I agree with Unident - it is total distance covered that matters, not speed. Although because you are airborne for part of each stride, running does burn more calories per mile than walking.
Doing the same distance in less time is actually better for you, as it gets your heart rate higher which creates additional health and fitness benefits.
But if you are used to working out for 30 minutes, why not extend this distance so that you are running for 30 minutes? That way you get the benefits of BOTH intensity and duration.
However, it is generally recommended that new runners (ie. less than 6 months experience) only run 3 times per week, to allow their leg muscles and tendons to rest and recover from the impact. So you may want to walk 2 times per week and run 3.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
Fitness Minutes: (112,042)
46,222 2/9/13 6:16 P
It was once believed that covering the same distance either walking or running burned the same calories, but a study out of Syracuse University in 2005 showed that runners burn approximately 50 calories (weight and gender influence the calorie burn as well) per mile running versus walking. Researchers believe that this has to do with running basically being one jump after the other whereas walking allows for a straight leg with the center of gravity staying at the top of your legs. Then you factor in VO2 max--the amount of oxygen one consumes for an activity and you will burn more calories per mile running vs walking. This is why when you are short on time, intensity can trump steady state exercise.
But be careful that you are not running 5 days a week. You need time for your body to adapt to running and pushing for just a calorie burn may lead to an injury.
All things in moderation.
Fitness Minutes: (26,674)
340 2/9/13 5:51 P
I would recommend keeping your our workouts at least 30 minutes long. The benefits of 30 minute cardio workouts 5x a week have been proven.
Also, for me there's time invested to get ready for a workout, then get ready for real life after the workout (change, setup, shower, change back). Once I take the time, I want more of a workout than 20 minutes.
Generally speaking, it's identical. Two miles is two miles. The calorie burn factor in walking is distance, not time spent. So if you walk slow or walk fast, you'll burn about the same, as you have to cover the same distance (walking faster you burn more per minute but you're done faster).
BUT ... running burns about 1.5 times what walking does, so there's that increase.
HOWEVER ... physical fitness depends on pushing yourself and you get good results with pushing yourself for 45-60 minutes. A 30 minute workout is better than a 22 minute one for improving your stamina and fitness - if the intensity is the same.
So basically ... it's great that you can now run for 22 minutes. But don't stop there! Start increasing your distance/time and get up to doing 40-50 minutes at least non-stop.
Deb, in New Zealand
Fitness Minutes: (548)
1 2/9/13 5:30 P
My exercise plan used to be walking 2 miles 5 days/week on the treadmill. But now that I've gotten faster, I've started jogging those same 2 miles 5 days/week. However, this cuts down on the amount of time I spend exercising (even though I'm covering the same distance). Does that matter?
Basically, is 22 minutes of jogging the same as about 30 minutes of walking in terms of overall benefit to your body/heart and calorie burning?
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.