Can't find a straight answer.
Can't find a straight answer.
neither, they require the same amount of calories. Only the 60 minute runner will use more calories per minute.
the slower runner is less efficient (burning more calories per step from bad form), although the faster runner is jumping higher with each step (burning more calories from higher jumping), in all likelihood. There was a study that had various runners trying different paces and the male runners were most efficient at 7:10/mile or so.
10 miles in 70 minutes.
Which burns more calories, 10 miles in 60 minutes or 10 miles in 10 days?
Timmy, funny.
I guess the real question is: at what pace is the average person most efficiently burning calories?
The answer may be more easily defined by heart rate rather than pace, however.
Your body must have a speed of optimum efficiency; I don't think calories per mile stays precisely constant as a function of speed. Especially at higher speeds, I think your body must become less efficient, so for the average person it's probably the 10 miles in 60 minutes. For Bekele, 10 miles in 70 minutes might burn more. In either case, running faster seems to raise your metabolism and burns more calories in the minutes (hours?) afterwards as well.
werwfds wrote:
For Bekele, 10 miles in 70 minutes might burn more. In either case, running faster seems to raise your metabolism and burns more calories in the minutes (hours?) afterwards as well.
Why would Bekele be less efficient at the slower pace? He wouldn't. Faster running generally produces more heat, and therefore uses more calories per mile.
I guess because he'd be out there 10 minutes longer. I think the other guy's point was Bekele would be more efficient at 6:00 pace, because that's so easy for him (and not much harder than 7:00 pace). So, following that logic, he'd burn more in 70 minutes, just becuase it's 10 min. longer.
Bekele is still going to produce more heat at a faster pace, he is still human.
All the above is flawed.
Energy consumption grows faster than linearly with speed (e.g. due to increased air resistance) and so 10 miles in 60 min for a given runner requires more.
The average person would die if they were somehow forced to complete 10 miles in 60 minutes
The faster you run the less efficient you are, so running 10 miles in 60min would burn more calories.
fff wrote:
All the above is flawed.
Energy consumption grows faster than linearly with speed (e.g. due to increased air resistance) and so 10 miles in 60 min for a given runner requires more.
So, on a treadmill, the 70 min. 10-miler burns more or equivalent calories? No air-resistance there...?
And Guppy, I can't just take your statement at face value - you mean I'm running MORE effiently doing 12:00 miles, than I am at 7:00 miles? That can't be right.
Ho Hum wrote:
The average person would die if they were somehow forced to complete 10 miles in 60 minutes
My favorite response so far.
This calculator says (at 180lbs):
-1303 for 8.57mph for 70 minutes (approximately 10 miles in 70 minutes)
-1356 for 10mph for 60 minutes (10 miles in 60 minutes)
Not saying that calculator is right, but I am interested to see efficiency differences at different weights and/or fitness levels.
According to this calculator, the disparity between calories burned lessens with the weight of the individual...