Is it true that going the same distance burns the same number of calories - regardless of whether you're walking or running?

If this is true, walking would be my choice because, although I love running, I hate running outside and I can't afford a gym membership. So it seems like I could walk for 1 hour, and get the same benefits as if I were running for 30 minutes.

Any insight?

I have heard this, yes. If you walk a mile, you burn the same calories as running a mile. However, there's something about your heart rate not getting as high and not having as many benefits from the workout. I could be wrong, that's just what I've heard. I don't think I've ever gotten sweaty from walking a mile, but running one will do that.

From active.com :

Running v. walking: Which burns more calories?
By Nicki Anderson
Chicago Daily Herald
May 13, 2005

Q. I'm confused about which exercise burns more calories, walking or running?

A. I am asked this question frequently, simply because more people exercise to lose weight rather than for its health benefits.

The idea of doing a minimal amount of work -- while reaping the same rewards as you might from hard work -- is appealing. Unfortunately that's not the way it works.

So does running burn more calories than walking? Well, yes and no.

High intensity = calorie burn

If you run for 20 minutes or walk for 50 minutes, you end up burning about the same amount of calories. But if you walk for 20 minutes or run for 20 minutes, running will create the biggest calorie deficit.

So I generally tell people, if you're short on time, kick up the intensity. If you've got more time, are more prone to injury or simply have an aversion to high-intensity activities, then go with a lower-intensity exercise, such as walking, biking or swimming. Just remember that the lower your exercise intensity, the lower the calorie expenditure, so how long you exercise becomes more important.

Do keep in mind that everyone's body responds differently to exercise. So even though you and your spouse may both be walking for 45 minutes each day, your results will differ. This is because the number of calories you expend during exercise depends on your body composition (lean mass vs. fat mass). The more muscle mass you have, the more calories you will burn. In addition, the type of exercise you do and the muscles that are involved will also dictate the amount of calories used.
...

Copyright © 2005. The Active Network

Yes but it is compared by distance, not by time. Most people exercise not by distance but by time. I say I will do 45 minutes of cardio today. I can either walk it, or run it. If I run for 45 minutes I am going to cover A LOT more distance than if I walk for 45 minutes, thus more calories. Now if you are going to, say, run or walk 10 miles this exercise session, regardless, then I’d say it’s just as beneficial. BTW, I haven’t seen you around in a while :)

plus walking is sooo boring compared to running :p

i tend to prefer walking to running, and i think the article makes a lot of good points. the primary point is intensity.

i have noticed myself walking faster than many people 'run' or 'jog.' so, i think it would be safe to say that if i walked as fast as someone else was jogging or running, then over the same time, we're burning the same number of calories.

now, if i were walking and i noticed a runner who was going much faster than me, then that runner would be burning more calories over the same time. I could burn as many calories, but it would take me longer.

but then, there's also individual intensity. i could walk fast or slow. i could run fast or slow, and i could push this idea by walking or running in intervals. So, that's alternating intensity. This concept burns a lot of calories because of intensity. Running will still likely burn more calories in less time, but walking will burn the same amount in more time. How much more time varies on the individual's intensity.

If my fast walking is as fast as her fast running, then there's no difference, right? but if my fast walking is only as fast as her moderate running (between intense intervals), then it would take me longer to gain the caloric deficit as i would running.

and what about walk/run intervals? probably one's best option, unless injury prevents one from running. this will decrease the time needed for the workout considerably.

i have noticed myself walking faster than many people 'run' or 'jog.'

wow. I would love to see this. I get mad at myself enough when a random jogger/runner passes me up, I cannot imagine my self-hatred if someone walking passed me up. oy.

wow. I would love to see this. I get mad at myself enough when a random jogger/runner passes me up, I cannot imagine my self-hatred if someone walking passed me up. oy.

LMAO! Oooh, that's a good one. Seriously though, that would be horrible . . . lol. Shucks. :)

Speed walkers can walk pretty dang fast. We have a speed walker in our pace group at my running club. Actaully, occasionlly he jogs to catch up but most of the time he is speed walking.


Speed walking is harder than running IMO. I tried it once and could only go about one mile before I decided I had to run because of the hip pain. :p

Last year when doing my first marathon I was soooo impressed by the speedwalkers out there. We were doing a 10 minute pace and I swear there were a couple guys who were totally keeping up with us, just speedwalking.
When I first started running, I did get passed by speedwalkers fairly often. Not any more, though. :D

speed walking has an odd gaite. it requires a lot of hip flexibility.

but, a lot of runners/joggers that i know kinda clod their way around the trail that i use. it's easy to out walk them without speed walking.

It really depends on the pace, and comparing the two is like comparing cats and dogs. The energy requirements of walking go up quite a bit when the pace breaks a 12 minute mile, because walking is less efficient at that pace than jogging. There are several different factors involved that make a straight comparison difficult.

But really, counting calories is a stupid way of thinking about training. What you want is an exercise you like to do, that keeps you in the zone of exertion where you can talk but not sing for an extended period of time. If you are panting, out of breath, and dizzy at the end of your workout, you are overtraining.

I read somewhere that running ages people. I don't know if that's true or not.

if you walk a mile you burn around 50 calories. if you run a mile you burn around 100 calories. It depends on your weight i think this is for someone weighing 130 pounds.

No, it's not true, there's an article on it in the most recent Runner's World. Basically it said you burn twice as many calories (after subtracting the calories you burn just by living) running than walking.