• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Excercise and calorie burning

Jon_in_london

Illuminator
J
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
4,989
I have heard that you burn approximately the same amount of energy walking a given distance as if you ran it. Obviously, you walk for a longer time so burn off more calories whereas running burns energy at a higher rate for less time.... the balance being equal.

Is this at all true?
 
c4ts said:
Isn't "calorie burning" a bit redundant?
Click to expand...

"Calorie" is a measure of energy potential. You can gain calories by eating, you can store calories (as fat), or you can lose calories by 'burning'. Leave out the "burning" and tell me which you did with any particular calorie...
 
If you want to really burn calories, get a job. Since I retired I've gained 50 pounds. And that's having cut my intake in half, to 4,000 calories per day. So, I used to burn 5,000 calories every day. You would have to jog for 35 hours every day to do that. Or work in a welding shop, or carve carousel horses, or 'pump iron' engine parts for 8 hours. I sure do miss those two Sausage McMuffins with egg, 2 hash browns and a shake for breakfast, the five piece meal of KFC for lunch and a case of beer to wash down a pizza each night.

ETA, well at least it was Lite beer.
 
Last edited:
If you really need to burn calories, it's more likely you'll be able to walk for a longer time than to run. (some of us don't run at all!) :)

Personally, I'd be sucking wind if I tried running across the street. But I could walk for at least an hour. Longer time, moderate aerobic pace, more fat burned.

But it's got to be a brisk walking pace. Fast enough to get you breathing deeply and doing some sweating.
 
I also seem to remember from deep recesses of memory (meaning I don't have a handy intarweb link) that your metabolism remains high for a long time after exercise---I believe the context was that some guy started commuting by bike (2 short rides a day) instead of riding to train (one ride a day, same distance), and found his weight dropping off fast. Not quite the question asked, though, but relevant to simple calculations of exercising twice as hard for half as long, then ``sitting around doing nothing'' for the remaining time...
 
You are quite right though, the point is that i can walk for an hour or two without much trouble but will be breathing out of my arsehole after 15 minutes of running.... plus I could carry extra weight when walking...
 
Jon_in_london said:
I have heard that you burn approximately the same amount of energy walking a given distance as if you ran it. Obviously, you walk for a longer time so burn off more calories whereas running burns energy at a higher rate for less time.... the balance being equal.

Is this at all true?
Click to expand...
I think the answer has to do with the concept of efficiency. Running is less efficient than walking, meaning that moving your body from point A to point B by running "burns" more calories than doing the same distance by walking. This happens because when you run, a lot of energy is "dissipated" or "wasted" in the form of heat everytime your feet heavily hit the ground.

In a similar way, cycling can be even more efficient than walking. That's why, if our muscles are fit to cycling, we get the sense that walking from A to B is more tiring that cycling the same distance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom