Does walking and running the same distance have any difference in calories burned?
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
Does walking and running the same distance have any difference in calories burned?
Does walking and running the same distance have any difference in calories burned?
|
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
Obviously
Why does he have pizza on his leg?
He was about to wipe the guys butt behind him with it
Guy was just getting some pizza and some buttholes released bulls on the street. Life in spain is messed up man.
The cow's horn grazed his thigh and that's all the flesh and fat under the skin
No blood = pizza
its very obviously pizza.
I feel so moronic. I have seen this image a dozen times and I always thought he had been gored by the bull and it fricked up his leg, and now he is running for it.
just a coincidence the pants are ripped apart too
Depends how you measure it. The amount of energy expended actually moving your body will be very close, but walking will take you longer so you will have burned more calories during the duration of the exercise, but those are calories you still burn running, just you burn them after you finish. Biggest difference is that running will deplete glycogen much more than walking.
wtf you talking about you fricking idiot
moron
so if i lift 10lb dumbells 50 times it's the same as lifting 500lb once
Yes, the science is settled.
I both run and walk and I doubt it's the same. Running will probably burn more since you're working harder (my last run of 8km I had an average hr of 155bpm whereas walking yesterday I had 94bpm) and the contact with surface is much harder when you run. I'm not sure but I doubt it will be the same
>Running will probably burn more since you're working harder
yes, but you do it for a way shorter duration of time. Why are people so stupid on IST ?
https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/450/390
Funny they needed a study for that but oh well...
Basic high school physics already tells us that since the energy of a moving body depends on its velocity squared, someone at double the velocity needs to exert 4 times the power.
Holy moron, the work done will always be the same regardless of how fast the body is moving
The difference in energy spent is entirely due to inefficiency
If I drive 5 miles in 3rd gear low rpm I burn less than drive 5 in 1st redlining whole way wtf?!?
It's all about efficiency, my Black person
Your engine is generally more efficient in higher gears because it produces less force, which is why the car accelerates less in higher gears
Not sure if semantics or trolling. delta_x is the same and v_initial is the same (0), v_final deviates between the walking and running assumption.
>v_final deviates between the walking and running assumption
Do you not understand if the distance is the same, the change in velocity will be compensated by a change in force? The energy spent should theoretically the same, but will obviously not be due to how no machine is perfectly efficient in converting energy to force, therefore the more force is needed the higher will the energy consumption be even if the work should theoretically stay equal
I think I understand your problem now. I could have mentioned that of course no human motion is firctionless gliding with perfect energy recuperation. Kinda self-explanatory though.
dp you really think the formula for work can apply to a human running ypu fricking moron? Embarassing.
>I could have mentioned that of course no human motion is firctionless gliding with perfect energy recuperation.
That's still not the reason why running burns more, anon... Just accept you were wrong about high school level physics and move on
but the power is excerced for a fraction of the time.
Yeah for half of the time, so still double the overall energy consumption
Btw cars also have a sweet spot for fuel consumption. Just because you traveled the same distance doesn't mean you have the same consumption rate, though I doubt these effects can be readily transferred to human running and walking (eg high speed resistance etc)
ITT: morons
Distance + Mass = energy used
Running is just much faster
If your distance is static the only difference will be time, not energy
Running 10000 meters will take you 5-10X less time than Walking 10000 meters
The runner will be finished and the walker will still be going an hour or 2 later.
There are things like resistance that do play a role (see the example with the car; otherwise there wouldn't be a difference covering 100kms with say 100km/h and 200km/h other than time spent, however that's totally not the case). Before trying to be a smartass make sure you know your shit homosexual
Locomotion is not a simple force. For example, walking a mile vs walking a mile while flailing your arms in the air spastically the whole time won't burn the same calories.
the difference is minimal
No it's not. Running is a complex motion and you can easily waste a lot energy with inefficient form, eg not raising your feet high enough. You can also waste energy every time your foot lands on the ground, stopping your forward momentum.
indian moment
you know nothing about what you are talking about.
Good morning sir.
energy is force times distance, not mass times distance.
have a good day now sir. please redeem the post delete and save your face
>lust provoking image
Lost
Yes we're way more effecient walkers than runners. But your running gets more calorie effecient the longer you do it. So running even the same pace and distance will burn diffent amounts of calories if you've training running longer.
meh
doesn't really matter, cardio is a bad way to get yourself into a caloric deficit
eat less
you should still do cardio though
it only takes an hour of running to burn 1000 Cal tho
when was the last time you ran for an hour?
much easier to just eat less if you want to shift your caloric surplus to a caloric deficit
Running for an hour is very boring, and you have to run fairly fast to burn 1k in that hour. I think most people only run fast enough to burn about 650 calories during an hour's run.
Not exactly. If you're a beginner and don't know how to run properly yet, you're gonna burn more calories because of the additional effort.
i thought someone had thrown a slice of pizza at him
Yes, running burns more calories, even if you take less time to get there. Your muscles exert force to move your mass, the correlation between force exerted and speed reached is nonlinear though, also there's higher drag etc...
one thing i've noticed is that when i run at like 9+ mph for a 5k on the treadmill, it will read under 400 calories burned. but if i take it easier and do the first half around 7-8mph, by the time i reach 5km it's right at 400 cals
who wants to explain that one?
Your treadmill has a degree in kinesiology.
so when running on a level plane, there's a sweet spot where you burn fewer calories for working harder for less time?
No, I'm just saying it's bad at math.
walking uses more calories. Accelerating a rigid body is what takes energy, if you are good at running you will get to top speed and just maintain it until the destination. Walking you have to make every single stride with your muscles.
>what about speedwalking
idk I am not doing the math, homosexual
We don't live or work out in a microgravity vacuum.
Today I learned that IST is the lowest IQ board. Congrats guys.
Enlighten us, Dr. Einstein
You don't have to be Einstein, it's literally common sense that running burns more calories than walking when going the same distance. Do you have access to Google?
I know it's pretty obvious, it was a shit thread to begin with, but I bet 98% of normalBlack folk wouldn't be able to explain WHY
apparently its common to be moronic
i don't see you explaining this shit, smart guy
why would the treadmills' programming do this? i've seen it on all the ones i've used multiple times so far with the weight set to 165
I explained it here
It’s really as simple as that
Run 5km in 20 minutes
VS
Walk 5km in 100 minutes
The guy who weighs 185 pounds ran 5km in 20 minutes is back at home, laying on his couch, doing nothing.
The guy who weighs 185 pounds walked 5km was still out there walking for another 80 minutes before he went back home
The calories burned was identical because
1. They’re both 185 pounds (mass)
2. They both moved the 185 pounds the identical distance
3. The only difference is that the 185 pounder whom ran the 5k has an extra 80 minutes in his day to do other shit
Basically running is like doing your calorie burning in fast-forward to save time. But no, you don’t get any extra calorie burn from it.
This is 100.00% factual and anyone who disagrees is a newbie who has never actually done this.
I’ve actually competed in bodybuilding shows in the physique category, I’ve gotten myself shredded a dozen times in the last decade for shows. What I found works best is walking, despite running being a massive time saver, walk is just way easier to recover from when I also have to lift weights to keep my muscle when getting shredded.
I would only recommend running if you don’t lift weights and your only form of exercise is running, but not only that, I’d only recommend it if you have very little time in the day. Running is terrible for joints in the long run, every guy I know who ran in their teens and 20s has knee issues in their 30s.
you're neglecting the difference in mechanical aspects of both forms of movement in regards to gravity & other forces, so it doesn't explain anything at all. we aren't objects floating in space at different speeds from point A to B.
as for your experiences, i think that most likely has more to do with the fact that you're breaking down muscle fibers far more when running than walking. i have to doubt you've run very much or very hard if you haven't felt sore in your thighs from running (or calves particularly if you're going up hills).
it could also be more effective for other reasons like the pressure/flow of your blood to the other muscles during each activity. and personally, i haven't had any issues with my knees or joints (yet). i do take care to not run much (or at all) when i'm already sore, though... and i've never had interest in running more than like 15 miles at a time.
You were running for the sake of running,
You were not trying to get a certain weight class
You were just running
I compete in physique shows
What I did takes precision and planning
What I worked out is that when it comes to the cardio aspect of the plan, the energy burned to stick to my fatloss goals does NOT change whether I am running or walking if the distance traveled is measured and equal, this is fat loss
The only difference I found when it comes to walking 5km and running 5km….
It is NOT calories burned
The benefits of walking 5km vs running 5km is NOT calories burned.
It is simple
Walking 5km
Pro = requires almost no recovery and has no negative impact on your lifting
Con = takes much longer time
Running 5km
Pro = takes very little time
Con = eats into recovery and negatively impacts recovery from lifting weights
That is the 100.00% fact and truth, this is what it is. I am not going to debate this anymore. You can continue living ignorant if you wish.
>You were running for the sake of running
you have no idea why i'm running or how i've been training lol. and i don't care about your physique shows, they're completely irrelevant. you could be training to suck a dick for ten hours straight while doing a handstand at the county fair for all i care. walking might be better for your workout plan, but it's not burning the same calories than when you run the same distance.
>the energy burned to stick to my fatloss goals does NOT change whether I am running or walking if the distance traveled is measured and equal
you're being a moronic troll (or just moronic). can you not grasp that you would burn more calories running that distance but it might negatively impact your recovery and ability to lift again sooner? and if you're talking about just walking while fasted for your cut, that's another situation entirely. but you would still burn more calories running the same distance than walking it.
i'm not even suggesting you train your cardio for your shows, i hope you walk your way to #1 or whatever you're competing for. just don't talk much to the judges about technical stuff and i think you'll be better off.
also since your post ended in 666 i have to assume you are being disingenuous devil about everything and probably really just plan on doing that handstand contest
>also since your post ended in 666 i have to assume you are being disingenuous devil about everything and probably really just plan on doing that handstand contest
LOL
>The guy who weighs 185 pounds ran 5km in 20 minutes is back at home, laying on his couch, doing nothing.
>The guy who weighs 185 pounds walked 5km was still out there walking for another 80 minutes before he went back home
>The calories burned was identical because
>1. They’re both 185 pounds (mass)
>2. They both moved the 185 pounds the identical distance
>3. The only difference is that the 185 pounder whom ran the 5k has an extra 80 minutes in his day to do other shit
Everyone knows this is what you're saying. The problem is that your physics is wrong. Everything you say is based on W = d * m, which is just wrong. Work is FORCE times Distance. As a consequence of this failed premise you have to throw out all your dumb logic.
It's pretty low but /n/ is lower, worse in some ways because /n/ fancies itself as smart.
And that anon's name?
Alfred Einstein
16
1
Also >checked
Please wait a while before making a post
LFit/ cant into physics
yes
Please stop this embarrassing discussion. There's actual studies that show exactly how much more calories running burns compared to walking. Trying to apply basic hs physics to something that's a google search away makes the whole discussion even cringier, please op delete this
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/649581/why-does-running-spend-more-energy-than-walking
ok, now I am confused. Is this pizza or gore, I can't tell
That's a pretty grisly wound