Is walking better than running?

"Jacqui Dueck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hello everyone,

I am a fairly athletic person who has always been heavily
involved in sports. Recently I have seriously injured my
knee to the point where I can no longer run on it. So
rather than not exercise at all, I wanted to assess some
alternative options. I need a low impact exercise and
since I have always used running as my form of cardio I
don't know what would be the next best thing to do that
will be alright for my knee. I would like to try walking,
but I am curious about the amount of calories I will burn
and how it will affect my cardiovascular fitness. Am I
better off using a cross-trainer at the gym? Could someone
please get back to me on this matter and let me know what
is the next best step for myself.

Thank you, Jacqui Dueck

Jacqui:

The calories burned per mile are very close to the same in
running vs. walking. The biggest issue for you would be
time. Walking will help keep you fit though. You might also
increase the calories per mile by adding a backpack with
weight in it to increase your calorie expendature per mile
if time is an issue. As to if you are better off using a
"cross trainer" at the gym, it depends upon if you like
being outside or inside. If you like inside, then prepare to
spend even more time. (I have never encountered a machine
that makes you use more calories than the real outside
exercise.)

"Jacqui Dueck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hello everyone,

I am a fairly athletic person who has always been heavily
involved in sports. Recently I have seriously injured my
knee to the point where I can no longer run on it. So
rather than not exercise at all, I wanted to assess some
alternative options. I need a low impact exercise and
since I have always used running as my form of cardio I
don't know what would be the next best thing to do that
will be alright for my knee. I would like to try walking,
but I am curious about the amount of calories I will burn
and how it will affect my cardiovascular fitness. Am I
better off using a cross-trainer at the gym? Could someone
please get back to me on this matter and let me know what
is the next best step for myself.

Thank you, Jacqui Dueck

Do you like to ride bicycles? Bicycling can provide an
outstanding cardiovascular workout, while getting you out of
doors to enjoy the scenery. I like it better than running
because it's not as hard on my knees, and I can cover much
more ground than running.

GG

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:00:46 -0800, "GaryG"

garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com said:

"Jacqui Dueck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hello everyone,

I am a fairly athletic person who has always been heavily
involved in sports. Recently I have seriously injured my
knee to the point where I can no longer run on it.

i read somewhere that walking was a good cross-training
regimen for those with certain types of knee injuries
because your leg gets straight during the motion.
elliptical, bike, row all tend to keep the knee
slightly bent.

just an idea. see if it works for you. ...thehick

[email hidden] (Jacqui Dueck) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Hello everyone,

I am a fairly athletic person who has always been heavily
involved in sports. Recently I have seriously injured my
knee to the point where I can no longer run on it. So
rather than not exercise at all, I wanted to assess some
alternative options. I need a low impact exercise and
since I have always used running as my form of cardio I
don't know what would be the next best thing to do that
will be alright for my knee. I would like to try walking,
but I am curious about the amount of calories I will burn
and how it will affect my cardiovascular fitness. Am I
better off using a cross-trainer at the gym? Could someone
please get back to me on this matter and let me know what
is the next best step for myself.

Thank you, Jacqui Dueck

running will burn more calories over the same distance as
walking as we arent as efficiant at running as we are at
walking.for most of us walking ,unless extremely fast really
isnt cardio.its impossible for most of us to get into our
target zone walking.unless one is really out of shape,or
walking all up hill ,running is needed for growing ones
cardio system.walking very very fast ,say over 4.5 mph can
be quite strenuous too.

frank-in-toronto said:

Quoted message said:

Jacqui Dueck said:

I am a fairly athletic person who has always been
heavily involved in sports. Recently I have seriously
injured my knee to the point where I can no longer run
on it.

i read somewhere that walking was a good cross-training
regimen for those with certain types of knee injuries
because your leg gets straight during the motion.
elliptical, bike, row all tend to keep the knee
slightly bent.

Well, it might depend on the type of knee injury. I believe
that bike riding is recommended for people with serious knee
problems -- serious enough to consider knee surgery. And I
believe that bike riding is recommended at some stage during
recovery from knee surgery. Doctors recommend biking in low
gears to avoid stressing the joint.

As always, please check with a doctor before applying your
own brand of therapy to any kind of injury that is serious
enough to cause you to change your routine. Try to find a
doctor that specializes in sports medicine or orthopedics.
A competent doctor of internal medicine or a licensed
physical therapist associated with a medical clinic might
be okay, too.

If you have a serious injury then swimming may become
your sport.

If it hurts too much to walk at as fast a rate you can up a
hill (or 5-12% grade on a treadmill), then you are going to
be related to a bike for a while. Set the seat up high
enough so that you don't over flex the knee.

Walking up a grade at just less than a jog pace (say
around 5 mph) will make the heart pump faster than any
flat land running.

Can you do stairs? Now there is a cardio exercise!

Just walking will not get the cardio up as high as you are
used to. But if you walk you will expend about the same
amount of Kcal per mile walking as running.

Jacqui Dueck said:

Hello everyone,

I am a fairly athletic person who has always been heavily
involved in sports. Recently I have seriously injured my
knee to the point where I can no longer run on it. So
rather than not exercise at all, I wanted to assess some
alternative options. I need a low impact exercise and
since I have always used running as my form of cardio I
don't know what would be the next best thing to do that
will be alright for my knee. I would like to try walking,
but I am curious about the amount of calories I will burn
and how it will affect my cardiovascular fitness. Am I
better off using a cross-trainer at the gym? Could someone
please get back to me on this matter and let me know what
is the next best step for myself.

Thank you, Jacqui Dueck

I think that, running will burn far more calories than
walking. Maybe try Jogging this may help more than walking.
Or you could go to the gym there will be equipment there
that will let you exercise your legs, I think that you would
be better off going to they Gym. =).

Based on my personal research, yes, I feel that walking is
better than running. Five years ago, when I had just started
a walking program, I decided after 6 months of walking to
also incorporate running into my routine. Well, within 2
days I ended up with pulled muscles and whatever else that
took weeks to heal before I could walk again and nearly 3
years passed before occassional slight aching passed. What
was bad about it was that I never actually felt the injuries
happen until after I was finished jogging, and so probably
more damage was done. A local runner told me that I had done
an inadequate warm-up which caused the injuries. Anyway,
that ended my desire to run/ jog.

I've known of several joggers in my area who have come down
with heart problems. One fellow is a "workaholic" and was
told to stop jogging altogether. I don't know if research
shows this or not, but I really feel that moderation is the
key. Either too much exercise or not enough is equally bad.
What's bad is that exercise can become addictive and you're
totally convinced that you're doing yourself good when
actually doing damage. This is a hard habit to break because
the outward signs of the addiction aren't visible, unlike
with smoking, drinking, etc.

You can burn nearly the same amount of calories walking
instead of running, but it just takes longer. Say you run 3
miles in 30 minutes; you can also walk 3 miles in an hour to
burn equivalent calories. For fitness attainment though, you
want to get your heart rate up into your target range. This
can be tough for some people who are already in good shape
(it certainly isn't for me as I'm overweight), but it really
isn't that tough to walk 5-5.5 mph. I've done it myself when
I was in better shape.

Good luck and I wish you well.

Robert Walls

"Jacqui Dueck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hello everyone,

I am a fairly athletic person who has always been heavily
involved in sports. Recently I have seriously injured my
knee to the point where I can no longer run on it. So
rather than not exercise at all, I wanted to assess some
alternative options. I need a low impact exercise and
since I have always used running as my form of cardio I
don't know what would be the next best thing to do that
will be alright for my knee. I would like to try walking,
but I am curious about the amount of calories I will burn
and how it will affect my cardiovascular fitness. Am I
better off using a cross-trainer at the gym? Could someone
please get back to me on this matter and let me know what
is the next best step for myself.

Thank you, Jacqui Dueck

Robert Walls said:

You can burn nearly the same amount of calories walking
instead of running, but it just takes longer. Say you run
3 miles in 30 minutes; you can also walk 3 miles in an
hour to burn equivalent calories.

What makes you think so?

According to the Compendium of Physical Activities [1], for
a "typical" person who weighs 263 lb, walking at 3 MPH for 1
hr burns about 400 kCal, whereas running at 6 MPH for 30 min
-- the same 3 miles -- burns about 600 kCal.

Running at 6 MPH burns 3 times as many calories per hour as
walking at 3 MPH [2]. So you have to walk 3 times longer
(time) to burn the same number of calories. Since you are
walking 1/2 as fast, you have to walk 1.5 times farther
(distance) to burn the same number of calories.

-----
[1] prevention.sph.sc.eduCompendium tracking.Open ↗
pdf, updated in 2000. Originally published by B.E.
Ainsworth et al, "Compendium of Physical Activities:
Classification of Energy Costs of Human Physical
Activities", Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, Vol. 25, No.1, 1993.

MS-SE is the journal of the ACSM. See ms-ms-Open ↗
se.com.

[2] According to the Compendium, we burn 3.3 MET
(kCal/kg/hr) when walking at 3 MPH and 10.0 MET
when running at 6 MPH, presumably both on a firm
level surface.

"Joe User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Robert Walls said:

You can burn nearly the same amount of calories walking
instead of running, but it just takes longer. Say you
run 3 miles in 30 minutes; you can also walk 3 miles in
an hour to burn equivalent calories.

What makes you think so?

According to the Compendium of Physical Activities [1],
for a "typical" person who weighs 263 lb, walking at 3 MPH
for 1 hr burns about 400 kCal, whereas running at 6 MPH
for 30 min -- the same 3 miles -- burns about 600 kCal.

Running at 6 MPH burns 3 times as many calories per hour
as walking at 3 MPH [2]. So you have to walk 3 times
longer (time) to burn the same number of calories. Since
you are walking 1/2 as fast, you have to walk 1.5 times
farther (distance) to burn the same number of calories.

-----
[1] prevention.sph.sc.eduCompendium trackinOpen ↗
g.pdf, updated in 2000. Originally published by B.E.
Ainsworth et al, "Compendium of Physical Activities:
Classification of Energy Costs of Human Physical
Activities", Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, Vol. 25, No.1, 1993.

MS-SE is the journal of the ACSM. See ms-ms-Open ↗
se.com.

[2] According to the Compendium, we burn 3.3 MET
(kCal/kg/hr) when walking at 3 MPH and 10.0 MET when
running at 6 MPH, presumably both on a firm level
surface.

Thank you for this correction! I have to admit, I asked my
original question a few weeks ago in another group and the
response was as I indicated. Since that time, things just
haven't seemed right. When I walked at 5.5 mph for 40
minutes, I suspected that I was burning more calories than
walking the same distance covered at a slower rate of
speed as I do now, 4.2 mph. I reduced speed because I
gained a lot of weight, plus I needed to get my heart rate
down. Now I'm doing the 4.2 mph speed for at least 80-90
minutes. I'm going to look into those links you mentioned
to learn more....

Thanks again, Rob

Robert Walls said:

Joe User said:

According to the Compendium of Physical Activities
[1], for a "typical" person who weighs 263 lb, walking
at 3 MPH for 1 hr burns about 400 kCal, whereas
running at 6 MPH for 30 min -- the same 3 miles --
burns about 600 kCal.

[....] Thank you for this correction! [....] When I
walked at
5.5 mph for 40 minutes, I suspected that I was burning
more calories than walking the same distance covered at
a slower rate of speed as I do now, 4.2 mph.

Well, I believe that is true. But I hasten to point out that
I was comparing running and walking over the same distance,
not walking at different speeds over the same distance. That
is a very different question.

Nonetheless, I do disagree with those who claim that
walking at different speeds burns the same number of
calories per mile. Those who assert that position often
note that we burn the same number of calories per mile at 2
MPH and 4 MPH. But according to the Compendium [1], that is
the exception, not the rule.

According to the Compendium, a "typical" person burns 5.0,
6.3 and 8.0 MET (kCal/kg/hr) at 4.0, 4.5 and 5.0 MPH
respectively. Thus, a 263-pound person burns 149, 167 and
191 kCal/mile at those speeds.

A linear curve is a close fit between 3.5 and 5.0 MPH [2].
Based on that, I estimate that a "typical" 263-pound
person burns 159 and 200 kCal/mile at 4.2 and 5.5 MPH
respectively [3].

But of course, no one is "typical" :-).

-----

[1] prevention.sph.sc.eduCompendium tracking.Open ↗
pdf, updated in 2000. Originally published by B.E.
Ainsworth et al, "Compendium of Physical Activities:
Classification of Energy Costs of Human Physical
Activities", Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, Vol. 25, No.1, 1993.

MS-SE is the journal of the ACSM. See ms-ms-Open ↗
se.com.

[2] Arguably, an exponential curve is a better fit between
3.5 and 5.0 MPH. But I believe a linear curve is "close
enough", if not correct.

[3] I estimate 5.6 and 9.2 MET (kCal/kg/hr) at 4.2 and 5.5
MPH respectively.