2 miles jogging vs. 2 miles brisk walk

[Nobledude]

I used to jog a lot but after I had a surgery on my achiles tendon I decided to just do fast walks..

Would you get the same benefits if u just walk fast the same distance as opposed to jogging 2 miles?
Tx

 

[shibs]

I don't think you would get the same cardio workout, as your heart rate wouldn't go up as much compared to jogging. Maybe fat loss though.. not sure. Maybe some other bro can give some input.

 

[Nobledude]

I don't think you would get the same cardio workout, as your heart rate wouldn't go up as much compared to jogging. Maybe fat loss though.. not sure. Maybe some other bro can give some input.

maybe as far as cardio goes it wont be the same...but from what I read fat loss is the same..

I wanna hear other opinions too..

 

[Tblock1]

maybe as far as cardio goes it wont be the same...but from what I read fat loss is the same..

I wanna hear other opinions too..

na man no way the fat loss is the same. You can lose lots of fat walking but you are always going to lose more getting your heart rate up and oxygen consumption up. Plus after a run you will have epoc (exercise post oxygen consumption) elevated for the next 24+ hours...burning extra calories the whole time

 

[cw801]

Walk on a treadmill - incline that thing to 15% and I guarantee you will get a cardio workout. I actually use this for my HIIT a lot (walk/run at 15%).....running is OK and all, but incline treadmill at a really fast walk is downright painful. (this means good)

 

[kx250rider]

On the cardio, a fast walk will just take longer to get the pulse up, as opposed to a run or jog. On the fat loss, I think it's simple physics here... To move a 175-lb mass (x) distance = calories burned. Only difference is speed in which those calories will be burned, which = time needed to move the mass the same distance. There are of course other small factors, such as size of steps taken, and the amount of energy lost in shoe flexion, etc... So if you travel the same distance whether running, jogging, or walking, you should burn about the same amount of calories; subtracting a few calories for saving energy lost in pounding/flexing of shoes during a jog.

Charles

 

[ramnares]

This article might give you some better insight :

How Many Calories Are You Really Burning? | From Runner's World

 

[Tblock1]

On the cardio, a fast walk will just take longer to get the pulse up, as opposed to a run or jog. On the fat loss, I think it's simple physics here... To move a 175-lb mass (x) distance = calories burned. Only difference is speed in which those calories will be burned, which = time needed to move the mass the same distance. There are of course other small factors, such as size of steps taken, and the amount of energy lost in shoe flexion, etc... So if you travel the same distance whether running, jogging, or walking, you should burn about the same amount of calories; subtracting a few calories for saving energy lost in pounding/flexing of shoes during a jog.

Charles

Like it said in that article and like I said in the post this isnt true because you are consuming far more oxygen while running

 

[stevesmi]

I don't believe so at all.

you are using up more energy running those 2 miles then walking. but walking is great cardio, very underrated.

 

[kx250rider]

Like it said in that article and like I said in the post this isnt true because you are consuming far more oxygen while running

True you're breathing faster and your pulse is higher in order to use extra oxygen, but you're getting from A to B faster, so you have traded time for energy. I'm sure it's not exactly the same, but I believe as in my earlier post, it's about the same.

It depends also on efficiency of the individual body. If your peak efficiency is at a run, then you'll happen to move your mass the same distance as the other person who's peak efficiency is at a walk, much faster. But I still would want to see a table that shows all the factors before saying either side is more accurate. It's a fundamental rule of physics that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a certain mass, a certain distance with certain resistance.


Charles

 

[ExtraMile]

Running can be dangerous and painful for heavy people too...

 

[Tblock1]

True you're breathing faster and your pulse is higher in order to use extra oxygen, but you're getting from A to B faster, so you have traded time for energy. I'm sure it's not exactly the same, but I believe as in my earlier post, it's about the same.

It depends also on efficiency of the individual body. If your peak efficiency is at a run, then you'll happen to move your mass the same distance as the other person who's peak efficiency is at a walk, much faster. But I still would want to see a table that shows all the factors before saying either side is more accurate. It's a fundamental rule of physics that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a certain mass, a certain distance with certain resistance.


Charles

Did you check out the article though? It clearly stated that running burned more calories over the same distance...meaning that running burned more calories over less time

 

[cottoncc]

Back in college I had a professor that said that fast walking uses your muscles more than jogging. If you think about it, your body naturally wants to jog when you get to a certain speed. That's because it's easier for the body to maintain. Your body wants to do whatever's easiest to conserve energy. Regardless of how true that is, fast walking is much easier on your joints. Any cardio is better than none at all!

 

[Nobledude]

So, can we conclude that a brisk walk(4 miles/hour) would get the same fat loss and calories as opossed to a jog( lets say 6 miles per hour)?