Has anyone else heard it said that walking is as effective as running?

Question

I have heard this, and I am not claiming to be an expert, but it has definitely proven not true for me. I know...running is bad for your knees...yadda,yadda,yadda,but honestly,do the 2 really even compare in difficulty?Especially running the earth/non-treadmill running. Do you believe it is just another excuse for some people to avoid the exercise methods that work the best(ie,HARD WORK).Is 20 minutes of running better than an hour of walking?I believe it is, but like I said,I am no expert.what do YOU think?Yahoo users.....attack!!!!

Answer 1

As far as burning calories, yes it is the same. Walking 1 mile will burn just as many calories as running 1 mile. It just takes longer to walk a mile than it is to run a mile.

Answer 2

In order to walk in a manner that is just as effective as running. You have to walk REALLY fast and keep it up. It has to be at a pace where you could almost start running, but you walk fast instead. Running is much more efficient. Even a slow jog is easier to keep up for 20 minutes than a very fast walk. Plus, you burn more calories running.

I think it is an excuse not to run. Plus, they have created elliptical machines for people with bad knees.

Answer 3

no expert here but I lost a lot of weight from just walking. now i walk and run but i lost weight when my walks got to be over an hour (i walk from 90 to 120 minutes) and fast. i walk on an incline sometime and sometimes with a weighted vest just for variety. whether you walk or run you burn roughly 100 calories a mile. i think the only advantage of running is that you can burn more because you can run more miles in an hour than you could walk. that's why people say running is better than walking

Answer 4

Hi, Some people can't run for health reason, but a brisk walk is better than no excercise at all, so to your question I say walking is just as effective than running due to a persons' ability.

Answer 5

Running is WAY harder then walking. The problem is most people can't run for 20 mins. I think 20 mins of running is better then hours of walking. Look at people who walk for a living or have to stand for hours they are not always in shape. Yet you have to be in shape to jog 20 mins. It's hard people, if you think its not, get up right now and run your block. Case closed.

Answer 6

yes, it is mile for mile as long as you have your heart rate in your target zone. walking is easier on the knees, but running you can get more miles in. So with running you can get a better workout in less time than with walking, but if you don't like to run. Walking is a great alternative

Answer 7

It has proven untrue because it is untrue. Think about it...in order to burn calories, the body must provide exertion and increase the heart rate 60 to 80% of it's peak rate level to be most effective. Can you achieve that with walking? Any cardio exercise which increases the heart rate to above levels is the best option to burn calories and lose weight effectively.

Answer 8

From a calorie burning stand point they are equal. It's an equation of mass x distance.

I think walking is preferable because more people can do it longer without tiring or having endurance problems.

Answer 9

Walking can be just as effective only if you do power walking....the whole point to get your heart rate up to help burn the calories. If you have bad knees or ankles (like i do) power walking is better on them. It may take longer to burn the calories, but they will burn.

Answer 10

I don't agree. But I'm a runner and I run uphill sprints and speed drills, so there's no way even power walking compares to that.