is it more effective to run for 20 minutes or walk for 40 minutes?!
Question:
Answers:
the 2nd option is the best
Other Answers:
it depends on how often you do it
run for 20. it gets your blood flow up and will help you become more physically fit. Walking does this, but at a significantly lower level.
personally I'd rather just sit on my butt all day and eat cheetos.
but I would say running for 20 minutes 'cause yer gonna burn more calories that way.
I AM A DANCER AND COREOGRAPHER AND I WORK OUT ALOT AND I HAD A TRAINER FOR A MONTH HE SAID YOU SHOULD START BY WALKING THEN GETTING FASTER AND FASTER AND FASTER BECAUSE IF YOU START RUNNING FAST FROM THE BEGGINING YOU WILL GET TIRED BUT IF YOU MIX WALKING AND RUNNING YOU COULD KEEP ON GOING FOR LONGER AND BURN MORE CALORIES AND IT WONT BE AS HARSH AT IT WILL HELP YOU BUILD A TOLERANCE FOR EXERCISE AND HELP YOU DO MORE OF IT WITHOUT GETTING TIRED. IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTION FEEL FREE TO IM ME OR EMAIL ME AT SUDUCTRESSOFTHETEDDYBEARS@YAHO.
depends on what effect you are trying to achieve.
They both burn about equal calories to cover the same distance. However for cardiovascular benefits running beats walking, unless you are walking at a really rapid pace as the goal with CV is to increase the heart rate for a sustained period of time.
If you're talking about calories burned then you'll burn more by running. You can loose a lot of fat by doing some High Intensity Interval Training with sprints. Take a look at www.bodyforlife.com. Look up the 20 minute aerobic solution. Hope this helps!
Time isn't as important as distance and speed when it comes to calorie burning.
If you weigh 220 pounds and jog 7mph for 20 minutes, you will have gone 2.33 miles and burned 494 calories.
If you weigh 220 pounds and walk 2mph for 40 minutes, you will have gone only 1.33 miles and burned only 193 calories.
The most effective exercise is whatever you can do consistently three times a week.
i think running is more effective and you won't have to endure it as long
Answers: