Is there a big difference, losing weight wise, between running (slowy) and walking (quickly)

Also, whilst there may not be a huge difference between running very slowly and walking - weight loss wise- if you push your body closer to its limits by doing a combination of running/jogging you will get fitter and therefore gradually become more comfortable running longer and faster.

Once you can run at a decent pace there is a big difference between running and walking, calorie and fitness wise (ie you will, providing you don't have joint problems get more out of a 3mile run, calorie and fitness wise than you would from a 3m walk). So its worth looking at the longer term picture and beyond pure weight loss .

Here are a few interesting articles if you want to read a bit more...

women's health

guardian

Shape

I agree with Sleep. You need to find some weighted exercise that will avoid your vulnerable areas but actually be tough enough to build some muscle. This is much more important than mere weight loss, it is the thing that will keep you active and independent into your seventies and beyond.

Oh and walking with hand weights won't really cut it, you need to lift really heavy things, like your own body or barbells/dumbells. Trust m, you won't bulk up!

coco your joints should be fine with weight training and it is really important, especially as you age and after a hysterectomy because the hormonal changes that lead to deterioration of muscle tissue. This will lead to a slower metabolism (muscles burn more calories) and less than desirable changes in your figure, eg flat bum and middle aged spread.

Build and maintain your muscles with resistance training and you will prevent all kinds of horrible diseases such as osteoporosis, you will look much fitter and toned and be able to eat more!

Cardio also has its place of course and ideally you should do both but given the choice, I would say resistance training offers more benefits.

Ron, alot of it is tied up with improved insulin sensitivity which leads to improved body composition, but physical activity has far reaching benefits, I liked this article although it's a few years old
harvardmagazine.com/2004/03/the-power-of-exercise

Not sure about the weight loss side but I suppose that walking, even fast, has a natural speed limit therefore a natural calorie burn limit, running too has a speed limit but you'll hit the walking limit loads before the running.

Hope my garbled logic makes sense.

I was unaware of the profound metabolic changes?

I was aware that a lot of people overestimate the no of calories burned during exercise and in the period post exercise.

I never count exercise calories into any equations I make as they aren't large enough numbers to be significant.

to create a calorie deficit you can alter calories ingested or calories used, and there is a synergistic effect when both 'levers' are used.

Exercise also causes profound metabolic changes which make your body less inclined to store fat

Weight loss is all about calorie deficit not really exercise ( unless you are a serious sport person)
I do HIIT and yoga

i do about an hour of cardio a day, plus weight training 3 x a week and i've not lost any weight recently either :o
i dont really have much fat to lose but tbh i need to do that much just to stay in shape

Flowers sums it all up beautifully. Running so fast you think you're going to puke would have significant metabolic benefits over and above the calories expended but would risk actual damage, so you would be best advised to keep walking and find some weight- using exercises (either with actual weights or your own body weight like press-ups) to that won't harm your vulnerable areas but will challenge you and build a bit more muscle.

That's true. I bloody hate running.

I do half an hour three times a week of two mins walk three mins run repeated for the half hour. I also walk my dog every day for half an hour and I go swimming once a week.

Unfortunately I'm obviously still consuming too many calories, whatever my diet app says, because for the last two weeks I haven't lost any bloody weight. Grr.

The 100 calories per mile isn't quite true, on average you burn 80-90 per mile walking and 110-130 running. Whilst you cover the same horizontal distance, when you run you move more up and down so you do use more energy.

Both are great for weightloss, it's best to do whichever you prefer as is easier to be motivated when you enjoy something!

here's a link for HR zones:

www.brianmac.co.uk/hrm1.htm

One more thing:

If you struggle to run, it's often just as efficient calorie and heart/lung workout wise to walk fast on an incline. On a treadmill I can burn the equivalent calories doing that than if I'd been running on the flat.

Running obviously burns calories quicker than walking. However you're probably going to be able to run for less time than you can walk, so you may end up burning the same (or fewer) overall: better to walk for 30mins than run for only 10mins.

Running will, however, tone you up better (quicker), and the more muscle you have, the more calories you will burn at rest (i.e. the higher your metabolism will go). This means that in addition to cardio (walking/running/swimming etc) you should do some sort of weight training to boost your muscle mass (this is particularly important for women, whose fat mass naturally increases as they age due to hormonal changes). Free weights (can of beans, bottles of water etc) are great since they also work your balance, and you can also use your own body weight (the plank position, (modified) push ups) etc.

Running will also work your heart and lungs more than walking (assuming you do both for the same amount of time), and so is better in that event.

Running can, however, harm your joints, and so walking may be better if you're not used to running / will be exercising on harder surfaces / are older etc.

You could always try intervals, switching between walking and running.

If your feet hurt after walking, you probably need different shoes.

Heart rate wise, the simplest way is to work out your 'maximum heart rate' : 220 minus your age. You should then aim for anything from 50% (beginner) through to around 85% of this (experienced exerciser) for a consistent amount of time (30mins 5 times a week as a basic guideline). So if you're 20, your max heart rate is 200, so you should be exercising at between 100 and 170 beat per minute for this amount of time.

Having a low heart rate at rest is a good sign: it suggests a strong heart (the amount of blood your body needs doesn't change, so fewer pumps suggests more blood is being pumped each time). But if you have a low heart rate whilst exercising, you're not working hard enough... HTH

According to my diet & fitness app, I burn approximately 80 calories off by walking for fifteen minutes, and 135 by running for fifteen minutes. So if I walk for 45 minutes I've burnt off more calories than the walking and running combined. That sounds crazy to me.

Well I've had a jolly good five or six weeks of brisk walking trying to do an hour a day. I've damaged the tendon under one of my feet - and it's bloody painful and I won't be walking much in the near future.

Diet has a far bigger influence on weight-loss than exercise, by the way.

Cointrea, I suspect that depends on how bad your diet is to start with, and I'd suggest that the relative influence of diet and exercise will vary from person to person.

I suppose that you could eat massive amounts and end up really really huge, but if you are sedentary and have an average diet then you would merely be podgy.
So bad diet can do more damage than lack of activity, still exercise has effects which go way beyond just the calories used while exercising