Do you get more steps running rather than walking the same distance?

[bcruik]

Please help with anything you know about my topic.

[Daubbh23]

I would assume you would not. It may actually be the opposite. If you are going the same distance, you would take fewer strides running than you would walking. Which in turn means more steps when walking.

However, if your tracker has GPS, it may just work off of the total distance traveled rather than strides. I am not sure about that though.

[betpchem]

The number of steps for the same distance would depend on your stride length. I've done some Googling and I can't find a definitive answer on what the difference in length is between a running stride and a walking stride. I was say the best answer is to measure it for yourself. Choose a known distance, like a local track, and count your steps as you walk the distance and as you run it.

[bcruik]

Thats true. I am going to try this. Running will get you more distance in less time but i feel i can get more in if i just do a fast walk as opposed to running but not sure if i am losing as much calories as if i was running.

[NoelB]

I run 5 kms 3 times a week & walk the same route on other days - my running days are approximately 300 less steps than my walking days, so my running stride is longer than my walking stride; therefore the lesser steps.

[betpchem]

300 steps is not much as compared to the number of steps involved in 5 kilometers. I would say that means your stride length running and walking is pretty much the same.

[bcruik]

I did test it this morning on my street. I actually had less steps in running as opposed to a fast walk. I would think its the opposite but the benefit is you get more steps all together in an hour because you can get more distance when you run.

[emili · Accepted solution]

and depending on your goals, you may want the higher calorie burn from running than walking in less time. Just make sure you rest between run days- no sense wearing out your feet!

[GershonSurge]

---

@emili wrote:

and depending on your goals, you may want the higher calorie burn from running than walking in less time. Just make sure you rest between run days- no sense wearing out your feet!

---

Many of us find we burn fewer calories per mile running. I burn about 170 walking and 130 running. The difference is not the BMR calories as I don't run that fast for it to make a difference.

[wijody]

Just did the math - I do about 1500 steps per mile when I run. When I walk I do 1945 per mile. But I run twice as fast, so more steps per hour. 

[emili]

That's interesting. Because I burn more. I would think just based on heart rate alone there would be a higher burn. But, to your point it's speed. I run. Not jog. So for me, the calorie burn is greater. 

[GershonSurge]

---

@emili wrote:

That's interesting. Because I burn more. I would think just based on heart rate alone there would be a higher burn. But, to your point it's speed. I run. Not jog. So for me, the calorie burn is greater. 

---

@my heart rate is 10-15 bpm lower while running than it is while walking. It feels easier to run, too. @shipo found a similar pattern.

[wijody]

I work in a hospital where we do cardiac stress testing.  Never seen anyone whose heart rate went down once the treadmill got to running speeds. 

I can see how possibly calories per mile could be lower just based on less steps per mile.

But at higher intensity, calories burned per unit of time would be higher.

[WXA]

Hands down... No way! Walking yields more steps than running over the same distance because walking stride length is shorter than running stride length. Only an odd running style could return more steps.