A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

Yup, same speed. The only difference that I have on the treadmill is that I walk
at a steady incline - but that doesn't appear to be factored into their
calculations. Yet regular walking on hills, is ... and it computes to dang near
what the *error* in the program says I have earned on the treadmill. THAT I can
somewhat understand as I would think that constantly walking uphill would burn
more calories than flat walking.

I also remember hearing that walking supposedly burns more calories than running
.... hmmm, will have to check that out. One more reason for me NOT to run. G

Joyce

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:39:17 -0800, Fred wrote:

Well, I'm not sure - do I understand that in both cases, the speed is
4mph?

I do recall reading years ago that walking supposedly burned more
calories than jogging. Walking was considered "less" efficient.

Or in other words, I have no idea!

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:11:15 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is,
please give it to me in terms I can understand. g

I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a
*quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is
automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add
(miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a
difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill,
which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says
that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at
roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15
miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone
explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two
activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated
speed?

I am sooooooooooo confused! g

Joyce