Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
DELLMEL SparkPoints: (104,580)
Fitness Minutes: (44,432)
Posts: 21,742
12/31/13 6:52 P


MAYBER SparkPoints: (120,147)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
Posts: 9,764
12/31/13 6:43 P

emoticon emoticon

DELLMEL SparkPoints: (104,580)
Fitness Minutes: (44,432)
Posts: 21,742
11/29/13 7:21 P

I rather walk.

MLEHTO Posts: 734
11/28/13 10:31 P

Calories per mile are about the sawmill cover, it's just that you will cover more miles in the same amount of time jogging than walking.

DJHUMPHREY SparkPoints: (73,552)
Fitness Minutes: (86,429)
Posts: 216
11/28/13 10:23 P

I started doing intervals on the elliptical and dropped 9 lbs. after rejoining the gym 3 months ago. Both walking and jogging together work best for me.

DELLMEL SparkPoints: (104,580)
Fitness Minutes: (44,432)
Posts: 21,742
11/28/13 4:11 P

I just love walking.

TINA8605 SparkPoints: (99,668)
Fitness Minutes: (12,395)
Posts: 1,764
11/28/13 3:23 P

I have been confused about the same issue...exercise exertion. I have been exercising for over 10 years and still haven't come up with the answer. I've decided its a personal issue. What you can do. I have found interval exercise is best for me. I also have back, hip and knee issues. So interval is best for me. I have never been able to maintain a weight loss. So I deserve the name Yo I am a pro at loosing weight. But I get bored and lazy and the weight comes back on. I always say I'm gonna do better this time.
My advise is do what's comfortable. I know this doesn't answer your question though. If you find out the share!!!
Great luck! emoticon

SHARON46 SparkPoints: (0)
Fitness Minutes: (96,050)
Posts: 7,314
11/28/13 1:52 P

brisk walking is better for my knees.

DELLMEL SparkPoints: (104,580)
Fitness Minutes: (44,432)
Posts: 21,742
11/28/13 1:13 P

I am not a runner. I am a walker. Go runners.

RKEENE67 SparkPoints: (5,681)
Fitness Minutes: (4,206)
Posts: 28
11/27/13 11:44 P

Thanks for the feed back and I agree that if you look at it in terms of pure miles, it is about the same. I guess I've always looked at the amount of effort put forth in a given amount of time more than just considering the miles alone i.e. the person that runs for 30 minutes will burn more calories than the person the walks for 30 minutes (unless the crossover effect takes place that LEC358 mentioned in the post below). Another consideration is that you get a little better after burn effect from running due to the higher intensity.

Also, for the record, my HRM is set to pounds, not kilograms, and I do not have high blood pressure nor am I on any medication. I do not question the accuracy of the displayed heart rate (and yes, I wear a chest strap), it's the calorie counter that seems way off.

Thanks again for the feed back. I appreciate it!

MOTIVATED@LAST Posts: 15,443
11/27/13 10:22 P


It takes a given amount of "work" to cover a given distance. By going faster, you are compressing that work into a smaller amount of time, so naturally you will be working harder, which is why you are seeing your heart rate increase. But it is pretty much the same amount of total work to be done.

So you might be covering 1 mile in 15 minutes of walking, or about 6.6 calories per minute if you assume 100 calories per mile. Running you might cover the same mile in 10 minutes, or 10 calories per minute.

Looked at on a per-minute basis, yes, running burns more calories per minute. But looked at on a per-mile basis, and the difference is not big.

Your quote from webMD is actually addressing a different issue, which is the myth of where energy is coming from during your workout.

Walking and running are well studied activities, and online calculators produced reasonable estimates for those. When I see an HRM producing estimates that are about double what is expected, then my first thought is that there is a mix-up in the units of measure, and that your HRM is somehow thinking you are 276 kilograms, rather than 276 lbs (1 kg = 2.2 lbs).

Also, HRM's work under the assumption that your heart rate increases with activity in a predictable way. However, high blood pressure and some medications can lead to your heart rate increasing faster than the exercise itself justifies. So your HRM is likely accurately counting your heart rate, it is just that your heart rate may not be an accurate reflection of how many calories you are burning.

As a guideline, most people burn between 6 and 10 calories per minute. A fit person pushing themselves may burn 12-13 calories per minute, and figures above this should be regarded with a great deal of skepticism. Burning 1000/hour through running and walking just is not feasible.


JCWIAKALA Posts: 347
11/27/13 8:35 P

Remember too that there's a difference in time between the two exercises. If you run for 3 miles in 30 minutes, your heart rate is going to be significantly higher than if you walked those three miles. But walking stretches that out over say 60 minutes. The total number of calories isn't going to be that different.

Does your heart rate monitor have a chest strap? Those will be more accurate than the ones just using your wrist.

MOTIVATED@LAST Posts: 15,443
11/27/13 5:37 P


Firstly, on the calories or fat issue, where energy is coming from at any particular moment is irrelevant to fat loss. What matters is the calories burned versus calories consumed OVER THE ENTIRE 24 DAY, not where energy is coming from during your workout.

Running does burn slightly more calories than walking, as the definition of running is that you are actually getting airborne for part of each stride. But the difference is not large, and generally speaking, total distance covered is the major factor in calories burned, not speed. I am assuming that you are covering more than 2 miles in 90 minutes of brisk walking?

However, there are health and fitness advantages to going faster and getting your heart rate higher.


RKEENE67 SparkPoints: (5,681)
Fitness Minutes: (4,206)
Posts: 28
11/27/13 4:28 P

Thanks for your response. Regarding your last comment though, I've done just that and came away from my walk/jog session this morning somewhat disappointed with what my HRM was telling me.

I walked/jogged in intervals for 3.75 miles in one hour (I am a beginner and have about 60-70 pounds to lose so for me, this was a pretty good workout). My HRM is the Impulse Duo and it retails for $79.00 so I assumed that it would do a decent job at that price range (it's not a Garmin but also not the cheapest unit out there either).

I stayed between 130-160 during my intervals and when I was finished, the HRM said I burned over 1000 calories! I don't believe it. Especially since I mapped the route exactly and logged it to my fitness tracker and SP shows that I burned 560 calories. Is my HRM just poor quality or did I really potentially burn that many calories? And yes, I did set the HRM up according to my age and weight and prescribed ranges.


LEC358 SparkPoints: (11,135)
Fitness Minutes: (6,555)
Posts: 2,744
11/27/13 3:56 P

So your post got me to search around a little and I found the above article. 100 calories/mile is a rule of thumb, yes. Is it the most accurate you can be, no. Hence the designation "rule of thumb." Turns out the crossover point where you burn calories faster walking than running is around 12:30/mile *walking* and 10min/mile running.

Given that I run around 9:30/mile and take walk breaks at around 13:00/mile, the 100 calories/mile rule of thumb works for me since it roughly averages out. I'm not looking to calculate calories burned to the nth digit so having a nice whole number to multiply my mileage by works. But obviously, the most accurate way to deal with all of this is to get a HRM and let it do the calculation based on your heart rate.

RKEENE67 SparkPoints: (5,681)
Fitness Minutes: (4,206)
Posts: 28
11/27/13 2:58 P

Hmmm... this isn't the first time I've heard that you burn "slightly" more calories when jogging over walking. I am having a hard time with this notion simply because of the difference in exertion.

In my case, my heart rate is around 120-130 bpm when walking briskly and I barely feel like I am putting out any effort. When I jog, it raises up into the 150-160 range and I am definitely working significantly harder.I just find it hard to believe that the calorie burning difference between the two intensity levels are slight.

Here is an excerpt from WebMD on the topic:
4. TRUE OR FALSE: Moderate exercise promotes weight loss more effectively than vigorous exercise.

FALSE. Weight loss is a matter of simple arithmetic: To shed pounds, you must burn more calories than you consume. And when it comes to burning calories, the greater the exertion, the greater the rate at which calories are burned.

Working out at about 60% to 75% of your maximum heart rate (the so-called "fat-burning zone") burns fewer calories than working out at 75% to 85% of your maximum heart rate (the so-called "aerobic" or "cardio" zone).

Any thoughts?

JCWIAKALA Posts: 347
11/27/13 1:13 P

Agreed. You burn calories by the mile pretty much. Maybe you burn slightly more per mile jogging, but it's not that significant. So judge by distance. Of course, if you're short on time, it's helpful to job instead of walk.

LEC358 SparkPoints: (11,135)
Fitness Minutes: (6,555)
Posts: 2,744
11/27/13 1:02 P

When it comes to running/walking its actually better to judge it as calories burned per mile. The figure changes slightly based on weight, grade, speed, etc - but a good rule of thumb is to assume 100 calories burned/mile.

MICHELS_072 SparkPoints: (494)
Fitness Minutes: (105)
Posts: 3
11/27/13 12:43 P

Hello all,

Which burns more calories or fat? If I do a jog (about 2 miles) in 30 minutes or if I do the same in a brisk walk for about 90 minutes?

Thank you.

Page: 1 of (1)  

Other Fitness and Exercise Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
Do you track just five minute bouts of exercise? 3/12/2017 9:48:49 PM
Include commute in fitness tracker? 7/28/2016 12:55:34 PM
how many training days 11/8/2016 1:34:15 PM
still wishing 8/11/2016 6:05:46 AM
Suggestions for shoeless exercises? 6/3/2016 10:23:29 AM