CALORIES burned

runnnnnnnnnnnnin wrote:

you all have it wrong, intensity is key. I can run 13 miles as my easy run 7:30 pace and burn x amount of calories but this pcae is way to easy for me to even breather slightly harder after my run. Now if I run my 7 mile tempo at 5:30-5:40 per I will burn much more than x amount of calories.

No.

A cal, or more properly a Kcal, is a unit of measurement of energy. A person who weighs 150 lbs and runs 1 mile in 10 minutes will burn the same amount of cals as if he had run it in 20 minutes, or 30 minutes, or 40 minutes.

A cal is defined as the amount of energy needed to raise the temp of 1 gram of water 1 degree c. It can also be represented as the amount of energy needed to move a given amount of weight a given distsance.

if you run 13 miles at a very slow pace you will burn more cals than if you run 7 miles at a very fast pace. going 13 miles at ANY speed will always burn more cals than 7 miles at a faster speed.

assuming you keep weight and the other variables constant, they key is the distance you move the object (you), not the amount of time it took you to move the object (yourself).

if you don't believe me, get on a treadmill. Put in your weight. Run a mile fast. Then walk a mile. You will find you burned the same amount of cals.

now, if you go out and run for 10 minutes at a 5 min/mile pace you will burn more cals than if you ran at a 10 min/mile pace - why? b/c you covered a greater distance. You moved the weight (you) farther.

you burn the same amount of cals over the same DISTANCE no matter how fast or slow you go.

still dont believe me. talk to your physics teacher.

the amount of misinformation is shocking.

just as some more evidence that the same distance burns the same amount of cals, check out most online cal calculators. they either ask for distance OR time (and weight).

for example, see:

http://www.preventdisease.com/healthtools/articles/while_jogging.html

or

http://www.lowfatlifestyle.com/caloriecalculator.htm

or

http://www.stevenscreek.com/goodies/calories.shtml

there is no place to insert your pace as this does not matter.

if you run a 5 min/mile you burn the cals off FASTER, but you have only exercised for 5 mintes. if you do the mile in 20 minutes, you are burning them off slower, but over a longer time. in the end the number of cals is the same.

ofcourse if 2 people both exercise for 30 minutes and one runs at 5 a min/mile pace and the other at a 20 min/mile pace, the faster runner will burn more cals as he has gone farther.

thanks for showing off your 9th grade chem/physics skills... Yes I know what a calorie is

Now if i I ran an all out mile 1 day

and another day at same conditions I walked a mile extermley slow.. I still burned the same amount of calories??

Also calories have nothing to do with distance moved or whatver crappy reason you have, it is the ENERGY, nothing about distance. I do not get where this came from. Although I may be wrong

But hey theres no need to show off simple info that any high schooler may know of

runnnnnnnnnin wrote:

Although I may be wrong

you are.

You can use .653 cal/mile/pound as the generally accepted number to determine how many calories you burn off running/walking.

If you want to know how many calories you burned you can use the following:

.653 x distance in miles x weight = calories burned

It does not take into account the amount of time you ran/walked as it does not matter.

This one does

http://walking.about.com/library/cal/uccalc1.htm

Speed certainly matters in cycling (eg: wind resistances etc...)but not necessarily when running (see link below ).

Reading up on it the information is occasionally conflicting with a number saying intensity is irrelevant but a few saying it is.

http://www.stpetecycling.com/fitness6.html

interestingly the second site you cited says:

"The result is that each mile you run takes roughly the same amount of energy (about 110 calories for an average-size adult), regardless of your speed. But each mile on a bicycle uses vastly different levels of energy, depending on how fast you ride."

i suspect the reason it varies for bikers is that at higher speeds wind resistance becomes an issue and it is assumed that any increase in speeds for runners is negligible.

I'm inclined to go with the information on that "2nd site". The physiologist who devised the comparitive table of cycling and running calorie expenditure is a world leader in his field.

i think where things get confusing is the manner in which many sites/people try to convey the same thing. many sites say if you run 10mph you burn more cals than if you run 5mph. this is true if you keep the TIME the same, because the DISTANCE is dif. that is, if the 2 run for the same TIME at dif speeds they will burn dif amounts of cals as they cover dif distances.

the real question as i understood it was, if you keep the DISTANCE constant, does covering the distance fast v. slow effect the amount of cals burned? i say no, for reasons set forth above.

confusion creeps in on many sites b/c they dont answer that question directly, but answer it in terms of intensity/pace, but are not clear on what they are saying if DISTANCE is kept the same.

A few other thoughts:

I have heard that anaerobic exercise is less fuel efficient than aerobic exercise. As I recall, anaerobic metabolism nets fewer ATP per unit of glucose than aerobic glycolysis. I suspect this must change the equation, but I have been wrong before.

And I also understand that more intense exercise has a much bigger total metabolic effect. This being the case, while you may expend similar calories DURING the run, the faster indiviual expends MANY more calories after the run for recovery, repair and adaptation. So the total caloric expendutre over a day will be different.

Does this make sense?

The is an increase in metabolic rate for about the next 12 hours after intensive exercise not seen with low intensity exercise.

i say someone puts forth some good research instead of plain articles. also, why dont some of you try for yourself and give us the results? give your calories for a hard session at the same distance, and then for a minor session at the same session, maybe 10 trials or so. would love to see some work on it.

I am continually amazed at how some folks will argue against positions that are supported by scientific experiments and which are considered to be established facts. The idea that distance is the prime determinant when burning calories (vs. intensity) is not some seat-of-pants hypothesis. People have studied this and collected/analyzed the data. It's a done deal. You may as well argue against the fact that Newtonian gravitation says that items of unequal weight will fall at the same rate.

Simply physics. Since running increases your rate of movement in the same amount of time you will have burned more calories via running, simply by how you are moving quicker, therefore have higher kinetic energy and require more to maintain that speed (things such as friction and wind resistance will cause loss of energy). It's clear that the rate of calories burned is higher in running with respect to time, but what some people get hung up on is whether it's higher with respect to distance. The fact is it probably slightly is, since running is less efficient and there is a higher wind resistance factor, but it's probably fairly small. The large contribution of the greater burn in calories due to running is certainly due to the ability to cover more distance in the same amount of time.

amby burfoot wrote an article on this. running a given distance burns MORE calories than walking the same distance. to the extent i said anything in 2004, when this thread began that disagrees, i retract it.

here is a link to the article:

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

consuming one liter or o2 burns 5 calories. if you consume 10 liters you will burn 50 calories. how fast your burn calories is a function of how hard/how much o2 you are consuming

http://www.waukesha.uwc.edu/ped/jhervert/ped291/chap7.html

sorry for the poor spelling. of not or and you not your

Kcal or calories or whatever you want to call them is a function of distance and mass. if u walk a mile or run a mile, the same number of calories will be burnt. There may be slight variances depending on running style, and body temperature and wind resistance, but the basic formula still proves accurate.[quote]exercise physiologists wrote:

"The University of Indiana lists a simple formula for determining how many calories are burned based on body weight for each mile run. This formula is based on running 5 miles per hour (a 12-minute mile); remember running faster will increase your calorie burn."

Formula: 0.73 x weight = calories burned per mile x 3.1 = calories burned in 5K

The 0.53 represents intensity.

"The Army Fitness Manuals also list formulas for calculating calories burned based on body weight. Instead of being measured by mile, the result is measured by minute."

Running at 5 mph burns .064 calories per minute per pound of body weight

Running at 6 mpg burns .079 calories per minute per pound of body weight

Running at 10 mph burns .10 calories per minute per pound of body weight

Running at 12 mph burns .13 calories per minute per pound of body weight

Example for 5 MPH: 0.064 x 150 pounds x 37.2* = 357 calories burned in 5K

*At 5 mph, it will take 37.2 minutes to run a 5K.

The idea that intensity is not a factor is absurd. It this were there case I would walk my dog at 2mph and have the boy of a marathon runner.