![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Let's say today I walk for an hour and in turn burn off exactly 255
calories. Then let's say tomorrow I RUN for 30 minutes, and end up burning off the same amount as the previous day - 255 calories. My question is, are both of these workouts equal to one another, in terms of weight loss? Or is there something inherently better about a more vigorous workout? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Nore vigorous is better, for two reasons:
1. After your 30 minutes of running, you (say) sit and watch TV for another 30 mintues. This burns another (say) 70 Calories. So your total expenditure of 1 hour running and watching TV is 325 Calories, versus 255 Calories for walking for 1 hour. 2. More vigorous workouts make you fitter and hence more capable of buring calories in subsequent workouts (eg you can run or walk faster with the same perceived level of exertion). So they are better for longer term weight loss. Peter Webb "Chris House" wrote in message ... Let's say today I walk for an hour and in turn burn off exactly 255 calories. Then let's say tomorrow I RUN for 30 minutes, and end up burning off the same amount as the previous day - 255 calories. My question is, are both of these workouts equal to one another, in terms of weight loss? Or is there something inherently better about a more vigorous workout? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Peter Webb" wrote in message u... Nore vigorous is better, for two reasons: 1. After your 30 minutes of running, you (say) sit and watch TV for another 30 mintues. This burns another (say) 70 Calories. So your total expenditure of 1 hour running and watching TV is 325 Calories, versus 255 Calories for walking for 1 hour. 2. More vigorous workouts make you fitter and hence more capable of buring calories in subsequent workouts (eg you can run or walk faster with the same perceived level of exertion). So they are better for longer term weight loss. Peter Webb Additionally, forget expensive detox plans and formulae (if that's your thing).......a vigorous workout combined with plenty of water will mean your blood gets pumped around your system more quickly and, hence, through your liver and kidneys more times than a gentle workout, the end result being you give yourself a totally natural detox. Not at all relevant to the original post but worth a mention :-) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Petzl" wrote in message ... On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:39:22 -0000, Chris House wrote: If the *distance* is the same the calorie burn would be near the same (walking a set distance at a good pace 5mph is less efficient than running and burns slightly more calories) I think you meant to say that walking is "more" rather than "less" efficient than running. Consider wind resistance and the added energy required for the body to rid excess body heat at higher speed. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:50:30 -0400, "BillX" wrote:
"Petzl" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:39:22 -0000, Chris House wrote: If the *distance* is the same the calorie burn would be near the same (walking a set distance at a good pace 5mph is less efficient than running and burns slightly more calories) I think you meant to say that walking is "more" rather than "less" efficient than running. Consider wind resistance and the added energy required for the body to rid excess body heat at higher speed. walking at a very brisk pace say 5 mph and above becomes *less* efficient than running (this is calories burnt for a distance not a time) If one walks at very low speed this is very efficient (1 or 2 mph) Petzl -- "The price of living in a democracy is that the morons can vote, say anything they want, and procreate at will" - Dr John Becker |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Do you have a source to back your claim that "walking" at 5mph is less
efficient than running at a faster pace? I understand that walking slower than 5mph is more efficient but what does that have to do with running? "Petzl" wrote in message news ![]() On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:50:30 -0400, "BillX" wrote: "Petzl" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:39:22 -0000, Chris House wrote: If the *distance* is the same the calorie burn would be near the same (walking a set distance at a good pace 5mph is less efficient than running and burns slightly more calories) I think you meant to say that walking is "more" rather than "less" efficient than running. Consider wind resistance and the added energy required for the body to rid excess body heat at higher speed. walking at a very brisk pace say 5 mph and above becomes *less* efficient than running (this is calories burnt for a distance not a time) If one walks at very low speed this is very efficient (1 or 2 mph) Petzl -- "The price of living in a democracy is that the morons can vote, say anything they want, and procreate at will" - Dr John Becker |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:03:50 -0400, "BillX" wrote:
Do you have a source to back your claim that "walking" at 5mph is less efficient than running at a faster pace? I understand that walking slower than 5mph is more efficient but what does that have to do with running? Its to do with calorie counting (not running) and as a low impact exercise there is nothing wrong with a brisk hours walk. As your pace in walking starts getting above 5 MPH it becomes less effiecient than running and burns more calories, the idea is when walking try putting a little effort into it. I do both running and walking A google search came up with a reasonable site http://www.health24.co.za/fitness/Specific_sports/16-476-495,16705.asp Walking as a fat burner Running does burn energy more quickly, so if you have minimal time to exercise and running suits you enjoy it! However, if you have a little more time, walking can be very effective in fat burning, bearing in mind the fact that whether you walk or run a given distance, your body actually burns the same amount of energy. Petzl -- scan your computer On line virus scanners available here "Trend Micro's free online virus scanner" http://housecall.trendmicro.com/ or "Panda ActiveScan" http://www.pandasoftware.com/activescan/ There are free virus detectors such as this one "AVG 6.0 Free Edition" http://www.grisoft.com Check your computer for "Spy Bots" freeware available http://security.kolla.de/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|