See the compendium of physical activities that provides the metabolic equivalent of different activities. According to the compendium, the faster you run, the more calories you burn.
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/
See the compendium of physical activities that provides the metabolic equivalent of different activities. According to the compendium, the faster you run, the more calories you burn.
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/
I calculate that a 60kg (132 pound)runner, with average running economy, will burn approximately 86.4 kcals when running a mile in 8:00 and approximately 93.0 kcals running a mile in 6:00, because the cost of running does not increase perfectly linearly as speed increases; based on a few hundred tests involving well-conditioned runners. So this 60kg runner will burn about 32,850 (90X365) kcals by running 1 mile every day of the year; and therefore will either burn off about 9 pounds of fat or save him/herself from putting on those 9 pounds of fat that year.
800 dude wrote:
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.
Please point me to some science on this...
jtupperd wrote:
I calculate that a 60kg (132 pound)runner, with average running economy, will burn approximately 86.4 kcals when running a mile in 8:00 and approximately 93.0 kcals running a mile in 6:00, because the cost of running does not increase perfectly linearly as speed increases; based on a few hundred tests involving well-conditioned runners. So this 60kg runner will burn about 32,850 (90X365) kcals by running 1 mile every day of the year; and therefore will either burn off about 9 pounds of fat or save him/herself from putting on those 9 pounds of fat that year.
so what is the formula? I am 56kg
Not especially. Running and walking are different gaits with difference efficiency levels but in the end, it takes a certain amount of energy to move a certain weight a certain distance. Rnning fast, efficiency differences aside, means releasing that energy over a shorter period of time and not a whole lot more.
luv2run wrote:
800 dude wrote: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.
Please point me to some science on this...
It's in any physiology textbook. Glycolysis yields two molecules of pyruvate and two molecules of ATP (as well as some NADH for the elctron transport chain) for every molecule of glucose. The Krebs cycle and onto the elecron transport chain produce 34/36 (sources vary) molecules of ATP per glucose molecule. There's no competition, but of course arobic respiration requires oxygen as the terminal electron acceptor.
However, this is energy going into the machine. The output is exactly the same.
htrf wrote:
it takes a certain amount of energy to move a certain weight a certain distance. Rnning fast, efficiency differences aside, means releasing that energy over a shorter period of time and not a whole lot more.
Good couple of posts but I have to get picky with one thing. Achieving a higher velocity takes more energy so all other things being equal moving a mass somewhere faster takes more energy regardless of distance.
kinetic energy, E = 0.5*mv^2
As you rightly point out working at a higher power output means a greater anaerobic contribution - and hence less 'calorie efficient' ATP production - for a given individual. The efficiency factor is the key point. I've seen a graph of running velocity versus energy expenditure that shows a non-linear relationship, although it's pretty slight so you can't blame some researchers for approximating it to a linear function. I'm having trouble tracking down my source for that at the moment but if memory serves there was a local minimum somewhere around 7:30 pace or thereabouts for the subjects tested i.e. 7:30 was the most energy efficient running speed in terms of energy use per unit distance.
This is false. You are a treadmill.
If you have average running economy, you would burn 81 Kcals/mile at 8:00 mile pace, 84 at 7:00 pace and 87 at 6:00 pace.
UK Limey runner wrote:
htrf wrote:it takes a certain amount of energy to move a certain weight a certain distance. Rnning fast, efficiency differences aside, means releasing that energy over a shorter period of time and not a whole lot more.
Good couple of posts but I have to get picky with one thing. Achieving a higher velocity takes more energy so all other things being equal moving a mass somewhere faster takes more energy regardless of distance.
kinetic energy, E = 0.5*mv^2
As you rightly point out working at a higher power output means a greater anaerobic contribution - and hence less 'calorie efficient' ATP production - for a given individual. The efficiency factor is the key point. I've seen a graph of running velocity versus energy expenditure that shows a non-linear relationship, although it's pretty slight so you can't blame some researchers for approximating it to a linear function. I'm having trouble tracking down my source for that at the moment but if memory serves there was a local minimum somewhere around 7:30 pace or thereabouts for the subjects tested i.e. 7:30 was the most energy efficient running speed in terms of energy use per unit distance.
Yes, I'll pay that. Biomechanics is indeed the squishiest of the engineering outposts. Air resistance also plays a not-inconsiderable role.
I think the base idea is a good one, though, with things like public policy. It's certainly counter-intuitive to believe someone walking 5k has expended roughly the same energy as someone running it. Might well get some more people off the couch and out into the fresh air.
Yes I've got mixed feelings about the public policy thing. We had a TV advertising campaign in the UK a few years back with the statement "did you know walking a mile burns the same calories as running a mile?" with the aim no doubt of trying to improve public health. It irks me when the public is told outright lies though.
whatsmyname wrote:
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.
Read my words again. See if you can spot the point that you missed?
You burn far more calories per minute, but not as much per mile as you'd think.
jtupperd wrote:
I calculate that a 60kg (132 pound)runner, with average running economy, will burn approximately 86.4 kcals when running a mile in 8:00 and approximately 93.0 kcals running a mile in 6:00, because the cost of running does not increase perfectly linearly as speed increases; based on a few hundred tests involving well-conditioned runners. So this 60kg runner will burn about 32,850 (90X365) kcals by running 1 mile every day of the year; and therefore will either burn off about 9 pounds of fat or save him/herself from putting on those 9 pounds of fat that year.
So why are all my running friends getting fatter?