking. After my 3rd child was born, I had a good solid 20 pounds to shed. I started power wlaking 5 days pers week for 4o minutes. Within 6 months, I had shed a fair amount of that weight. I felt great. I choose walking 100% over running. Mea:)
You'reasian Posted August 9, 2009 Posted August 9, 2009 I like running because I feel like I'm really burning calories, but some days I just don't have the energy to run 4-5 miles. What if I walked 4-5 miles instead? Like, at a quick pace? Would that be a good calorie burner as well? Running is a bit better in terms of conditioning, but is high impact in the long-term, leaving you susceptible to injury. Speed walking is almost as good, cardio-wise, as running and alot easier on the body.
lino Posted August 11, 2009 Posted August 11, 2009 I've found that interval training is best for losing weight relatively quickly. When I need to quickly drop a kg or 2 for the soccer season I find that jogging and sprinting intermittently around a track is great. Also because it's on grass I don't get sore knees or shin splints.
Thaddeus Posted August 11, 2009 Posted August 11, 2009 Who says you can't do both? Run for 5 minutes, walk for 1, run for another 5, walk for another 1... That's how marathoners train, though usually it starts with 10-1 and progresses to 20-1, then 30-1 and so forth.
borbiusle Posted August 11, 2009 Posted August 11, 2009 Who says you can't do both? Run for 5 minutes, walk for 1, run for another 5, walk for another 1... That's how marathoners train, though usually it starts with 10-1 and progresses to 20-1, then 30-1 and so forth. This is what I usually do, the marathon style training. I consider walking to be more of a "cooling-down" tool than a real exercise.
Recommended Posts