• 🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪
  • 💪Muscle Gelz® 30% Off Easter Sale👉www.musclegelz.com Coupon code: EASTER30🐰

Running vs. Walking....

LB_SpecV

Registered User
Registered
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
Points
0
IML Gear Cream!
This may be a stupid question but its kind of bugging me and I'd like some opinions/answers on it. If I run and burn 500 calories does it equal me walking and burning 500 calories. One would immediately say yes, but when I run, my heart rate is higher and I sweat a whole lot more than walking. I also feel like I get a better workout in. Endurance wise, I know I may not be getting the same training, but am I getting the same cardiovascular workout? I ask this because I recently had an injury and I've been walking at a pretty fast pace for a longer period of time, say 80 minutes, as opposed to running for 60 minutes, for recovery purposed.

If the same amount of distance is achieved and calories burned, will it give my body the same workout?

Thanx
 
Well the post-workout metabolic response will differ, but the number of calories actually burned may be the same during the workout. Certain types of training at different intensities and for different periods of time will induce different metabolic responses after the workout. In other words, you may still burn some calories after the workout - faster or slower, longer or shorter for different types of exercise.
 
if you want to burn the same amount of calories while walking as running you'll be walking for a hell of a longer time.

the rule is that the lower intensity and longer duration an activity is the less EPOC (Excess Post Exercise Oxygen Consumption in other words the 'metabolic boost' after a workout) will occur.
 
Yanick said:
if you want to burn the same amount of calories while walking as running you'll be walking for a hell of a longer time.

the rule is that the lower intensity and longer duration an activity is the less EPOC (Excess Post Exercise Oxygen Consumption in other words the 'metabolic boost' after a workout) will occur.

Perhaps you can make that a little more clear. That means that an all-out sprint of three seconds will have more of an excess post oxygen consumption than a ten minute jog. That doesn't really seem right to me.
 
well there is probably a certain threshold you have to reach in terms of total anaerobic work done to increase EPOC to a measurable extent, which is why we run intervals and more than one sprint per workouts, but generally running for an hour at 70% intensity will burn less calories post w/o than running all out for 5-10 min. there is some sort of relationship between 1.length of time an activity is done, 2.the intensity that it is done with and 3. the EPOC the activity elicits. the first two are inversely related while the third has some relationship to the intensity and duration, whether its linear or what is unclear.
 
running- more glycogen burned
walking-more fat burned
 
I see. Thank you.
 
It depends. If you walk at a fast pace on an incline you can achieve a similar metabolic requirement as a somewhat faster jog on a flat surface. Basically, if you get your heartrate up higher, as Yanick said, you build up an oxygen "debt" which leads to an increased metabolism for many hours after the workout is completed.

It's hard to say if you were jogging at a sufficient intensity to warrant such a debt anyway. I kind of doubt it if your sessions were 60 minutes long. Intensity is more highly correlated with a higher EPOC than duration, although duration does have some effect.
 
Squaggleboggin said:


min0, I'm alerting you to this IMPOSTER!
 
Back
Top