Walking vs Running Calories?

[SunsetRunner]

Hey all!

I'm a little puzzled by how fitbit records calories burned. I've been working on the treadmill doing hr long workouts regularly. Usually I jog at a flat incline but sometimes I walk at variable incline. 

I'm puzzled because in my head--running, even without incline, gets my heart rate significantly higher, so I should burn more calories no? But that hasn't been the case. 

Here is my walk. Again I did use inclines so I wasn't going to argue with its evaluation of my calories burned at the time... 

Peak: 11mins

Cardio: 37mins

Fat burn: 7mins

What's more puzzling to me is that my runs never seem to reach those numbers!! 

See above--more steps, less calories....... and the breakdown of my HR during this exercise was more intense too. 

Peak: 39mins

Cardio: 12mins

Fat burn: 6mins

I'm not saying fitbit is wrong, I'm just confused where it's getting its numbers. Do I actually burn fewer calories in peak? I'm hoping someone can shed light on the calculations that produce calories burned. 

[Dominique]

Yes, running/jogging is objectively a higher-intensity activity than walking, so all things being equal (same time spent performing said activities), you should burn more calories while running. I would compare series of 10 activities (running vs. walking) of same duration, to see if the two you showed us are outliers

[Nicola_grec]

I run , and som days i walk .

if My heartrate Goes higher , I burn more calories , 

walking at 5.2 km a hour for one hour , I burn 500 cal , against running , slow 5,4 to 6 km a hour , I burn 900 cal . I think Fitbit is not bad about the cal , 

[SunsetRunner]

The walk I posted was indeed an outlier simply because I've never otherwise reached 600+ cals, but consistently workouts more in peak burn less/the same. This week:

Monday 373cal 

Peak: 21min

Cardio: 17min

Fat burn: 4min

Total 42, ~9cal/min

Tuesday 446cal

Peak: 39min

Cardio: 12min

Fat burn: 6min

Total 57, ~8cal/min

Wednesday (walk) 478cal

Peak: 0min

Cardio: 30min

Fat burn: 35min

Total 65, ~7cal/min

When I do the breakdown of calories per minute I don't find I burn *more* walking... but I burn roughly the same. It seems odd?

For what it's worth, I do have Fitbit paired to LFConnect which is the treadmill app, not sure what that even does. Might unpair because I don't know what it does and it's an overall awful app, maybe it's affecting this. 

But if there's a simple explanation or a better way to calculate calories burned I'd like to know that too! Thanks.

Edit/Note: I would compare more but I've been doing this walking/running routine for only about two weeks. Previously I was almost exclusively on the elliptical. 

[Nicola_grec]

I use only , Fitbit , 

somtimes when I start walking on the treadmill I set a goal , 500cal , 

i hit that in 1 hour , 

if I run , and my heart rate goes up , say at 125 beats  min , I hit that goal in approx 40 min , 

walking on treadmill , my heart rate is 90to100 beats . 

[emili]

you can burn the same calories in a shorter period of time running than you do walking. so for example if you did a mile running it would take you 10 minutes and burn 100 calories. If you did a mile walking it would take you 18 minutes and burn the same 100 calories. I prefer to run most days because I get a huge head start in calories in the morning doing more in a defined period of time. If I walk I burn 400 and if I run in the same time frame, I burn 550. But that goes against your example. Try to do it in a shorter period of time so you can see how many calories you are burning in the exact same time frame. start a walk activity and have it cue you in 15 minutes. Take down the number of calories burned. Then start a run activity and have it cue you in 15 minutes and see what that number is. Then you will know how many calories you are burning per minute doing both things. Do the walk first.. 

[Nicola_grec]

Yes it’s true that running burns more calories,

but if you go higher heart rates, you body reacts diverent , 

at 50 to 70% heart rate of you max , it uses more fat as fuel , if you go higher ,

your body makes lactate, and it burns more carbs , it’s beter to run or walk in the fat burning zone , 

[Nicola_grec]

This is what I have from the web.

As you run faster, however, your muscles burn more carbs and produce more lactic acid, which quickly breaks down into a good guy (lactate) and a bad guy (hydrogen ions). The hydrogen ions are bad because they lower the pH of your muscles, decreasing muscle efficiency, and causing that awful burning sensation.

Hint , run or walk longer in the fat burning zone , it’s beter for healt and to become a better runner ,