8,153
edits
Changes
no edit summary
<td><select name="WeightUnits"><option>Kg</option><option selected="selected">Pounds</option></select></td>
</tr></table></td></tr></table>
<input type="submit" value="Submit" /><br></form></html><include_PHP file="CalorieInc_Setup"/>
=The Difference Between Running and Walking=
Running and walking are two different forms of movement. In running you either have one foot on the ground or both feet in the air; both feet are never on the ground at the same time. In contrast, when walking you either have one or both feet on the ground and never have both feet in the air.Sometimes people think that basic physics means that it should take the same energy to move a human over a given distance regardless of running or walking. However, both running and walking are quite inefficient, so most of the energy expended does not go to forward movement. This is most easily seen when you compare a runner with a cyclist; for the same effort, the cyclist will move far faster. This means that the energy cost of running and walking is mostly around how much energy is wasted in each form of movement. =Do You Burn More Calories Running or Walking?=Generally, the answer is that running burns more calories per mile than walking, but as is so often the case, the real answer is "it depends". * If you're running at a moderate pace, you burn more calories per mile and per hour than walking at a moderate pace. * If you're race walking, then you can burn more calories per mile than running. (Race walking here is faster than about 14:00 min/mile.) * The relative Calories per hour for race walking and running will depend on the exact paces. =Should You Run or Walk in an Ultramarathon?=The table below gives some insight into when you should run and when you should walk in an ultra. This table shows how the slope would change your pace if you keep the same effort (Calories per hour). The first column is the running pace on the flat, then each column shows the pace you would travel if you run or walk on various slopes. The table is based on the available research, and there are obviously some practical limitations that make some values unreasonable for most people. As noted above, it's more efficient to walk than to run on level ground, up to the natural transition pace of about 14:00 min/mile. What's surprising is that it is also more efficient to run than walk on uphill sections, even as the equivalent pace drops. So, if you're able to run at a 10:00 min/mile on the flat, you could go up a 10% grade with the same effort at 16:35 min/mile when running or 17:39 min/mile when walking. This seems rather bizarre when both paces are below the natural transition pace (see below), but when I tested this out I found to my surprise it appears to be true. That doesn't mean you should run up the hills, as walking may be a useful break and using different muscles may help with fatigue. In addition, unless you've practiced race walking technique it's unlikely you'll be able to efficiently hit the faster downhill walking paces, where you may be able to hit the downhill running pace. For example, if you're running a 10:00 min/mile pace on the level, you may be able to handle running the 5:59 min/mile pace down a 10% decline, but few people will be able to walk at a 7:28 min/mile pace down the same slope. So it may not make much difference if you take walking breaks uphill or on the level, but you don't want to take them on the downhill sections. (In the table below, I've used a blue font where the walking pace is faster than the equivalent running pace.)<include_PHP file="CalorieInc_EvenEffort"/>
=The Effect of Incline=
It's intuitively obvious that running or walking uphill is harder than level ground. It's also reasonably obvious that modest downhill slopes are easier than level ground, but as the slope increases so the difficulty becomes greater. Scientific research has supported and quantified this<ref name="Minetti-2002"/>, showing that the energy cost of walking or running is to lowest at about 10% decline. There is some evidence that the slope of minimum energy is independent of pace<ref name=" Minetti 1994"/>. This slope of minimum energy requirement seems to corresponds with the slope that neither requires pushing back for forward movement nor energy dissipation for braking<ref name="SnyderKram2012"/>. The two graphs below show the relationship between slope and the cost of walking/running as measured by a number of studies.
|[[File:Energy cost and transition Distance.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Energy cost over distance.]]
|}
=Calories Per Hour=
This table shows the number of Calories used per hour for a person weighing <include_PHP file="CalorieInc_ShowWeight"/>.
This table shows the number of Calories used to cover a <include_PHP file="CalorieInc_ShowDistanceUnits"/>for a person weighing <include_PHP file="CalorieInc_ShowWeight"/>.
<include_PHP file="CalorieInc_PerDistance"/>
=Training Status Effects=
The graph on the below shows that there are slight, non-significant differences between runners and active non-runners. This indicates that training does not change the transition speed, though it's worth noting that the actual transition speed is slower than would be expected from the energy costs<ref name="Rotstein-2005"/>. Also note that the actual cost of running is not quite constant with speed, but actually goes down as you go faster.