2 miles jogging vs. 2 miles brisk walk

[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)?