View Full Version : walk vs jog
90dfw
05-05-2005, 03:27 AM
somebody wass telling me that walking 5 miles and running 5 miles burn the same ammount of calories???????? True/false??
Also what is the best way to loose a developing gut? running isnt really an option becuase my knees start to kill me after a couple of minutes of running.
Also thought about buying a bike and riding more.
Need to loose about 15l-20lbs before lake time....
f0ur sixer
05-05-2005, 03:34 AM
Also what is the best way to loose a developing gut?
Stop drinking beer!
90dfw
05-05-2005, 03:56 AM
Actually I have cut back and switched over to light.Only have them on the weekend..And cut down to two-three cokes a day.cant drink coffee cause it sucks so i drink cokes to keep me awake during the nights when i work.
somebody wass telling me that walking 5 miles and running 5 miles burn the same ammount of calories???????? True/false??
Also what is the best way to loose a developing gut? running isnt really an option becuase my knees start to kill me after a couple of minutes of running.
Also thought about buying a bike and riding more.
Need to loose about 15l-20lbs before lake time....
I have heard that this is true. It takes about the same amount of calories to propel your body over 5 miles. One just takes a lot longer. Of course I don't know that for sure.
JordonMusser
05-05-2005, 12:49 PM
stop drinking cokes, only DIET cokes. make a huge difference if you are drinking "only"(LOL!) 3 a day!!!
slowimport96
05-05-2005, 12:53 PM
Either way who would want to walk for 2 plus hours when you could just run for 45-50 minutes?
davbrucas
05-05-2005, 01:32 PM
walking will not burn as much as jogging. which do you think requires your body to do the most work? ie...consume the most energy to perform. you should get your heart rate up to 85% of your max (220-age) and keep it there for 30-60mins 3-5 times per week. the best way to do this is to jog or swim laps. jogging is the best way to get in shape. your diet will be the key to your losing your gut along with the exercise of course. switch to diet coke. i did and lost 10lbs in a month. watch your carb intake. as a guide, if it is white then dont eat it....like fries, bread, pasta, potatoes, mayo, etc...buy lots of fruits to snack on. eat at least one salad as a meal and lots of meat/fish. you will lose the wt. it just takes a strong mind and will power.
walking will not burn as much as jogging.
True and false. It's the amount of work you do, not the rate of work. If the question was does jogging burn more calories in 1h than walking then the answer would be yes. But if it is 5 miles vs. 5 miles then it is no.
Does it take more work to lift 100kg for 1m in 1s than in 2s? No, both require the same amount of work. Same with jogging and running. Same work but different rate.
The amount of energy you burn by converting to potential energy:
PE = mgh = 100kg * 9.81 m/s^2 * 1m = 981J = 981 J * 4.2 cal/J = 4120cal
So you burn 4120cal on each time you lift 100kg on the bench (assuming your hands are 1m long). Seem a lot? That's 4.12kcal. When people talk about calories they are talking about kilocalories. (note, I'm only calculating one lift, the one from your chest up).
davbrucas
05-05-2005, 03:28 PM
True and false. It's the amount of work you do, not the rate of work. If the question was does jogging burn more calories in 1h than walking then the answer would be yes. But if it is 5 miles vs. 5 miles then it is no.
Does it take more work to lift 100kg for 1m in 1s than in 2s? No, both require the same amount of work. Same with jogging and running. Same work but different rate.
The amount of energy you burn by converting to potential energy:
PE = mgh = 100kg * 9.81 m/s^2 * 1m = 981J = 981 J * 4.2 cal/J = 4120cal
So you burn 4120cal on each time you lift 100kg on the bench (assuming your hands are 1m long). Seem a lot? That's 4.12kcal. When people talk about calories they are talking about kilocalories. (note, I'm only calculating one lift, the one from your chest up).
but in this case the rate at which the person is running is requiring more energy than walking the same distance. jogging 5miles uses more energy than walking the same 5 miles. so the body is doing more work (W=Fxd) by having an increased amount of force to move the legs/arms at a faster rate. you are also using more force with the rate at which you are breathing...which is faster with jogging.
Not only that but if you jog, your heart rate is going to stay higher for longer afterwards, burning more calories.
If I walk 5 miles I can come off the treadmill ready to throw some iron around.
If I run 5 miles I've got to sit or stand for about five minutes before I can even think about moving the heavy iron.
but in this case the rate at which the person is running is requiring more energy than walking the same distance. jogging 5miles uses more energy than walking the same 5 miles. so the body is doing more work (W=Fxd) by having an increased amount of force to move the legs/arms at a faster rate. you are also using more force with the rate at which you are breathing...which is faster with jogging.
You're forgetting work needs to be in reference to time. It takes more time to walk so you're doing work longer.
Work needed to run distance is independent of speed. Work required to walk distance increases in proportion to the square of the speed. Conclusion? There is a speed above which running is more economical than walking and below walking is more economical than running.
Of course it all depends on technique, we can't all have the economical running like marathoners do. The higher you jump on each running step, the more you're using on going up and down instead of moving forward.
Bonus points to the one who tells why the bench press example is missing... :)
poopnut2
05-05-2005, 04:04 PM
You're forgetting work needs to be in reference to time. It takes more time to walk so you're doing work longer.
Work needed to run distance is independent of speed. Work required to walk distance increases in proportion to the square of the speed. Conclusion? There is a speed above which running is more economical than walking and below walking is more economical than running.
Of course it all depends on technique, we can't all have the economical running like marathoners do. The higher you jump on each running step, the more you're using on going up and down instead of moving forward.
Get on a treadmil. Set it at a walking pace, go for a mile. Then do it at a jogging pace. You'll burn WAY more calories running. It's almost ridiculous to think that walking is as effective as running. The only good thing about walking is that you can do it for longer. Why? Because it's so much easier on your body. Why is it that you see fat people walking for a workout and fit people running?
Also, 2-3 soft drinks a day is a shitload. Best way to lose the gut is to cut the sugar out of your diet as much as possible. Fat is a backup source of energy and if there is no sugar to burn, your body will use the fat. Don't eliminate sugar entirely, but get rid of the cokes.
davbrucas
05-05-2005, 04:09 PM
Work is equal to the force applied over a given distance...independent of time. Power is work done over time. i understand your thinking but your body is doing more internal work to jog compared to walking. meaning there is more force applied to your muscle/bones over the same distance.
Get on a treadmil. Set it at a walking pace, go for a mile. Then do it at a jogging pace. You'll burn WAY more calories running. It's almost ridiculous to think that walking is as effective as running.
We aren't talking about being effective (which would be the rate of work) but work itself.
davbrucas
05-05-2005, 04:11 PM
We aren't talking about being effective (which would be the rate of work) but work itself.
youre talking about power there sami. Power = work done over time. the simple fact is that you burn more kcals jogging than walking over the same distance.
poopnut2
05-05-2005, 04:14 PM
I'm willing to bet a fatass came up with the idea that you can burn as many calories walking a mile as you can running one.
Work is equal to the force applied over a given distance...independent of time.
F = m * a
a = dv / dt
F = m * dv / dt
I quess it all comes down to the change of speed vs. change of time.
Work equations for both run and walk:
Wwalk = (m *vq^2 * sin q) / 4
Wrun = (m * g * tan q) / 4
the simple fact is that you burn more kcals jogging than walking over the same distance.
That depends on speed at which they are done. :)
http://my.webmd.com/content/pages/1/3079_883
http://216.185.112.5/presenter.jhtml?identifier=756
2mph walk 160kcal vs. 5.5mph run 440kcal -> 2/5.5 * 440/160 = 1
http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/4/4_1/94.shtml
From the WebMD article:
"When you walk a mile, it gives your metabolism time to switch from burning carbohydrates to burning fat."
This makes no sense to me.
davbrucas
05-05-2005, 04:59 PM
From the WebMD article:
"When you walk a mile, it gives your metabolism time to switch from burning carbohydrates to burning fat."
This makes no sense to me.
this is true, but this goes for jogging as well...and with jogging you will burn more fat. there is a point where you start to use carbs again when running. you cannot sprint or you will use carbs for energy and have little fat burning.
sami, no matter how many formulas you post up you are not going to convince me that these can apply to the dynamics of the humnan body. walking 5 miles with not burn as much energy as jogging 5 miles. plain and simple.
davbrucas
05-05-2005, 05:01 PM
http://my.webmd.com/content/pages/1/3079_883
http://216.185.112.5/presenter.jhtml?identifier=756
2mph walk 160kcal vs. 5.5mph run 440kcal -> 2/5.5 * 440/160 = 1
http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/4/4_1/94.shtml
Dr ornish is an idiot...
there are several studies that show that jogging will burn fat for energy compared to running at a faster pace. walking may work the same way but the energy expenditure will be less...
sami, no matter how many formulas you post up you are not going to convince me that these can apply to the dynamics of the humnan body. walking 5 miles with not burn as much energy as jogging 5 miles. plain and simple.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree then. There is plenty of material out there that suggest that they are about the same. Physics will tell you that it depends on how fast you will walk, there is a point where switches.
In practice people will burn more calories running but that is due to their poor running technique.
miketyler
05-05-2005, 05:37 PM
Does burning fat = burning calories? I am no expert but have read many times that the body begins to burn fat only after 20-25mins of maintaining 75-90% of your target heart rate (THR). I assumed this was to burn up whatever unabsorbed food was still in your system. Last on, first off?
If this is true is it really something you can put an exact figure to and apply to all people? Wouldnt it be more a question of how much time in excess of 20-25 minutes is spent in the THR zone? The work performed to get in the zone and stay there will vary from person to person depending on what kind of shape they are in.
I can run 3miles and my heart monitor indicates I was in my THR zone for 95% of the time. I walk three miles and I may never get my heart rate up high enough to be in the zone. But a larger, out-of-shape guy might experience more stress and have different results after walking three miles.
01WhiteCobra
05-05-2005, 06:00 PM
I guess we will have to agree to disagree then. There is plenty of material out there that suggest that they are about the same. Physics will tell you that it depends on how fast you will walk, there is a point where switches.
In practice people will burn more calories running but that is due to their poor running technique.
Sami, your assumption is that walking and running have the same efficiencies. They don't because they are two different modes of locomotion.
By definition, running requires you to have both feet off the ground at some point during your gait. Walking requires that one foot remains on the ground at all times during the gait.
Two entirely different methods of locomotion.
If you want to make the argument that walking at 3MPH requires the same number of calories as walking at 4MPH or running at 7MPH requires the same number of calories as running 9MPH, I'll buy that.
rlanicek
05-05-2005, 06:10 PM
somebody wass telling me that walking 5 miles and running 5 miles burn the same ammount of calories???????? True/false??
Also what is the best way to loose a developing gut? running isnt really an option becuase my knees start to kill me after a couple of minutes of running.
Also thought about buying a bike and riding more.
Need to loose about 15l-20lbs before lake time....
Walking 5 miles does not have the same cardiovascular effect of running 5 miles.
Want to lose weight? Eat less and exercise more. Period.
Here is the way I understand it...and by no means am I fuckin expert on this subject.
You got X amount of energy in your blood, calories I suppose. Your body uses those first, for the most part. Then it starts burning fat. Then it burns muscle if it has to.
Now my thinking is that as you burn up the carb energy in your blood you gradually burn more and more fat until you are burning fat as fast as your body can burn it and then it will start to break down your muscle tissue eventually.
Is this correct and if so, what kind of time frames are we talking about here? Obviously the amount of energy in your bloodstream is determined by what you have eaten. What determines how fast you can metabolize fat once that is gone? What determines when you start metabolizing muscle tissue?
Sami, your assumption is that walking and running have the same efficiencies. They don't because they are two different modes of locomotion.
By definition, running requires you to have both feet off the ground at some point during your gait. Walking requires that one foot remains on the ground at all times during the gait.
Two entirely different methods of locomotion.
They are and the two equations I posted earlier take exactly that into account. There comes the conclusion that the energy burned does cross at some point and that is dependant of the speed of the walk. Then you of course have the different running styles which were also mentioned.
Walking as an exercise isn't bad. It does not burn calories at the same hourly rate as jogging or running but you can't really tell which one burns more calories over the same distance. Damn close they are and in the end it is individual which way it goes. Both depending on the person and the day.
You got X amount of energy in your blood, calories I suppose. Your body uses those first, for the most part. Then it starts burning fat. Then it burns muscle if it has to.
Which one does it start burning first, muscle or fat? If it would burn muscle only when it has to, wouldn't that make losing fat very easy? We know losing fat while not losing muscle isn't easy so I don't think it is that simple.
Well, I dont really know which burns for calories, but i do know 1st hand that jogging will help lose weight. Its been about a year and 1/2 since I gave up cokes ALL together (which is really hard at first), and began running 2-3 miles at least 3-4 nights a week. When I started, I was wearing size 40in waist. Now Im a 34, and almost 70lbs lighter. If you can kick the cokes all together, this will help alot. But, get ready for migrain headaches about a month into it. Your body gets addicted to caffiene and I had withdrawels.
Which one does it start burning first, muscle or fat? If it would burn muscle only when it has to, wouldn't that make losing fat very easy? We know losing fat while not losing muscle isn't easy so I don't think it is that simple.
Losing muscle is a lot harder than people think IMO. If it was really easy then those people who run hundreds of miles at a time wouldn't be able to even walk.
Losing muscle is a lot harder than people think IMO. If it was really easy then those people who run hundreds of miles at a time wouldn't be able to even walk.
But that is what the people on these fad diets are mostly losing (along with water), not fat. But maybe it is after certain point, I'm afraid I'll start to lose a lot of muscle in my quest to go under 10% BF.
davbrucas
05-05-2005, 11:57 PM
actually its not that simple Al. depending on the energy requirements your body can use available carbs from diet, stored carbs in liver (glycogen), lipids, protein, and ketone bodies for energy. when you deplete the available carbs and depending if you have reached your anaerobic threshhold, your body will start using lipids for energy. granted there is some carb metabolism going on as well as muscle break down...just the majority of the energy is coming from the lipids at this point. your brain uses glucose or ketone bodies for energy but during extreme exercise it mainly uses ketone bodies which come from fat metabolism. so it is more of a dynamic system where you dont just use one form of energy.
90dfw
05-06-2005, 12:01 AM
stop drinking cokes, only DIET cokes. make a huge difference if you are drinking "only"(LOL!) 3 a day!!!
I used to drink almost a 6pk a day.2-3 at home then 2-3 at work.I hate coffee so it was the only way to get some caffeen(sp?). I have cut it down to just 2-3 cokes per day and i try to make at least 1-2 a diet/caffeen free.
90dfw
05-06-2005, 12:08 AM
im trying to kick the cokes off or at least down to 1 a day.
I stopped for about a week once and it felt like somebody smashed in my head with a hammer...Right now im 6''3 230 and 34 waist.Just that my gut is starting to hang over and that cant happen.for some strange reason the lady's dont find that to attractive.
I want to get back down to around 200 and a 32 waist...
Whats the thought about switching from cokes to tea...I dont think tea has any sugar in it.In just cant drink water.It has no flavor..Now if im sweating my ass off then water tastes real good.Other than that its just to plain.
01WhiteCobra
05-06-2005, 07:35 AM
They are and the two equations I posted earlier take exactly that into account. There comes the conclusion that the energy burned does cross at some point and that is dependant of the speed of the walk. Then you of course have the different running styles which were also mentioned.
Walking as an exercise isn't bad. It does not burn calories at the same hourly rate as jogging or running but you can't really tell which one burns more calories over the same distance. Damn close they are and in the end it is individual which way it goes. Both depending on the person and the day.
It didn't take it into account enough then because we wouldn't be having this discussion.
You are not taking into account efficiences at all. A person running 10km/hr for 10K is not working at the same sub-optimal level as he would be walking 5km/hr for 10K. Your equation isn't taking into account the terrible inefficiences of our muscles, oxygen consumed per kilometer, etc.
You are assuming oxygen uptake with walking is linear which doesn't occur typically until the average person reaches about 5mph (the "crossover" where walking become a less efficient mode of transportation than running).
There is a paper you can read, but you have to sign up if you want to the background to the conclusions.
Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running: Comparison with Prediction Equations.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 36(12):2128-2134, December 2004.
HALL, CAMERON; FIGUEROA, ARTURO; FERNHALL, BO; KANALEY, JILL A.
Abstract:
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[middle dot]s-1) and running (2.82 m[middle dot]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.
(C)2004The American College of Sports Medicine
poopnut2
05-06-2005, 09:17 AM
Does burning fat = burning calories? I am no expert but have read many times that the body begins to burn fat only after 20-25mins of maintaining 75-90% of your target heart rate (THR). I assumed this was to burn up whatever unabsorbed food was still in your system. Last on, first off?
If this is true is it really something you can put an exact figure to and apply to all people? Wouldnt it be more a question of how much time in excess of 20-25 minutes is spent in the THR zone? The work performed to get in the zone and stay there will vary from person to person depending on what kind of shape they are in.
I can run 3miles and my heart monitor indicates I was in my THR zone for 95% of the time. I walk three miles and I may never get my heart rate up high enough to be in the zone. But a larger, out-of-shape guy might experience more stress and have different results after walking three miles.
3,000 Calories is about 1lbs of fat.
01WhiteCobra
05-06-2005, 09:57 AM
3,000 Calories is about 1lbs of fat.
Best explanation I've read.
Q. In books on nutrition, I'm told that to lose one pound of fat it's necessary either to reduce my food intake by 3500 calories or to exercise so that 3500 calories are burned. How is the value of 3500 determined? If fat contains 9 calories per gram, and there are 454 grams in a pound, then there should be 4086 calories in a pound of fat-- not 3500.
A. The nutrition books are correct-- 3500 calories per pound of fat is not an absolute amount, but it's very close. However, your math is correct, too. Here is the story.
When we burn fat, or other nutrients, heat is produced, which is measured in calories. As you note, each gram of fat generates 9 calories, and 454 grams equals one pound. But a pound of fat is not all fat. It's about 10% water. All of our body tissues--fat, muscle, bone, skin--contain some water. And water has zero calories.
In addition, not all the nutrients we eat are completely absorbed from the digestive tract to meet metabolic needs. In the case of fat, roughly 5% is eliminated in the feces. This 10% water content and 5% non-absorbed fat accounts for the 15% difference between your calculated 4086 calories and the actual 3500 calories in a pound of fat.
Two other minor points: The calories can be reduced when the meal is high in fiber. Fiber speeds the movement of food through the digestive system, there is less time for the nutrients to be absorbed before they are eliminated. So the non-absorbed fat could be a bit higher. Also, the amount of heat generated from fat differs a little for various foods (depending on fatty acid content). For example, there are 9.50 calories in one gram of meat compared with 9.30 calories for vegetables and fruits and 9.25 calories for dairy products.
CobraChic
05-06-2005, 12:22 PM
We completely cut out cokes and each of us dropped a few pounds easily.
It didn't take it into account enough then because we wouldn't be having this discussion.
And this discussion really is about miniscule differences in either case. The equations (directly or indirectly) do bring out a interesting point though. At some point in the walk, the speed increases to a level where it would be more efficient to walk. Walking competition is a tough sport (I'm not sure if everyone has seen one) and burns huge amounts of calories.
Out of curiosity, which person would you think burns more calories (assuming their bodies are nearly identical), one doing 50km walk contest or one running 50km (marathon is 42km)? Both are assumed to be professional athletes in what they do so technique is superb. If you have never seen walking competition and think it can't be tough, don't answer the question until you see one.
p.s. the world records show an average speed of 14km/h for the 50km walk, and 21km/h for 42km marathon
01WhiteCobra
05-08-2005, 08:03 PM
And this discussion really is about miniscule differences in either case. The equations (directly or indirectly) do bring out a interesting point though. At some point in the walk, the speed increases to a level where it would be more efficient to walk. Walking competition is a tough sport (I'm not sure if everyone has seen one) and burns huge amounts of calories.
Out of curiosity, which person would you think burns more calories (assuming their bodies are nearly identical), one doing 50km walk contest or one running 50km (marathon is 42km)? Both are assumed to be professional athletes in what they do so technique is superb. If you have never seen walking competition and think it can't be tough, don't answer the question until you see one.
p.s. the world records show an average speed of 14km/h for the 50km walk, and 21km/h for 42km marathon
I thought we had already decided that there is a cross over point where running is more efficient than walking and vice versa, somewhere around 5mph.
So, I would assume that race walking a 40 minute 10K would be less efficient than running a 40 minute 10K. Thus, you would obviously burn more calories walking a 10K in 40 minutes.
I thought we had already decided that there is a cross over point where running is more efficient than walking and vice versa, somewhere around 5mph.
Must have missed it or it was just a few guys. Everyone else seems to be dissing walking and telling how it's a fact that running burns more calories. But good that we have now established an agreement. :)
Ok - if 5mph is the magic number (or close to it) then what about someone who can only run 2 miles at 6mph.
Would burn more calories walking 5 miles than to just run 2?
I'm at a plateau point and can't seem to lose anymore weight but then again, I'm getting back to working out after 2 weeks off (was sick). I'm hoping to get to 3 or 4 miles a day lilke I used to, but right now, it's just 2 and that kills me.
JPS
poopnut2
05-09-2005, 09:15 AM
The fact that walking doesn't work your muscles as much as jogging will make you burn less calories. Look at someone who walks 3-5 miles a day for excercise compared to someone who jogs that same amount per day. Walking just doesn't work nearly as well. Walking is better than nothing but doesn't even compare to jogging.
Would burn more calories walking 5 miles than to just run 2?
Yes, you would burn many more calories by walking 5 miles than running 2. Appr. 2.5 times. If you can jog 2 miles and then walk 3, try that. Or walk a mile, then jog/run for another mile, then repeat as many times as you can.
think about it like a car (car site deserves some reference I guess)....
walking 5 miles could be similar to driving 5 miles at 55 mph....
running 5 miles could be similar to driving 5 miles at 100 mhp....
Which one will burn more gas (calories/stored energy) for the same distance?
Your engine RPM (heartrate) will be higher but for a shorter amount of time at 100 MPH and it will take more fuel (calories/stored energy) to make the 5 mile trip.
AbecX
05-14-2005, 01:34 PM
nerds
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.