Running calories less than walking same distance?

[DaveNic]

I ran 3.56km and logged a calorie burn of 176 (logged exercise activity). Walking the same distance/course earned a 205 calorie burn (flex tracked the walk).

This doesn't make sense to me - surely running is more effort = more calories burnt?

Could anyone help out here?

[DaveNic]

I should say 2.56km!

[Colinm39]

---

@DaveNic wrote:

I should say 2.56km!

---

@DaveNicIf you haven't already done this, click on your Log, Activities and then the large stopwatch and create a manual timed record for each of the activities.

Then click on the very small stopwatch next to the description and you will see your one minute graphs and analyse each.

Be careful of the date and the AM/PM because this function always defaults to today and AM even in the past and while editing.

You may not be aware that you can used the sleep function to record your specific runs/walks. It creates the same information that you may create manually here. Not well publicized.

[DaveNic]

Thanks Colin.

I logged the run via Activities with manual timing (as I do biking and swimming) and the walk via the Flex. 

It'd be interesting to see if a higher run pace increases calories burnt - it should. But even with my current slow running pace, I should surely be burning more calories than walking. 

[Marcy]

If those were gross calories burned then you may not be comparing apples to apples as walking takes more time. 

[josephz2va]

Time, Speed, Aggression all equals calories burned. Distance may count too, but it's mainly based on those three factors in a workout. Running can cut down 2.56 km shorter than walking which makes it less time recorded. So the less time it took to reach 2.56 km, the less time, speed and aggression were recorded to equal less calories. If both equal 60 minutes recorded per say, the results will defer and may show running higher than walking.

I mainly don't like logging my activities. Mainly because the results can be altered. Like it'll think I ran 3 MPH through a forest sustained for 60 minutes which is a lie because I know I stalled a few times or slowed down due to physical limitations, elevation, wind speed, aggression, etc.

[Dominique]

I have a typical 8 km routine, in which I run 1 km, walk 1 km, run 1 km etc. (I'm using GPS with Runtastic, getting a vocal notification every kilometer). Here is what my minute-by-minute calorie burn looks like with the Fitbit One:

As you can see, taller bars (running) alternate with shorter bars (walking). The difference is more noticeable on the graph obtain with the Fitbit Charge HR (I'm wearing both, for comparison purposes):

During that activity, I burn up to 10-12 calories per minute when running, vs. 6-8 when walking. In other words, your Fitbit tracker will take into account the intensity of your movement. I'm sure the Flex will work in the same way.

If I'd run 5 km at 10 km/h, this would take me 30 minutes, in which case I would burn 30 x 11 = 330 calories.

If I'd walk 5 km at 6 km/h, this would take me 50 minutes, in which case I would burn 50 x 7 = 350 calories.

So for the same distance, I would burn slightly more walking that running, simply because I would spend more time.

Of course, if I run 5 km in 30 minutes, then sit for another 20 minutes doing nothing, I would still burn some calories (my BMR, ie. about 5 calories/minute).

So if we compare the calorie burn over a 50-minute period:

Running 30 minutes + sitting 20 minutes: 330 + (20 x 5) = 430 calories

Walking 50 minutes: 350 calories

As @Marcy said, you must compare apples with apples.

[Colinm39]

---

@DaveNic wrote:

Thanks Colin.

I logged the run via Activities with manual timing (as I do biking and swimming) and the walk via the Flex. 

It'd be interesting to see if a higher run pace increases calories burnt - it should. But even with my current slow running pace, I should surely be burning more calories than walking. 

---

@DaveNicI created a simple manual activity table to see where my cutovers were for calorie expenditure and the image below demonstrates that. The second image from another post yesterday shows my variations in steps and moderate minutes from my Profile 30 day graph.  Again as mentioned in an earlier post "intensity"

But studies show if you run and then walk the same mile you should get about 26% more calories from the running and then they say afterburn as well.

[Heybales]

---

@DaveNic wrote:

I ran 3.56km and logged a calorie burn of 176 (logged exercise activity). Walking the same distance/course earned a 205 calorie burn (flex tracked the walk).

This doesn't make sense to me - surely running is more effort = more calories burnt?

Could anyone help out here?

---

http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html

As mentioned, since this time includes what you would have burned resting - merely going longer makes the burn higher.

But even the net burn sees a difference - not all the same distance is the same burn - even with walking.

[RogerSCcB]

Hi I have same issue. Yesterday I walked 5 km in 53 minutes and logged 650 calories burnt.  Pace Today I ran the same route and went a further km. For the 6 km in 44 min I logged only 540 calories. How can this possibly be correct? Totally disbelief of tracker accuracy now. 

[SunsetRunner]

How long did it take you to walk it vs run it?  Time spent on an exercise is definitely a factor.  I think when you compare the times that you will find a much greater calorie burn per minute.

[Heybales]

---

@RogerSCcBwrote:

Hi I have same issue. Yesterday I walked 5 km in 53 minutes and logged 650 calories burnt.  Pace Today I ran the same route and went a further km. For the 6 km in 44 min I logged only 540 calories. How can this possibly be correct? Totally disbelief of tracker accuracy now. 

---

Did the Fitbit state those distances - or did you know that was the distance from known course length?

I ask because Fitbit has 2 stride length measurements - walking and running.

So I'd actually be shocked if it had the distance correct in both cases.

Now - outside distance is the fact the HR-based devices are using HR-based calculations for calorie burn.

Walking was probably at the lower and more inaccurate inflated range for HR-based calorie burn, running probably more correct.

You might find interesting the fact that indeed they should have burned close to the same amount.

If you manually logged a workout that day, or another because you'll delete it - for that distance and a time that is the same for walking, note the calories, then do it for running time same distance shorter time, calories should be similar.

Because indeed while calories/min should be higher for the run - you ran less time.

Of course, they may be close, but not the same.

http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html