Running vs. Walking — Which is better?

Fatbloggers are debating if it’s better to walk or run. The question depends on a lot of factors, but it *seems* (and I’m not a doctor, and I’m still researching this) that if time isn’t an issue you should walk for longer time rather than running for a shorter time. Why? Folks say that you burn carbs for energy when you run and you burn fat when you walk.

I think I’m gonna try to do an hour of walking on the treadmill a day for the rest of the month. Frankly, if it wasn’t for the time I could walk for 90 or 120 minutes without a problem–it’s just not that hard. Maybe I should just do 90 minutes and really go for it?!?!

Google Answers: Exercise benefits of walking vs.running:
Exercise! Does running burn more calories than walking?

3 thoughts on “Running vs. Walking — Which is better?

  1. I just want to comment on the issue of running vs walking. I have just come across several website that claim that running burns more calories than walking and to which I say hogwash. They try to state their case by comparing say 20 minutes of walking vs 20 minutes or running. Well no kidding, you are covering a greater distance running and therefor your feet are hitting the pavement way more times. However in retrospect I will say that walking may in fact burn more calories than running since you will probably use more steps in covering that mile. The only thing that running actually does is get your heart and lungs into a training mode for better conditioning and it does take less time to exercise.

  2. its mostly miles covered…..in an hour a decent jogger/runner will cover 7 or more miles whereas most walkers will only go 3.5 miles or so…its approx same calories “per mile” walking versus running……..

Leave a Reply