PDA

View Full Version : Walking compared to Running



TalonVelocity
06-11-2004, 11:51 AM
Alright.. I am a horrible runner, endurance = none. I can maybe keep up a *jog* for about 15 mins.. and even though I can get very tired, it seems too short of a run to even count. Would it be better to walk for like 2 hrs? Or golf for like 4 hrs? how would that compare? Thx.

YCB
06-11-2004, 12:43 PM
when talkin about burning calories.. im pretty sure u know that running for like 10 minutes.. is like walking for like 40 minutes.. or something like that..

if u wanna become a better runner.. just start say speed walkin for like 20 or 25 mins/day... then once that gets easy up the speed..

i dun think people have enough time to walk 2 hrs a day..

QuasarCav
06-11-2004, 12:53 PM
walking and running burn the same amount of calories. but...

run for an hour= 10km
walk for an hour=4km

the key is time, walk for an hour instead of running for an hour.

richardchan2002
06-11-2004, 01:18 PM
Just take a lot of breaks until you get your endurance up. Run 5 minutes, walk 5 minutes, etc. etc. etc. It takes time to bu ild up endurance. And be sure to get into a breathing rhythm (i.e. ever three steps) - that's key.

benyl
06-11-2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by QuasarCav
walking and running burn the same amount of calories. but...

run for an hour= 10km
walk for an hour=4km

the key is time, walk for an hour instead of running for an hour.

you're kidding right?

I know you are trying to associate the distance with the amount of effort, but it doesn't work that way.

When you walk, one foot is always touching the ground. When you run, you are airborn between strides. You can't tell me that takes just as much energy as walking...

bigboom
06-11-2004, 01:52 PM
i would reccomend doing a trainign program. thats what i did, i started with a 2 and 30...run two minutes walk 30 seconds, then do a 5 and 1...then work up to a 10 and 1 and so on.

and walking for an hour is no way close to burning the same amount of calories as running for an hour. i dont even know where you got that idea LOL

speedracer
06-11-2004, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by QuasarCav
walking and running burn the same amount of calories. but...
...
the key is time, walk for an hour instead of running for an hour.


Not even close but your thinking in the same direction (Kinda)

Originally posted by benyl

I know you are trying to associate the distance with the amount of effort, but it doesn't work that way.


:thumbsup:


Originally posted by bigboom

and walking for an hour is no way close to burning the same amount of calories as running for an hour. i dont even know where you got that idea LOL

Nope, the "KEY" is distance. Run 1 km and you burn X calories. Walk for 1 km and you will burn roughly the same X calories (very close).

The benfits though would not be a slow turtle walk, your heart like any muscles requires resistance (aerobic activity) to build strength / endurance... :) So walk fast instead ;)

QuasarCav
06-11-2004, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by benyl


you're kidding right?

I know you are trying to associate the distance with the amount of effort, but it doesn't work that way.

When you walk, one foot is always touching the ground. When you run, you are airborn between strides. You can't tell me that takes just as much energy as walking...


nope, not kidding.

I screwed up though.... I mean distance. Run for 10k burns the same amount of calories as walking for 10k its just alot faster to run.

my bad:angel:

sputnik
06-11-2004, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by QuasarCav
walking and running burn the same amount of calories. but...

run for an hour= 10km
walk for an hour=4km

the key is time, walk for an hour instead of running for an hour.

Not really. The key is getting your heart rate up to a certain level. So unless you are power walking... or you are so fat that walking winds you. You are probably better off running.

benyl
06-11-2004, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by sputnik

...or you are so fat that walking winds you.

I know this is completely insensitive... but

BWUAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Ben
06-11-2004, 02:24 PM
Ride a bike or swim, FAR better for your joints than running.

1badPT
06-11-2004, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by sputnik


Not really. The key is getting your heart rate up to a certain level.
absolutely right


So unless you are power walking... or you are so fat that walking winds you.
ROFL :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Skylinelover
06-12-2004, 01:44 AM
If you run it will help your running if you walk well... it will burn calories.

PGTze
06-12-2004, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by Ben
Ride a bike or swim, FAR better for your joints than running.

True, but still not as good for you as running if you want to burn calories or want to get in great shape.

bigboom
06-13-2004, 12:30 AM
yeah i find running gives me a more intense workout than swimming and bike.

Ben
06-13-2004, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by PGTze


True, but still not as good for you as running if you want to burn calories or want to get in great shape.



Originally posted by bigboom
yeah i find running gives me a more intense workout than swimming and bike.



Well of course, so all that means is you have to bike or swim a little while longer. I'd far rather swim or bike for an hour than run for half an hour. More enjoyable activity IMO.

Better yet, cross country ski, thats the #1 arobic excersize.