4 ms·

The article seems to actually be answering a different question than it poses. From my experience of roughly analysing this a couple of years ago when I was lo

The article seems to actually be answering a different question than it poses. From my experience of roughly analysing this a couple of years ago when I was losing quite a lot of weight, I drew two main conclusions: * Calories used is a function of total distance travelled and your weight, your speed isn't really that significant a factor. * Walking rather than running uses about 80% of the calories for the same distance compared to running. It seems to be based on the mechanics of changing gait. If you at walking speed (google MAF - maximum aerobic fitness for more info), you use more calories than just walking. While these would seem to be opposite to the conclusions in the article, it's worth noting that the MET value is a function of calories over time, not calories over distance. The faster you're moving, the more calories you're using and the greater the distance you're covering, and they roughly cancel out. I also found it interesting that running slowly and/or walking is better for losing weight as running faster primarily uses glycogen (and makes you hungry), and running slowly primarily uses fat. This doesn't really affect energy efficiency, per se, but fat is a more efficient energy storage source, so this might be relevant in answering the posed question. But in any case, if you want to lose weight, walking is significantly more useful than running as you can generally sustain the activity over a longer period of time, and with less stress on your body.

rob74 2y ago
Well, the answer to the initial question is kind of obvious I think: running is less efficient (for the same speed) because when running more of your energy goes into vertical motion (jumping from one foot to the other) than into horizontal motion. Of course, above certain speeds walking just isn't "feasible" anymore, but running will never be as efficient as walking at the optimal speeds for walking. ...but if you want the most efficient way to travel only with the power of your own muscles, you need a bicycle :)
david-gpu 2y ago
Purely anecdotal, but I was surprised to find out that I gained significant weight when I switched from walking 6 hours/week to riding a bike for the same amount of time. I find it much harder to recover from riding, which makes sense because my heart rate goes way higher. Riding is much more fun, but I suspect you are completely right about walking being the better choice for weight loss. I was at my leanest when my breakfast was just black coffee and it was followed by a 60-90 minute walk.
- kijin 2y ago
  Also purely anecdotal, but I once lost 17kg (37lb) just by walking an additional 90 minutes a day for several months straight. And successfully maintained the new low weight for years afterward, also by walking moderately more than the usual. The great thing about walking is that you can just keep doing it mindlessly, while also doing other things such as commuting, shopping, running errands and taking care of the dogs, which you need to do anyway. The inefficiency, compared to running, is more than offset by the fact that it's so much easier to find an opportunity to walk.
  - high_na_euv 2y ago
    90min/day is a lot Ive started doing 6kmh walk for 30min after gym, two times a week and Ive lost like 10kg in 6 months
    - goostavos 2y ago
      Add a weighted backpack and you can massively ramp up the calorie burning aspect of those shorter walks. "Load carriage" is a thing the military has put some effort into studying. A 50lb pack turns a brisk walk into something that burns 100s of calories. Even an extra 20lbs on your back adds up. It might not feel like a lot, but the difference in heart rate for same perceived effort is shocking.
      - JackMorgan 2y ago
        I have lived on trail, hiking thousands of miles a year with a backpack filled with food, water, and shelter. To hear the claim that hiking with a 50lb pack has the "same perceived effort" is absolutely untrue for me. The difference between 0lb and 20lb is significant. The difference between that and 50lb is monumental. For me, rucking a 50lb pack after about 30 minutes feels like I'm taking hallucinogens, and not in a fun way! Time slows down to a crawl, I can't really understand audio language or even really form thoughts at all. It's like my whole brain stops working and I am nothing but resistance to getting crushed into the ground. I can ruck a 20lb pack for 20 miles a day for weeks, but even that took a lot of training. Doing that with 50lb feels like it would be impossible. Maybe my 135# body has some limiting factor. That being said, I love taking out a 50lb pack just to clear my head. It's like forced meditation.
PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
> I also found it interesting that running slowly and/or walking is better for losing weight as running faster primarily uses glycogen (and makes you hungry), and running slowly primarily uses fat. This presupposes running using glycolysis for energy. Most runners will do this, but there are quite a few ultra runners who use ketosis instead, and derived almost all their energy to run from fat. It's not great if you want to go very fast (say, track and field events), but it has some distinct benefits for very long ultra trail events.
Zacharias030 2y ago
Love this answer.

rob74 2y ago

Well, the answer to the initial question is kind of obvious I think: running is less efficient (for the same speed) because when running more of your energy goes into vertical motion (jumping from one foot to the other) than into horizontal motion. Of course, above certain speeds walking just isn't "feasible" anymore, but running will never be as efficient as walking at the optimal speeds for walking. ...but if you want the most efficient way to travel only with the power of your own muscles, you need a bicycle :)

david-gpu 2y ago

Purely anecdotal, but I was surprised to find out that I gained significant weight when I switched from walking 6 hours/week to riding a bike for the same amount of time. I find it much harder to recover from riding, which makes sense because my heart rate goes way higher. Riding is much more fun, but I suspect you are completely right about walking being the better choice for weight loss. I was at my leanest when my breakfast was just black coffee and it was followed by a 60-90 minute walk.

kijin 2y ago
Also purely anecdotal, but I once lost 17kg (37lb) just by walking an additional 90 minutes a day for several months straight. And successfully maintained the new low weight for years afterward, also by walking moderately more than the usual. The great thing about walking is that you can just keep doing it mindlessly, while also doing other things such as commuting, shopping, running errands and taking care of the dogs, which you need to do anyway. The inefficiency, compared to running, is more than offset by the fact that it's so much easier to find an opportunity to walk.
- high_na_euv 2y ago
  90min/day is a lot Ive started doing 6kmh walk for 30min after gym, two times a week and Ive lost like 10kg in 6 months
  - goostavos 2y ago
    Add a weighted backpack and you can massively ramp up the calorie burning aspect of those shorter walks. "Load carriage" is a thing the military has put some effort into studying. A 50lb pack turns a brisk walk into something that burns 100s of calories. Even an extra 20lbs on your back adds up. It might not feel like a lot, but the difference in heart rate for same perceived effort is shocking.
    - JackMorgan 2y ago
      I have lived on trail, hiking thousands of miles a year with a backpack filled with food, water, and shelter. To hear the claim that hiking with a 50lb pack has the "same perceived effort" is absolutely untrue for me. The difference between 0lb and 20lb is significant. The difference between that and 50lb is monumental. For me, rucking a 50lb pack after about 30 minutes feels like I'm taking hallucinogens, and not in a fun way! Time slows down to a crawl, I can't really understand audio language or even really form thoughts at all. It's like my whole brain stops working and I am nothing but resistance to getting crushed into the ground. I can ruck a 20lb pack for 20 miles a day for weeks, but even that took a lot of training. Doing that with 50lb feels like it would be impossible. Maybe my 135# body has some limiting factor. That being said, I love taking out a 50lb pack just to clear my head. It's like forced meditation.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago

> I also found it interesting that running slowly and/or walking is better for losing weight as running faster primarily uses glycogen (and makes you hungry), and running slowly primarily uses fat. This presupposes running using glycolysis for energy. Most runners will do this, but there are quite a few ultra runners who use ketosis instead, and derived almost all their energy to run from fat. It's not great if you want to go very fast (say, track and field events), but it has some distinct benefits for very long ultra trail events.

Zacharias030 2y ago

Love this answer.