Question: I was going over my manual for an endurance certification where I read that in terms of DISTANCE, walking and running will burn about the same calories. I can buy that, but it also states that walking is better for fat loss because it burns the calories almost solely from fat stores where as running will take a lot of sugar (muscle glycogen) and use that for energy. With that being
said it was stated that running will only burn about 60-95 percent fat and the rest will be from muscle glycogen stores. I’ve never heard of it but it does make sense in a way. Garrett / Worcester, MA (via bb.com forum)
Answer: Generally speaking, walking does burn a higher percentage of fat than does running. But in the next 24 hours, running would burn more total fat to replenish the other fuel (i.e. glycogen) 
used while running.
When you factor in the post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) – aka the metabolic boost you get after high intensity exercise – you’d burn more fat running, at least if it’s interval in nature and/or creates an oxygen deficit.
Look at it this way, would you rather have 100% of my income or 10% of Donald Trump’s income? Trust me, you’ll be better off choosing the latter, even though the percentage is lower.
While running (and high intensity exercise in general) burns a lower % of fat, it ultimately ends up burning MORE fat.
Oh, and to answer your initial question, if you were to run and walk the same distance, you would burn roughly the same amount of calories… during the exercise at least.
Dr Clay
