Do you burn more calories running harder?

In the above I meant "walking is incredibly efficient", about 50 calories per mile. Sorry for typo.

not true for me. i can do all the easy running in the world and will still be 5ish pounds over my race/PR weight. only when i add 1) 4-6 mile tempos, and 2) finishing off the last 1/2 of my long run at M pace or better to my weekly routine do i see my weight drop.

Weight Watcher wrote:

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

You have to consider body weight when trying to figure how many calories are burned per mile of running, because each person has to carry their own body. For example, someone weighing 50 kg (about 110 pounds) will burn about 75 calories while running a mile in 6 minutes and another person weighing 70 kg (154 pounds) will burn just over 100 calories for that same 6-minute mile (assuming that both can run a 6-min mile relatively comfortably).

asdfadsfadsf wrote:

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

THIS!!! To expand on that, the guy who runs the 5 miles hard (say in 30 minutes) and burned say 500 calories doing it will continue to burn calories (at a much lower rate of course) while he waits for his slower running partner to finish. When the other guy finishes 10 minutes later, he has burned 500 calories in 40 minutes while runner A has burned say 50 more calories (for a total of 550) duing those same 40 minutes.

Now during the 5 miles that they were running, slower runner B did burn relatively more fat than faster runner A who was burning more carbs. Based on this, dumb ass (or lazy) people like to tell themselves and others that they need to be go slow in order to burn fat. Dumb thinking. In the time they are lollygagging and keeping their HR below 135 or whatever weak threshold they determine, the faster runner is covering more distance, burning way more carbs and probably at least equaling the fat burn of the slow runner.

Just me wrote:

asdfadsfadsf wrote:

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

Incorrect. Do you seriously think that a 15 min mile (akin to walking) can possibly burn as many calories as a 5 min mile?

It's about efficiency. Running is incredibly efficient (about 50 calories per mile).

I stand by my statement above that calories burned per mile is a parabole, concave up, with the global minima being marathon pace (maximal efficiency).

Tests I did on my run show as little as 85 calories per mile at that pace, while easy pace more like 90 calories per mile, as is hard running. Very slow running 95 calories per mile, and very fast running as well (based on garmin HR algorithm).

If you think about the equation Cal / Mile = Cal / Min x Min/Mile you will think better.

In the 5-minutes that the racer is running the mile he will also burn 85-95 calories just like the walker does covering the distance in 15-20 minutes. The difference is that the out of breath runner continues to burn more calories at a higher than resting rate well after the 5 minutes are done. So comparing his 5 minutes to the walker's 15-20 = approx same caloric burn. But if comparing the it over 15-20 minutes where you also add in the post-run burn of the runner, then the runner burns much more.

asdfadsfadsf wrote:

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

So an 8 minute mile uses the same energy as a 4 minute mile?

No it doesn't. A 4 minute mile creates an awful lot of heat accumulation and wind resistance.

A fast runner running an 8 minute mile might burn 100 kcals but more like 150 running a 4 minute mile

However, if he wants to race faster, he needs to get more efficient, so a 3.50 mile will burn slightly less calories.

luv2run wrote:

-*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.

Thanks luv2run

You have answered part of the question (the racing part).

Please can you do anothe calculation with jogging versus racing?

Yea he nailed it yet people keep arguing otherwise. Just use the calculation at the extremes. There will be minimal difference between cals burn.

Alan

The point is, racing faster due to better efficiency, burn LESS calories.

Running harder, jogging versus racing burns MORE calories.

I don't think you have grasped that concept Alan.

And the fact that racing faster uses less total energy should inspire everyone to train smarter.

I know that's wishful thinking, most runners will continue to deny their natural talent and blame genetics etc.

I read a really interesting article in runners world one time I'll try to find, where they analyzed the calories burned running ten miles and walking ten miles. You do burn a very slight amount more running than walking, which I thought was interesting. The concept is that when you run, you bound, so that in addition to moving your body 10 miles, you also move your body upward a slight amount more with each step which burns more calories.

Now running faster probably doesn't increase the vertical distance traveled, but i found the comparison to walking interesting.

the efficiency thing is interesting. If I walked sideways ten miles would I burn more calories than if I walked normally, since that is more efficient? :)

rh arthritis wrote:

manuscript wrote:

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.

It was meant to be a simple explanation.

The fact is, it does take longer to recover from a hard run, right?

It's called “excess post-exercise oxygen consumption” or EPOC.

"EPOC is accompanied by an elevated consumption of fuel. In response to exercise, fat stores are broken down and free fatty acids (FFA) are released into the blood stream. In recovery, the direct oxidation of free fatty acids as fuel and the energy consuming re-conversion of FFAs back into fat stores both take place."

Runner's World eh? Well that's bound to be cutting edge science and training advice isn't it.

Excuse my cynicism, but walking 10 miles won't make you sweat much compared to racing 10 miles, that difference is worth a lot of calories.

Increasing efficiency comes from more eccentric contractions, where you get more spring in your stride, more elastic return, which is free energy.

Again there are two different concepts here, slow versus fast and racing versus racing faster.

It's not just about using more energy after a hard run to recover. You are producing a lot more heat (energy) during the run and that plays a large part in the extra recovery time too.

A given individual burns more calories the faster he runs due to factors such as the greater force required to accelerate the individual body segments faster and greater vertical displacement and wind resistance. However, you cannot compare two different individuals running at different speeds, because their running economies will not be equal.

Edhjhhhgsgucgbh wrote:

A given individual burns more calories the faster he runs due to factors such as the greater force required to accelerate the individual body segments faster and greater vertical displacement and wind resistance. However, you cannot compare two different individuals running at different speeds, because their running economies will not be equal.

Why would you even post this garbage? Did you not read any of the other posts before yours?

here's the article I was talking about. It is based on a research paper. You can read the underlying paper if you don't trust RW, it is linked

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn

train smart wrote:

Excuse my cynicism, but walking 10 miles won't make you sweat much compared to racing 10 miles, that difference is worth a lot of calories.

You can't base it on sweat and you're ignoring the time aspect. I will burn more calories sleeping (and not sweating) over the course of 7 hours than you will DURING the 5 or so minutes it would take you to run a mile. Keeping that in mind the person who is walking 10 miles while not sweating is taking lots more time to complete it than is the person who raced it (say 3 hours vs. 1 hour). And in those 3 hours the walker burns (approximately) the same number of calories as the runner did in one hour.

Now of course the runner continues to burn calories in the two hours after his run is complete, but if comparing just the calories burnt during the run then the concept of calories burned being equal to distance covered regardless of speed used to cover that distance is more or less correct.

The answer is yes and no depending on the time frame you are looking at.

You do not burn the EXACT same amount (even if you measure whole calories and not tenths or hundreths of a calorie) when you sprint a distance versus when you jog the same distance.

HOWEVER, the difference is minimal.

The RATE at which you burn calories is vastly different, but so is the time the burning occurs. A high burn rate over a short time and a low burn rate over a longer time yield about the same calories burned. ABOUT the same, not exactly the same.

Going from 12 minute per mile pace to 8 minute per mile pace will burn more calories per mile, but only a few more. A typical non elite jogger might go from 110 calories burned per mile at 12 minute pace to 115 calories burned per mile at 8 minute pace.

Wind resistance and a higher rate of metabolic processes raises the rate of burn, however once you get going faster than about 8 minute miles your running form gets more efficient and you need less calories (only a few less, but still less) to maintain pace.

If you factor in post running calorie burn, then running faster does burn more calories since your body will burn more calories as your heart rate descends from 180 after a hard sprint, than it would when your heart rate descends from 110 after an easy jog.

So, do you burn more calories running hard.

NO, IF: you measure a 10 mile run at 9 minute pace versus a 10 mile run at 6:30 pace, and don't count post race burn: then no, you did not burn more calories by sprinting the 10 miles. Your efficiency of form saved you more calories than extra wind resistance and increased metabolism burned. But the difference is less than 10 calories per mile.

YES, IF: you add in the post race burn, then yes, overall you did burn more calories by running 6:30 pace versus jogging 9 minute pace. But again the difference averages less than 10 calories per mile.

Moving a certain mass a certain distance takes a certain amount of energy. Efficiency of form, wind resistance, and metabolic factors can cause a slight increase or decrease in the amount of energy used.

So to the fat people of America: Go walk a mile a day. No need to run.

Since the original question was about "burning" calories, and not just the energy required to move at various paces, it's worth noting that at faster paces anaerobic metabolism starts to make a real contribution, which greatly decreases your metabolic efficiency (regardless how your mechanical efficiency) and increases the caloric cost of covering a mile.

The ACSM formulas don't account for this, nor could they, because the anaerobic contribution of running at a particular pace is highly individual.