Is Walking or Running a Better Calorie Burner?
I’ve heard that you burn 100 calories per mile no matter how you do it. But it seems that running would burn more calories.
Q. My registered dietitian insists that a 150-pound person will burn 100 calories per mile, regardless of whether they walk, run or crawl. The only difference, she says, is the time is takes to cover that mile. Intuitively, this does not seem right—running should burn more calories than walking, and walking should burn more calories than sauntering. You even wrote in one of your columns on metabolism that to burn more calories you should “do more cardio or do your cardio more intensely: walk faster, run, jump and climb.” What gives?
A. You are confusing two different concepts: how to burn a certain number of calories in a given time period versus how to burn more calories regardless of the time period.
“The bottom line is to not get too fixated on exact calorie numbers.”
Before I explain, keep in mind that all calorie figures are estimates. Numbers for calories in a given food or calories burned in a workout are not going to be exact. There are differences in an individual’s intensity, weight and body mass that may affect a calorie burn that are not taken into account unless measured in a laboratory metabolic chamber. And, with food, there may be a variety of factors with ingredients, ripeness, portion size and preparation that could affect calorie count. The bottom line is to not get too fixated on exact calorie numbers.
A hundred calories is a standard estimate for the energy required to move a body a mile by walking or running. A heavier body requires more energy (hence, a greater calorie burn) to move. Yet any size body can move with greater intensity to also burn more calories (either by speeding up, walking up a hill that requires more effort, etc.). Terrain and environmental conditions can affect intensity and speed.
The slower one moves, the lower their calorie burn. The flatter the surface (flat road vs. dirt hills) or the less resistance it provides (concrete path vs. sand or wind), the lower the calorie burn.
It generally takes an average person around 15 to 20 minutes to walk a mile, and 7 to 12 minutes to run or jog that distance. Walking a little more slowly, at a 20-minute-per-mile pace, will burn around five calories per minute. Running a mile might burn from 7 or 8 calories per minute up to 10 to 12, depending upon a person’s size and speed.
The classic textbook Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition, and Human Performance provides energy expenditure estimates for a variety of activities based on body weight. According to the estimates, a 150-pound person will burn 3.6 calories per minute when walking 2 mph; 5 calories per minute when walking 3 mph; and 6.6 calories per minute when walking 4 mph. So the slowest walker would burn 108 calories walking a mile (3.6 x 30 minutes); the moderate-paced walker would burn 100 calories (5 x 20 minutes); and the fastest walker would burn around 99 calories (6.6 x 15). These numbers are in the 100-calories per-mile range.
To burn more calories in a workout, what I wrote holds true: “Do more cardio or do your cardio more intensely: walk faster, run, jump and climb.” Doing more cardio means adding 10 or 20 minutes to each workout (walking or running more than one mile), working out on more days per week (walking or running more miles per week), or both.
Working out more intensely burns more calories because you cover more ground in the same amount of time. So if you speed up from walking 2 mph to 4 mph, you go from burning around 3.6 calories per minute to around 6.6 calories per minute. Therefore, in 30 minutes of walking you could double your calorie burn simply by walking faster. Of course, you should be fit enough to safely push yourself to exercise at a higher intensity. Work up to harder and longer workouts gradually so that you don’t put any excess stress on your joints while you’re trying to increase the number of calories you burn.
Do you have a fitness or weight-loss question for Martica? Send e-mail to experts@microsoft.com. Please include Ask Martica in the subject line. Each of our experts responds to one question each week and the responses are posted on Mondays on MSN Health. We regret that we cannot provide a personalized response to every submission.
Martica Heaner, Ph.D., M.A., M.Ed., is a Manhattan-based exercise physiologist and nutritionist, and an award-winning fitness instructor and health writer. She has a Ph.D. in behavioral nutrition and physical activity from Columbia University, and is also a NASM-certified personal trainer. She has written hundreds of articles for publications such as
Self
,
Health
,
Prevention
,
The New York Times
and others. Martica is the author of eight books, including her latest,
Cross-Training for Dummies.
(Read her full bio.)
Find More on MSN Health & Fitness:
Recently I started a running program with a friend. We're both female, about 10 years apart in age, she's younger but out-weighs me by about 60 pounds. I am a pretty fit runner, she's just starting out. Twice a week we cover the same distance doing run/walk intervals. At the end, she's burned about 80-100 cal more than I have, but here's the thing... the amount of calories we each burn remain consistent to the distance. Running, walking, fit or unfit, it's all the same. I personally tend to burn 100 calories a mile, regardless of how I covered the mile. My buddy burns about 25% more.
The science does not backup the idea that calories burned over a given distance is a constant regardless of the time required to travel that distance. This is not true for humans or most machines and the differences can be quite significant (a 1000 horse power bughatti will use approx one third its power to achieve 300mph and every last horse to achieve 400mph). Running is less efficient that walking. The displacement is partially vertical, when you land the force required to lift your body again is exponentially larger than walking due to gravity, and when running near aerobic/anaerobic threshold, physiological and mechanical inefficiencies are introduced (not the mention the after burn mentioned by others). Studies show the difference to be as much as 40% more calories burned running vs. walking per unit of displacement with some interesting exceptions:
-speed walking 5mph burns a lot more calories per mile than jogging 5mph (due to inefficient "waddling" as this pace)
-walking VERY slow burns more calories per mile than walking at a comfortable pace (due to energy required to hold you muscles back).
If the difference was small, I wouldn't even question the article. But the difference is big and I think this belief is prevalent partially due to the fact that it makes exercise a lot easier. I lost 60lbs and during that loss, I tried different cardio exercises and my experiences back up the science.
I am a Ph.D. Physiologist-Endocrinologist and enjoy your lively discussions. Work=Weight x Distance; by definition. There is not a statistical difference in work done in running or walking a distance. Both also raise your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) for several hours after stopping work, again both are equal. Hormonal control of BMR is primarily by Thyroid Hormones and Insulin along with synergies from Adrenal (cortex and medulla) and to a lesser extent GH hormones.
Okay, let's do the math.
For a 150 lb person:
(3.6 cal/min)*(60min/hr)*5miles/(2mi/hr)=540 calories
compared to
(6.6 cal/min)*(60min/hr)*5miles/(4mi/hr)=495 calories.
So for the same person, whether walking slowly or quickly, given your numbers, burn approximately the same calories.
The issue is calorie is a measure of work. Work is defined as moving a force through a distance. Until the physicists change these definitions, a person moving their body through a given distance will result in the same number of calories being burned regardless of the speed. Period. There is no temporal component to either calories or work.
Of course if you measure the work of a 200 pound person moving through the same distance as a 150 pound person, you will find the 200 pound person does more work.
"arunner" deserves some credit for their analysis, but the resulting additional burn is more like 2%, not 100%. It takes very little extra effort to accelerate a person's stride.
If the math works for different walking speeds, then the math works for running versus walking.
Ripped Jeans wrote; "I love walking. Over the last 3 years I lost 50 pounds by eating less, avoiding processed foods and walking for at least 20 minutes every day."
I couldn't agree more and I love walking too. But I really don't like treadmills. I need to get out on the open road to do my walking. I have been doing 4 miles each day for an hour. I look forward to going just about everyday and that keeps me doing it. Lost 60 lbs last year and 30 lbs before that for a total of 90 lbs. I have kept it off by walking, eating less and eating a lot of fruits and vegetable. I am totally phyced to have found a eating style and exercise plan that I enjoy doing.
Popular Slide Shows
advertisement
advertisement
MSN Health & Fitness does not provide medical or any other health care advice, diagnosis or treatment.
