Does walking 2 miles provide the same benefit as running 2 miles?

Question

Here is my thinking.

You burn more calories running, but if you run, the 2 miles are covered in a shorter span of time so you aren't getting the same length of work out as if you walked.

See?

Answer 1

Running will give you a better cardio workout, burn more energy, and get you fitter.

Answer 2

depends how fast you walk

Answer 3

2 miles walking provide a well tone cardio. It is less harsh on your body but still gets in that burn.

Running 2 miles build muscles faster because of faster rate, causing more calories to burn and also builds a longer stamina to your time able to run and put pressure on your legs.

Answer 4

they do different things - walking tends to be a fat burning exercise where as running is a cardio excercise - ull prob burn more cals by running but more stored fat by walking - hope that makes sense - thats what they tell me at the gym anyway

Answer 5

No walking 5 miles provides close to ruining 2 miles. For starts walking is a good thing as if gets you ready to run. Start ruining something and build up to running one mile. From there you are on your way to building up the miles.

Stay in there

Ms

Answer 6

no runnig is better

Answer 7

no it's burning less energy walk 4 miles and then you'd burning the same calories.

Answer 8

If it hurts your back and knees to run, I would highly suggest walking, at least to start.  I ran through high school and college and have bad knees.  I hate walking, (I'd rather run) but force myself to do it so I don't injure myself.  Hurting yourself and not being able to do any exercise won't burn any calories!!!  I'd also consider a new pair of shoes.  There are a lot of articles on starting a walking regimen in many women's magazines.  Or go to thewalkingsite.com to get a good plan!!!  Good luck!

Answer 9

Same benefits- to an extent- walking is lower stress and it burns fat efficiently compared to running that will burn calories but will also up your heart rate, putting you out of the fat burning zone and into the cardio zone.

If running hurts your back and legs, then walking is definitely better for you anyways. Even if running was better, you wouldn't think so if it literally killed you to go out there and do it. Walking, on the down side, will take more time, but if you are willing to put in the time then that is not a worry at all.

To make it more challenging you could think about buying a weighted walking vest- walmart for 30 dollars- or even carrying a 2 lb dumbbell in each hand-- this will help build muscle in your core, further slimming your body and adding to the fat burning benefits of walking.

Best of luck to you.

Answer 10

WALKING GIVES YOU MORE MUSCLES.

Answer 11

I think so. I know that I read somewhere that it is But it can't be a leasurly stroll. It needs to be a power walk.

Answer 12

no running pumps the blood and not only makes you sweat more but you work you muscles better and gives you a better alll round work out, stop and start if you can't go 2 miles.

Answer 13

Of course, running is better, the time does not matter, it is the burning of calories and building strength matters. If it hurts, you can combine both, half running and half walking, reducing the time of walking by half. No?

Answer 14

walking is SO much better. Your heart rate is at a constant pace unlike running which your heart rate would fluctuate not burning as much fat!

Answer 15

actually, both burn the same amount of calories so it doesnt matter which you do. do whichever you like more. i prefer walking :)

Answer 16

unfortuanetly not

you have different motions when running compared to walking, you are working harder when running, and burning more calories and getting a good workout. --- but i understand it hurts your back, so try "speed" walking for maybe more than two miles (3-5) or riding the bike

Answer 17

Does standing 2 miles provide the same benefit as walking 2 miles?