Walking vs Jogging, caloric expenditure

[Mudge]

The argument came up again on another board as to this being linear per mile based on distance no matter how you got there running, or jogging. This goes against the most elementary laws of physics, where friction and gravity are reality.

Walking (2 mph) 198
Jogging (6 mph) 654

Here is an example of non-linear expenditure:

http://pwp.value.net/~fitness/sreport1.htm

 

[Vieope]

Are you saying that there is a theory that says that no matter what type of cardio you do, the distance is the only thing that matters?
That is wrong in some many ways.

 

[Mudge]

Yes some people actually believe that, if we lived in a vacuum and had no friction maybe it would be true. But even comparing jogging to walking, is not the same activity but only faster or slower, jogging is hopping from one foot onto another, where as walking is not. Speewalking due to the design of the body burns calories at an increased rate itself as well. Some people just aren't getting the picture.

Sedentary Activities
Lying down or sleeping 90
Sitting quietly 84
Sitting and writing, card playing, etc. 114
Moderate Activities (150-350)
Bicycling (5 mph) 174
Canoeing (2.5 mph) 174
Dancing (Ballroom) 210
Golf (2-some, carrying clubs) 324
Horseback riding (sitting to trot) 246
Light housework, cleaning, etc. 246
Swimming (crawl, 20 yards/min) 288
Tennis (recreational doubles) 312
Volleyball (recreational) 264
Walking (2 mph) 198
Vigorous Activities More than 350
Aerobic Dancing 546
Basketball (recreational) 450
Bicycling (13 mph) 612
Circuit weight training 756
Football (touch, vigorous) 498
Ice Skating (9 mph) 384
Racquetball 588
Roller Skating (9 mph) 384
Jogging (10 minute mile, 6 mph) 654
Scrubbing Floors 440
Swimming (crawl, 45 yards/min) 522
Tennis (recreational singles) 450
X-country Skiing ( 5 mph) 690

If we look at biking which is the same activity where as jogging and walking are NOT the same activity, we only have a difference of inneficiency of the body itself.

13MPH/5MPH = 2.6

2.6*174 (5MPH biking) = 452 calories

Where supposedly 612 calories are burned per hour @ 13 MPH. So we see again, nature is not linear. To believe otherwise is to deny science itself, we do not live in a damn vacuum, we do not live in a world without friction. We are not perpetual motion machines.

You dont get something for nothing on planet Earth. Just as in my so called "non-scientific" example of a car requiring approximately 5 times the horsepower to go 200 miles per hour versus 100 miles per hour.

For anyone living in the past, I'll be burning witches at noon if you'd like to send some my way. Bring your own hot dogs and beer!

 

[Vieope]

I read some time ago that housewives walk something like 4 miles per day, just inside the house. If that was the same thing as doing 4 miles running, they should all be fit.

Nice list, funny thing is that golf is included.

 

[Mudge]

It is interested that sleeping burns more calories than sitting quietly.

 

[Vieope]

Probably because you are running from something in a nightmare.

 

[aztecwolf]

calorie expenditure for walking vs. running maybe be the same in terms of distance, but lets say you run 2 miles in 20 minutes vs. walking 2 miles in 60 minutes. Total calories burned during each exercise is the same but what about those extra forty minutes after your done running, you burn calories from anything, even sitting, plus your metabolism gets more of a boost from the running versus the walking

 

[Mudge]

Here we go again

 

[Randy]

The argument came up again on another board as to this being linear per mile based on distance no matter how you got there running, or jogging. This goes against the most elementary laws of physics, where friction and gravity are reality.

Walking (2 mph) 198
Jogging (6 mph) 654

Here is an example of non-linear expenditure:

http://pwp.value.net/~fitness/sreport1.htm

Mudge does neither, so he doesn't have to worry about it
He can now go back to eating his twinkie