Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
3/18/13 10:56 A

Thanks, both of you... Makes sense now that I think about it.

emoticon emoticon

UNIDENT Posts: 33,498
3/17/13 11:57 P

Calorie burn is a function of distance covered, not your speed.

While you may have gone a little faster on the walk/run to cover it in only 30 minutes, and during that time you burned "more calories" per minute, you spent less total minutes exercising. So it balances.

When you get faster with the running you'll start to notice a bit of difference. But right now at an average page of 15 minutes per mile, that's still a "walking" speed and won't register as a run. The system thinks you walked. Whether you walked 'quite fast' or walked 'quite slow' doesn't matter because of the balancing out of time spent.

Running does burn more! But you need to spend more time running and get a bit faster in your running before the system will classify that amount of distance over that time as a "run".

SP_COACH_NANCY SparkPoints: (0)
Fitness Minutes: (112,042)
Posts: 46,222
3/17/13 10:17 P


You must factor in time as one of the variables. And while running typically burns more calories per minute compared to walking, you were on your feet 15 minutes longer walking.

Coach Nancy

3/17/13 10:12 P

So today, I did a walk with my DenverSpark team and a C25K run on my own. Both were a little more than 2 miles, but one was 30 minutes and one was 45 minutes. How is it possible that when I plugged them into the fitness calculator I got the same number of calories burned for each one??? Shouldn't the run/walk have burned more calories than the walk? BTW I used the map my route for both if that makes a difference.


emoticon emoticon

Page: 1 of (1)  

Other Fitness and Exercise Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
On the treadmill 3/2/2017 9:37:24 AM
Need help coming up with fitness plan 9/24/2016 10:47:53 AM
How much cardio inhibits testosterone? 1/24/2017 3:40:59 PM
Do you chart both? 3/17/2017 1:12:40 PM
Arm ergometers 7/12/2016 10:46:31 PM