DMGLower Your Heart Rate, Burn More Fat?
Okay, I think we've all heard this one: "Since your body is more efficient about burning fat at lower exertion levels, walking actually burns fat faster than running!"
This is complete bunk. But like every convincing bit of BS, it's based on some truth.
When walking, a greater percentage of the calories you burn are drawn from fat, compared to the same caloric burn when running.
Just by conincidence, I happened to run and walk the same route on two different days this week. Let's look at the data. (I'm rounding the numbers just a hair: I actually ran the course in about 22 minutes.)
| Running | Walking | |
|---|---|---|
| Time: | 20 minutes | 40 minutes |
| Total Calories Burned: | 375 | 375 |
| Fat Cal. Burned: | 206 | 225 |
| % Cal. Burned from Fat: | 55% | 60% |
Wow. Look at that! I burned an extra 20 calories of fat by walking instead of running! Woo!
Well, yes and no.
Look at how much time I spent walking: 40 minutes. So, I spent double the time for that extra 20 calories. And it's not really extra. I just burned fat instead of, um, other stuff. (Glucosamine, I think?)
Suppose I'd run for 40 minutes, the same time I spent walking. The numbers would look like this:
| Running | Walking | |
|---|---|---|
| Time: | 40 minutes | 40 minutes |
| Total Calories Burned: | 750 | 375 |
| Fat Cal. Burned: | 412 | 225 |
| % Cal. Burned from Fat: | 55% | 60% |
Same percentages, huge differences. In the same time I can walk two miles and burn 375 calories, I can run four miles (at a very modest pace, I might add) and burn double the total calories, and 83% more fat, and strengthen my heart and lungs.
Bottom line: a 20-minute run is going to do way more for you than a 40-minute walk.
So why was I walking instead of running last night? Because I trashed my legs on Sunday, and they haven't recovered yet.