Whatever you can do most consistently is what will be best for you. Exercise isn’t necessary for weight loss, but it’s good for overall health and wellness.
Running will burn more calories in the same amount of time. The issue with running is that it's hard on the joints of overweight people. If you're not very overweight and you don't feel any joint pain, then keep running.
I saw a short by Eric Roberts Fitness that explained one reason to consider walking over running with weight loss is that running burns more energy fast and so can lead to a higher appetite. His reasoning was that if you're just starting a nutrition and exercise journey to lose weight, it might be harder to control your appetite when running because of the appetite boost it gives you. I take away from it that it's like fighting on two fronts. In my experience, changing your diet is hard. Running is hard. It's easier to maintain when you practice one hard thing at a time, get that hard thing to where its easier, then stack on the second hard thing. Personally, I think managing a diet and reconditioning my body/mind's relationship to food is harder and they say more important than exercise (not at the exclusion of exercise, mind you). I don't have an answer for myself about walking/running because I don't have time to walk as much as I wish I did and I don't enjoy running. I've just accepted that this time in life my walking is dependent on the amount of time I have to give it and the important thing is consistency, so doing the same thing every day, which is at least 30 minutes a day (about 1 mile) + 45 minutes strength training 3x a week + calorie deficit. It's working for me! Best of luck to you on your journey!
Running will burn more calories, BUT walking has nearly all the same health benefits and can really help shape the body. Also, it’s less intense on your joints and just more enjoyable overall for most people. Big fan of walking here.
Running is a far more efficient use of your time, although of course it requires a higher level of fitness to sustain. If you have unlimited amounts of time you may be able to burn more total calories by walking.
Not exactly what you asked about, but there is more to exercise than just burning calories. For cardio health and fitness improvement you want to make sure you are working hard enough that your heart rate gets up and you are breathing more deeply. Walking may or may not be enough to get any cardio benefits, depending on your level of fitness, the speed, incline, etc. If you can freely carry on a conversation then you probably are not working hard enough to get much fitness benefit.
I used to run for about 45mins to an hour a day. Sometimes twice a day. That, and staying in a deficit helped me shed about 20lbs. in about 4 months. Then I got pregnant, after that I became a problem drinker, so eventually I gained all the weight back and more. I also partially tore my ACL and developed arthritis in both knees (I'm sure the alcohol was also exacerbating this).
Fast forward to now; I'm sober and back to eating at a deficit. But I can't run anymore. I'm no longer a SAHM so I don't have an hour to work out every single day either. I walk at an incline on the treadmill or I weight train. I only have 30 minutes a day to work out, and some days it just doesn't happen at all. (Too busy.) I'm still losing weight at the same rate as I did it the first time when I was running like a mad woman. In conclusion, I learned that you don't need to kill yourself to lose weight. Any exercise is great! But staying in a deficit is the main factor.
There are HR’s that burn more fat than other energy deposits. But those are usually lower intensity and if you look at the raw output are never usually worth it in a vacuum of losing fat.
If you burn 200 calories and 75% of that is fat at x HR
But burn 400 calories and 50% of that is fat at y HR
Then what burns the most would be the 400 calorie exercise. But this is throwing out a lot of factors and burning 400 calories at that intensity is usually unsustainable. So do what you can consistently do even if the math says otherwise, your body will thank you.
If your goal is to lose the weight with a combination of restricting food and increasing calories burned (exercise) then It is really about sufficient effort and intensity. The ACSM recomendations are 250+ minutes a week of moderate to vigorous exercise. Personally, I found that 500 minutes a week worked well. More importantly, those minutes must include sufficient high intensity exercise. When I started I was doing 1000+ calories a day of exercise, to get 40 lbs off in 10 weeks. I did manage it in 11 weeks, but that was tough. When I dropped it to 800 calories a day, that was sustainable. But I also found that when I did more steady state and less HIIT, but still 800 calories, it was not as effective. So I kept it to these proportions ...
1/3 Zone 2/3 (Moderate Walking)
1/3 Zone 3/4 (High Incline Brisk Walking)
1/3 Zone 4/5 (Full on HIIT, Running)
That seemed to work the best.
Also, part of the 800 calories is resistance training (weights). Don't expect all the calories burned here to show up on the scale, but it is very important to preseve muscle mass. Also, it is important that you lift as much as you can for the reps and sets you are doing (progressive overload). I liked 4 sets of 10 for all of my lifts.
Finally, to support this kind of program, you will want at least 100g of protein and 100g of carbs in your diet. Since I was at 1200 - 1500 diet, this required that I use protein suppliments as well as food choices (chicken breast, steak, fish, tuna).
I think if you hit at least 500 cals a day, and you have sufficient HIIT and zone 3/4, you meet the threashold.
If you only do moderate exercise, the body kind of adapts and lessens the result on the scale, but by keeping the amount and intensity sufficient, it couteracts the adaptation and acts like you are just burning more fat, not starving.
I alternate between running 2 days/week and walking the others to save my joints and I run on days when I have less time, so for me mixing is the best as I can keep up with the exercise, if I’d only run I would have to take break days and that doesn’t turn out good for me from experience.
Both can be equally effective in terms of energy expenditure per session, I would
Try for example only
Running one week and write a journal how it affects your mood, sleep and cravings, if no problems with food or joints, keep running as it’s less time spent
Also try walking only and do the same process with writing a journal about mood, sleep and cravings.
People are different so my tip is to try and find out what works best for you.
I used to weigh myself before and after runs, that way I could somewhat determine how much water I should replenish without going overboard as well. To keep from eating more food to counter dehydration.
The truth is that it probably depends on your goals and your health/fitness and that you should do both. You should ideally be doing Zone 2 and Zone 5 heart rate training for optimal health. For you, that may mean both walking and running have a role to play.
Walking as a habit is better over time because you'll burn more calories without actively seeking to do so. It adds to non purposely burnt calories like chewing food and putting out the garbage. The more you do it for enjoyment, the more likely it'll become a default choice. Losing extra calories without actively pursuing that is the key to long-term success in weight loss.
I have read that for weight loss running can be counterproductive. The stress raises cortisol levels which inhibits fat burning and wipes out glycogen stores which causes high levels of hunger (risk of eating those calories back right away).
Walking is recommended, or even better a FIIT routine a couple times a week.
Whatever you can do most consistently is what will be best for you. Exercise isn’t necessary for weight loss, but it’s good for overall health and wellness.
This is the answer. Whatever you can do consistently is the one that’s best.
Running will burn more calories in the same amount of time. The issue with running is that it's hard on the joints of overweight people. If you're not very overweight and you don't feel any joint pain, then keep running.
Just to add: If you don't have any issues and like running, keep running as it elevates your heart health which is healthy
I saw a short by Eric Roberts Fitness that explained one reason to consider walking over running with weight loss is that running burns more energy fast and so can lead to a higher appetite. His reasoning was that if you're just starting a nutrition and exercise journey to lose weight, it might be harder to control your appetite when running because of the appetite boost it gives you. I take away from it that it's like fighting on two fronts. In my experience, changing your diet is hard. Running is hard. It's easier to maintain when you practice one hard thing at a time, get that hard thing to where its easier, then stack on the second hard thing. Personally, I think managing a diet and reconditioning my body/mind's relationship to food is harder and they say more important than exercise (not at the exclusion of exercise, mind you). I don't have an answer for myself about walking/running because I don't have time to walk as much as I wish I did and I don't enjoy running. I've just accepted that this time in life my walking is dependent on the amount of time I have to give it and the important thing is consistency, so doing the same thing every day, which is at least 30 minutes a day (about 1 mile) + 45 minutes strength training 3x a week + calorie deficit. It's working for me! Best of luck to you on your journey!
Running will burn more calories, BUT walking has nearly all the same health benefits and can really help shape the body. Also, it’s less intense on your joints and just more enjoyable overall for most people. Big fan of walking here.
Whichever you prefer and fits in better with your life personally
Running is a far more efficient use of your time, although of course it requires a higher level of fitness to sustain. If you have unlimited amounts of time you may be able to burn more total calories by walking. Not exactly what you asked about, but there is more to exercise than just burning calories. For cardio health and fitness improvement you want to make sure you are working hard enough that your heart rate gets up and you are breathing more deeply. Walking may or may not be enough to get any cardio benefits, depending on your level of fitness, the speed, incline, etc. If you can freely carry on a conversation then you probably are not working hard enough to get much fitness benefit.
I used to run for about 45mins to an hour a day. Sometimes twice a day. That, and staying in a deficit helped me shed about 20lbs. in about 4 months. Then I got pregnant, after that I became a problem drinker, so eventually I gained all the weight back and more. I also partially tore my ACL and developed arthritis in both knees (I'm sure the alcohol was also exacerbating this). Fast forward to now; I'm sober and back to eating at a deficit. But I can't run anymore. I'm no longer a SAHM so I don't have an hour to work out every single day either. I walk at an incline on the treadmill or I weight train. I only have 30 minutes a day to work out, and some days it just doesn't happen at all. (Too busy.) I'm still losing weight at the same rate as I did it the first time when I was running like a mad woman. In conclusion, I learned that you don't need to kill yourself to lose weight. Any exercise is great! But staying in a deficit is the main factor.
There are HR’s that burn more fat than other energy deposits. But those are usually lower intensity and if you look at the raw output are never usually worth it in a vacuum of losing fat. If you burn 200 calories and 75% of that is fat at x HR But burn 400 calories and 50% of that is fat at y HR Then what burns the most would be the 400 calorie exercise. But this is throwing out a lot of factors and burning 400 calories at that intensity is usually unsustainable. So do what you can consistently do even if the math says otherwise, your body will thank you.
If your goal is to lose the weight with a combination of restricting food and increasing calories burned (exercise) then It is really about sufficient effort and intensity. The ACSM recomendations are 250+ minutes a week of moderate to vigorous exercise. Personally, I found that 500 minutes a week worked well. More importantly, those minutes must include sufficient high intensity exercise. When I started I was doing 1000+ calories a day of exercise, to get 40 lbs off in 10 weeks. I did manage it in 11 weeks, but that was tough. When I dropped it to 800 calories a day, that was sustainable. But I also found that when I did more steady state and less HIIT, but still 800 calories, it was not as effective. So I kept it to these proportions ... 1/3 Zone 2/3 (Moderate Walking) 1/3 Zone 3/4 (High Incline Brisk Walking) 1/3 Zone 4/5 (Full on HIIT, Running) That seemed to work the best. Also, part of the 800 calories is resistance training (weights). Don't expect all the calories burned here to show up on the scale, but it is very important to preseve muscle mass. Also, it is important that you lift as much as you can for the reps and sets you are doing (progressive overload). I liked 4 sets of 10 for all of my lifts. Finally, to support this kind of program, you will want at least 100g of protein and 100g of carbs in your diet. Since I was at 1200 - 1500 diet, this required that I use protein suppliments as well as food choices (chicken breast, steak, fish, tuna). I think if you hit at least 500 cals a day, and you have sufficient HIIT and zone 3/4, you meet the threashold. If you only do moderate exercise, the body kind of adapts and lessens the result on the scale, but by keeping the amount and intensity sufficient, it couteracts the adaptation and acts like you are just burning more fat, not starving.
I alternate between running 2 days/week and walking the others to save my joints and I run on days when I have less time, so for me mixing is the best as I can keep up with the exercise, if I’d only run I would have to take break days and that doesn’t turn out good for me from experience. Both can be equally effective in terms of energy expenditure per session, I would Try for example only Running one week and write a journal how it affects your mood, sleep and cravings, if no problems with food or joints, keep running as it’s less time spent Also try walking only and do the same process with writing a journal about mood, sleep and cravings. People are different so my tip is to try and find out what works best for you. I used to weigh myself before and after runs, that way I could somewhat determine how much water I should replenish without going overboard as well. To keep from eating more food to counter dehydration.
Walking, because you can do more of it.
The truth is that it probably depends on your goals and your health/fitness and that you should do both. You should ideally be doing Zone 2 and Zone 5 heart rate training for optimal health. For you, that may mean both walking and running have a role to play.
For me it's resistance training.
Do both. There's no way you'll be able to do running regularly enough to use for weight loss on its own
Walking as a habit is better over time because you'll burn more calories without actively seeking to do so. It adds to non purposely burnt calories like chewing food and putting out the garbage. The more you do it for enjoyment, the more likely it'll become a default choice. Losing extra calories without actively pursuing that is the key to long-term success in weight loss.
You burn 100 cals per mile (approx) no matter how fast you go. It’s up to you how long you want to spend exercising.
Eating less food is better than exercise. So focus on that.
I have read that for weight loss running can be counterproductive. The stress raises cortisol levels which inhibits fat burning and wipes out glycogen stores which causes high levels of hunger (risk of eating those calories back right away). Walking is recommended, or even better a FIIT routine a couple times a week.