Burning calories - running or brisk walking at gradient?
Discussion
Using technogym treadmill at gym and have noticed that walking at 5.5km/h at 8% gradient shows as burning more calories than running at 8km/h on the flat, though running makes me more tired and sweat more. I have input my weight (85kg) and age (38) and I hold on to the bars now and again so its recording my heart rate (average about 135bpm)
So does it make sense that walking at gradient burns more calories?
So does it make sense that walking at gradient burns more calories?
itsnotarace said:
Yes
Good. I'm a bit of a fat fecker tbh, 85kg at 5'7" and running makes my knees sore and although I feel a bit of a berk walking fast at an odd angle, it does seem to be working fine.No significant weight loss, but belt in a notch so must be building muscle somewhere.
TedMaul said:
I hold on to the bars now and again so its recording my heart rate.
Probably goes without saying: but only hold the bars intermittently to check heart rate. Don't support your weight by holding the bars as it just reduces the amount of effort required. Edited by NitroNick on Thursday 12th August 13:13
NitroNick said:
TedMaul said:
I hold on to the bars now and again so its recording my heart rate.
Probably goes without saying: but only hold the bars intermittently to check heart rate. Don't support your weight by holding the bars as it just reduces the amount of effort required. Edited by NitroNick on Thursday 12th August 13:13
"So does it make sense that walking at gradient burns more calories?"
Absolutely NOT.
Not only do walking and running use different muscles,but you even state that
"running makes me more tired and sweat more",Which do YOU think burns more calories,
the easier or the harder exercise?
Get used to the walking and then progress to a slow jog etc
Absolutely NOT.
Not only do walking and running use different muscles,but you even state that
"running makes me more tired and sweat more",Which do YOU think burns more calories,
the easier or the harder exercise?
Get used to the walking and then progress to a slow jog etc
Just to back up...
Don't hold on to the bars!! I see so many people doing this at the gym I work at, it just allowes you to angle your body at such a way that you are effectively ruducing the gradient and making it easier.
Don't stick to just walkng as its not going to much good in terms of fitness so do try and introduce short jogs into your workout as this will help improve your fitness, where as walkng although helping you to lose weght, will not get you particularly cardovascularly fit. Maybe try interval training, with (to start with) 1 minute waking and 30 seconds running. As you get fitter you can increase the time or speed at which you run at.
Chris
Don't hold on to the bars!! I see so many people doing this at the gym I work at, it just allowes you to angle your body at such a way that you are effectively ruducing the gradient and making it easier.
Don't stick to just walkng as its not going to much good in terms of fitness so do try and introduce short jogs into your workout as this will help improve your fitness, where as walkng although helping you to lose weght, will not get you particularly cardovascularly fit. Maybe try interval training, with (to start with) 1 minute waking and 30 seconds running. As you get fitter you can increase the time or speed at which you run at.
Chris
balders118 said:
Just to back up...
Don't hold on to the bars!! I see so many people doing this at the gym I work at, it just allowes you to angle your body at such a way that you are effectively ruducing the gradient and making it easier.
Don't stick to just walkng as its not going to much good in terms of fitness so do try and introduce short jogs into your workout as this will help improve your fitness, where as walkng although helping you to lose weght, will not get you particularly cardovascularly fit. Maybe try interval training, with (to start with) 1 minute waking and 30 seconds running. As you get fitter you can increase the time or speed at which you run at.
Chris
That interval sounds ideal for me as although I am strong I don't have much stamina. I think a google on setting up the machine to do it automatically, Don't hold on to the bars!! I see so many people doing this at the gym I work at, it just allowes you to angle your body at such a way that you are effectively ruducing the gradient and making it easier.
Don't stick to just walkng as its not going to much good in terms of fitness so do try and introduce short jogs into your workout as this will help improve your fitness, where as walkng although helping you to lose weght, will not get you particularly cardovascularly fit. Maybe try interval training, with (to start with) 1 minute waking and 30 seconds running. As you get fitter you can increase the time or speed at which you run at.
Chris
Thanks all for feedback, think I know what I've been doing wrong!
chard said:
I remember a study. Walkers and runners over the same course/distance. The runners finished 1st but the walkers burnt more calories (don't ask why I can't remember the science bit) I think a pair of Identical twins helped.
Interesting.....I only have a fundamental knowledge of all things physics related so this could be complete b
ks.I believe that the amount of calories reqd to completed a certain distance will be the same whether walking or running if all other conditions are the same.
If you picked two people (one runner, one walker) of the same weight and build and physical fitness and had the both complete the same route, then they should burn the same amount of calories.
The runner will complete it far faster but as the walker will the on the course longer, he will burn marginally more calories to support the core activities of the body. The runner will also burn these calories but after completing the course so the number of calories burned divided by the distance will be slightly more for the walker.
As i said this could be complete b
ks.Just found the science bit.
Here's the answer from Dr. Dean Ornish, a clinical professor of
medicine at UC San Francisco:
"All things being equal, you will burn more calories by running an
hour than walking an hour. It is true that walking a mile will burn
more calories than running a mile -- although it takes longer to do
so. When you run a mile, you're burning mostly sugar, or
carbohydrates, which is how your body gives you fast energy in bursts.
When you walk a mile, it gives your metabolism time to switch from
burning carbohydrates to burning fat."
Here's the answer from Dr. Dean Ornish, a clinical professor of
medicine at UC San Francisco:
"All things being equal, you will burn more calories by running an
hour than walking an hour. It is true that walking a mile will burn
more calories than running a mile -- although it takes longer to do
so. When you run a mile, you're burning mostly sugar, or
carbohydrates, which is how your body gives you fast energy in bursts.
When you walk a mile, it gives your metabolism time to switch from
burning carbohydrates to burning fat."
fadeaway said:
I'm not convinced about that. It would assume that walking and running have the same efficiency. I would think that running must use more calories - there's got to be a trade off for the extra speed.
I'd agree - when running you lift your knees higher, swing your arms more, etc, etc so more energy is needed. Interestingly some of the top marathon runners have a shuffling running style with little knee lift - maybe they have worked out their own optimal balance of speed and efficiency.DangerousMike said:
so just run for the amount of time you were going to walk for.
i can walk for an hour easy, theres no way i can run for an hour.remember for burning fat you only need your heart rate at around 110-130bpm. if you're really fit you'll have to run to achieve this. if you're not so fit you can hit that on a brisk walk or a slow jog.
samdale said:
DangerousMike said:
so just run for the amount of time you were going to walk for.
i can walk for an hour easy, theres no way i can run for an hour.remember for burning fat you only need your heart rate at around 110-130bpm. if you're really fit you'll have to run to achieve this. if you're not so fit you can hit that on a brisk walk or a slow jog.
Same for me though, I can walk at gradient for 30 mins quite easily, I cannot run for more than 10 mins. I deffo want to try that interval thingy though, that would work for a bloater like me I think. Off to technogym website. failing that I'll just ask instructor how to program them....
TedMaul said:
samdale said:
DangerousMike said:
so just run for the amount of time you were going to walk for.
i can walk for an hour easy, theres no way i can run for an hour.remember for burning fat you only need your heart rate at around 110-130bpm. if you're really fit you'll have to run to achieve this. if you're not so fit you can hit that on a brisk walk or a slow jog.
Same for me though, I can walk at gradient for 30 mins quite easily, I cannot run for more than 10 mins. I deffo want to try that interval thingy though, that would work for a bloater like me I think. Off to technogym website. failing that I'll just ask instructor how to program them....
balders118 said:
TedMaul said:
samdale said:
DangerousMike said:
so just run for the amount of time you were going to walk for.
i can walk for an hour easy, theres no way i can run for an hour.remember for burning fat you only need your heart rate at around 110-130bpm. if you're really fit you'll have to run to achieve this. if you're not so fit you can hit that on a brisk walk or a slow jog.
Same for me though, I can walk at gradient for 30 mins quite easily, I cannot run for more than 10 mins. I deffo want to try that interval thingy though, that would work for a bloater like me I think. Off to technogym website. failing that I'll just ask instructor how to program them....
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff