I just found an interesting article on runnersworld.com that asks the question, “How Many Calories Are You Really Burning?” and talks about the differences in calories burned between walking and running. I had no idea that there’s a difference between “total” calories burned and “net” calories burned. It’s an interesting read. Has anyone else ever heard of this?
Week 6 begins for me tomorrow. After doing the 20-minute run yesterday, I feel that tomorrow’s will be a lot easier, having shorter, more frequent intervals. I wonder why it’s after the longer run? Maybe it’s deceptively more challenging, or maybe it’s a merciful break before the 25-minute run at the end of the week. 😛
Oranges 2 Oranges 
Congratulations on making it all the way to week 6!
I never even thought about it, but it makes sense. If you want indisputable, completely un-scientific evidence from literally 5 hours ago.. check this out courtesy of my Garmin: http://trail.motionbased.com/trail/activity/6925879. Click on “Laps” on the left and look at the last column (Energy/Cal).
The first 3 laps are the 3 miles I ran without stopping. The 4th lap I walked 0.75 and only ran for 0.25 and burned quite a bit fewer calories. So does that make me as smart as Runner’s World? 🙂
It also corresponds with something I just read this morning in a woman’s running book that RW put out, about the differences in calories burned with walking vs. running, almost exactly, in terms of how many more calories you burned running.
Loved the article! I never really thought about it before.