Which burns more calories, 5mi run in 30min or 40min?

40mins > 30mins

The 40 burns longer.

Neither. You can't burn calories. You can generate them however.

30 min

higher intensity = greater EPOC, greater caloric expenditure after exercise.

You will burn more calories running 5 miles if you do it in 40 minutes than 30.

However, if you run 5 miles in 30 minutes, the number of calories burned in that 30 minutes plus the following 10 minutes of rest will be higher than if you ran the 5 miles in the 40 minutes.

heavyd84 wrote:

Basically, I'm asking if running slower for the same mileage, burns more, less or same calories? Runnersworld calculator says calories are same for same mileage no matter pace. Is this true? Faster pace will burn more, but total run time less. Not trying to lose weight, just wondering.

Here we go again! This topic comes up so often on Letsrun. I will try to dig out the study but the answer is they both burn the same. Or to be totally accurate you burn very slightly more running faster but not enough to worry about.

IIRC, Its the physics. Running faster means more propulsion higher off the ground with each stride, so more vertical movement, more distance covered in 3 dimensions, more energy expended.

Yes, will also burn more calories in the ensuing downtime after a faster run.

More force and higher intensity is required to obtain 5 miles but it's done in less time. Less force less intensity to obtain 5 miles but requires more time. I think it would be the same caloric ratio. +/- 50 kcal as a quick answer.

In either event you are getting to the distance in 5 miles one way requires more effort but less time the other is less effort more time. I feel this would largely vary upon the individuals efficiency of calories used. The amount is small enough to be hardly measure able creating a conundrum back and forth information and lots of circumstances of body types, athletes/non athletes, long distance runners/middle distance/ sprinters, age, sex to name a few.

Knacker wrote:

Neither. You can't burn calories. You can generate them however.

You absolutely can not "generate calories". Energy can not be created or destroyed.

Actually, "burning calories" is a fairly accurate term. You tissues contain potential energy measured in joules. A calorie is essentially just another measure of joules. When you exercise, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy in the form of heat. Thus you are indeed "burning calories".

Fat hurts wrote:

You absolutely can not "generate calories". Energy can not be created or destroyed.

Actually, "burning calories" is a fairly accurate term. You tissues contain potential energy measured in joules. A calorie is essentially just another measure of joules. When you exercise, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy in the form of heat. Thus you are indeed "burning calories".

It is not accurate at all. You can't burn heat.

Fat hurts wrote:

You absolutely can not "generate calories". Energy can not be created or destroyed.

Actually, "burning calories" is a fairly accurate term. You tissues contain potential energy measured in joules. A calorie is essentially just another measure of joules. When you exercise, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy in the form of heat. Thus you are indeed "burning calories".

If anything is "burning," it is the substrate, not the calories.

You say yourself that energy can't be created or destroyed. A calorie is a unit of energy. If you "burned" it, it would be destroyed. You are converting calories from chemical energy to mechanical and thermal energy. You "burn" glucose in order to carry out this conversion.

Using your impeccable reasoning nothing can ever be burned

I've read some studies which assert that too -- calories burned per mile appears to be nearly constant, regardless of pace.

Wouldn't wind resistance at faster paces cause more calories to be burned per mile? In cycling, it is widely known that calorie burn (power*time) per unit distance is greater at higher speeds. This is because power is proportional to the square of velocity. Wouldn't the same hold for runners, especially at high (say 12mph) speeds?

The Obvious Answer wrote:

Or to be totally accurate you burn very slightly more running faster but not enough to worry about.

yes, particularly if neither pace is particularly strenuous for you. When you go hard you may not burn many more calories while running but you'll burn more afterward. They call it the "afterburn" effect--it's the cause of feverish feeling you have all afternoon after a morning race and it absolutely does burn additional calories. So an all out 3-mile race will ultimately burn calories than your morning 3-mile jog but an easy ten mile run and a very easy ten mile run aren't going to be very different calorie-wise.

3hr marathoner wrote:

The Obvious Answer wrote:

Or to be totally accurate you burn very slightly more running faster but not enough to worry about.

yes, particularly if neither pace is particularly strenuous for you. When you go hard you may not burn many more calories while running but you'll burn more afterward. They call it the "afterburn" effect--it's the cause of feverish feeling you have all afternoon after a morning race and it absolutely does burn additional calories. So an all out 3-mile race will ultimately burn calories than your morning 3-mile jog but an easy ten mile run and a very easy ten mile run aren't going to be very different calorie-wise.

EPOC (the "afterburn") is a pretty small amount of energy above normal.

Back to the original question. You can get an estimate of the energy expenditure (measured in kcals) with the ACSM formula for running.

You will need to convert VO2 from ml/kg/min to L/Min and then multiply by 5 to get calories (not exactly perfect, but it will give you an idea).

Andy Dufresne wrote:

Using your impeccable reasoning nothing can ever be burned

Not sure what you mean. Anything that can be rapidly oxidized in an exothermic reaction is burned. A unit of energy cannot be oxidized in an exothermic reaction.

luv2run wrote:

EPOC (the "afterburn") is a pretty small amount of energy above normal.

If by pretty small, you mean smaller than the workout then, yes, we agree but those papers you cite do show a trend toward larger afterburns for more intense exercise. That was my point, calories per mile doesn't change much with pace, but the afterburner does especially when you cross above VO2max.

Why on earth is your main goal with running to burn calories? If you can run 5 miles in 30 minutes I find it hard to believe you are overweight, in which case obsessing over calories isn't going to be healthy

Why??? wrote:

Why on earth is your main goal with running to burn calories? If you can run 5 miles in 30 minutes I find it hard to believe you are overweight, in which case obsessing over calories isn't going to be healthy

I see you have a real problem with reading comprehension.

Or did you even read the OP's post in it's entirety?

LIBERALS SNOWFLAKES wrote:

LIBERALS ARE GAY TRANNIES

Perfect timing. Nice.