Do you burn more calories running harder?

No, you might actually burn less the faster you go

rh arthritis wrote:

No, you might actually burn less the faster you go

I've read and keep hearing that moving your body over said distance regardless of speed burns the same amount of calories.

5 miles hard will burn more calories. But here's the really weird thing: Racing faster uses less calories. This is because you are more efficient, so that even though your intensity may be slightly higher, your total energy output is lower.

This is really the key to being a better/faster runner, and it ties in with all the good training theory you ever heard or read about.

train smart wrote:

5 miles hard will burn more calories. But here's the really weird thing: Racing faster uses less calories. This is because you are more efficient, so that even though your intensity may be slightly higher, your total energy output is lower.

This is really the key to being a better/faster runner, and it ties in with all the good training theory you ever heard or read about.

You are contradicting yourself

manuscript wrote:

rh arthritis wrote:

No, you might actually burn less the faster you go

I've read and keep hearing that moving your body over said distance regardless of speed burns the same amount of calories.

What about wind resistance?

It's a bit like the old myth that 'scientists have discovered that a bee shouldn't be able to fly' Unfortunately those scientists didn't know anything about wing movement. Wings flap in an eliptical motion not up and down, that would be hopelessly inneficient.

manuscript wrote:

rh arthritis wrote:

No, you might actually burn less the faster you go

I've read and keep hearing that moving your body over said distance regardless of speed burns the same amount of calories.

Hearing from who? Anyone that has actually studied the subject?

criticz wrote:

train smart wrote:

5 miles hard will burn more calories. But here's the really weird thing: Racing faster uses less calories. This is because you are more efficient, so that even though your intensity may be slightly higher, your total energy output is lower.

This is really the key to being a better/faster runner, and it ties in with all the good training theory you ever heard or read about.

You are contradicting yourself

No, you are misinterpreting. Read slowly.

In terms of weight loss it's about time not pace.

More time running = Less time eating.

My pleasure.

-*I changed the question a bit and used 10,000 meters.

Using the ACSM formula for running

VO2 = (0.2*v)+ (0.9*v+g)+3.5 v = velocity in meters/min and G+grade.

For this example I am going to put grade at 0.

Running at 200m/min would take you 50 min to run a 10K. Running at 225m/min will mean about a 44:30 10K.

VO2 for the 50 min 10k yields 2175 ml of O2 per kg

VO2 for the 44:30 yields a 2156 ml of O2 per kg

1 L of O2 = 5kcals

But as you can see the formula gives pretty much the same result.

manuscript wrote:

rh arthritis wrote:

No, you might actually burn less the faster you go

I've read and keep hearing that moving your body over said distance regardless of speed burns the same amount of calories.

This. If you run 5 miles in 30 minutes or 5 miles 50 minutes, you burn the same calories. It's just that running them in 30 minutes, you burn more calories per minute though if that matters.

Also, the more intense the workout the more of a boost you get to your metabolism after the workout. Doing stuff like sprints, plyos, weight lifting doesn't burn much calories but NFL guys aren't fat cuz it boosts the metabolism by a bunch. Lifting weights for say an hour in the gym, depending on how hard you go boosts metabolism for 24-48 hours. So they burn calories after they workout. Running burns a lot while you're running, if you weigh around 130 you burn about 100 calories per mile, then in addition to that depending on the intensity you get a boost to metabolism for 6-9 hours following the run. (intervals would be 9 hours, easy run 6 hours, etc)

That's what I thought. Where did you get the 9hr for intervals and 6 hours for easy run after run metabolism boost figures from?

Overall yes, as recovery takes longer during which time you'll be using more energy than you would be after an easy run.

Makes sense huh?

Riverdale Runner wrote:

Overall yes, as recovery takes longer during which time you'll be using more energy than you would be after an easy run.

Makes sense huh?

Makes sense, but during the run does hard burn more? Strava says it does, but everywhere I read says "newtons law......same distance, moving your body over the same distance just in less time, etc etcetc)

manuscript wrote:

Riverdale Runner wrote:

Overall yes, as recovery takes longer during which time you'll be using more energy than you would be after an easy run.

Makes sense huh?

Makes sense, but during the run does hard burn more? Strava says it does, but everywhere I read says "newtons law......same distance, moving your body over the same distance just in less time, etc etcetc)

Basic physics laws do not apply here. Those laws are way too simple for a situation like this.

agc5k wrote:

This. If you run 5 miles in 30 minutes or 5 miles 50 minutes, you burn the same calories. It's just that running them in 30 minutes, you burn more calories per minute though if that matters.

What do you mean "this"? Why do you think it is the same calories no matter the pace?

Running harder increases your calories burnt per unit of time, not distance.

You burn more calories 1 hour hard than 1 hour easy.

Now going to distance it depends. You have to go through the math and I BELIEVE that there is a global MINIMA that is your marathon pace.

i.e. 5 miles at marathon pace will burn FEWER calories than 5 miles slow, but also FEWER calories than 5 miles very hard.

Does it make sense to you? You are trying to count calories burned = calories per min x min per mile. See the two offsetting effects? When going harder calories per min increases but min per mile decreases.

You're welcome.

Thread should have ended when the guy broke out the ACSM calculation. Yes running a mile at 5:00 will burn approx same calories ad running a mile at 10:00, although at faster speed you will burn a handful more calories. Also, % fat used as fuel will be higher at slower speed. But, afterburn effect (increased calorie burn post exercise) will be higher and for a longer period of time with faster running.

This is why the most effective weight loss strategy will include both low intensity high volume activities alternated with shorter more intense exercise. Mainly because you can't go super intense everyday.....well unless you're on a weight loss show drugged to the gills then u can work ouy at a high intensity for 8 hrs a day.

Alan

Ryan or Sara Hall(not sure which) mentioned the 6-9 hour rule in a youtube video I stumbled on once when I was bored.

Per mile of running, the caloric cost of running is approximately equal, regardless of speed.