I read that that running a mile burns the same number of calories regardless of how fast you go. Is this true? Do you really use the same number of calories to run a given distance regardless of whether you walk, jog, or sprint? If anybody could post a link to a reputable source to verify this information, I would appreciate it very much.
Crap. Wouldn't have thought so, the faster you run the more energy you burn!! Hence the creating of lactic acid because you can't produce energy fast enough where energy supply doesn't met energy demand. Not only that your metabolic rate is increased after a hard session for up to the next 12 hours (depending on the session) hence you continue to lose weight in you're sleep!! Going slower put you in a higher fat burning zone but if you're going slower you're burning less calories per mile then someone going fast. If you go 10 miles then you're burning alot of fat as energy. If you're looking at losing weight, depending on you're fitness, combine working in a high aerobic zone (for metabolic rate increase)with working slower over a longer time period in a "Long Slow Distance" zone(fat burning zone).
if you run a mile in 10 mins you are moving for a full 10 mins, whereas if you run it in 4 mins you are only moving for 4 mins. Therefore the faster you run a distance the more efficient your calorie burning will be, but regardless of how long it takes you you should theoretically burn the same amount of calories.
An analogy. Admittedly it's simplistic but in a marathon run it too hard and you run out of energy. No way you have the energy to run aother step. If, on the other hand, you run it half rat-power (like a training run) you'll may still have quite a deal of energy remaining and because of that energy you may even be able to keep going. That energy=calories. The faster you go the more energy that is required hence the 4 min mile in your case energy supply can't meet demand as he's anaerobic where as if the same athlete jogs it in 10 min the energy demands are very small. Look at them at the end. After running it in 4 min one's too tired to run another step, after running it in 10 min the same person could probably run another 25km. Time spent out on the road/track will only partially balance out intensity of the effort.
Calories burned are the same for any distance, regardless of intensity (it may vary slightly by 1-10 calories, but no significant difference).
Running a mile in 12 minutes or running a mile in 4 minutes will burn almost exactly the same amount of calories.
The TYPE of calories (i.e. fat vs. carbohydrates) will vary.
Calories burned is a function of distance, not time.
What about incline? I've noticed that treadmills use a different calorie calc for different inclines.
The above post states it quite well. The reason you run out of energy from running a marathon too fast is you use too much carbohydrate and too little fat (the carbohydrate stores are the limiting fuel). You are doing relatively the same amount of work in moving your body over a distance either way so calories are close. If you sprint at full effort you will burn slightly more just because of lower efficency. Also an important thing to note: the "after-burn effect." Doing something more anaerobic will cause the metabolism to stay higher for longer after working out and hence burn more calories/mile in total.
Bob Glover's Book has a chart - calories burned per mile based on intensity and runner weight. A 200 lb. runner will require more energy to move a mile at the same pace as a 150 lb. runner because there is more mass to move. A 150 lb. runner moving at 7 minutes/mile (according to the chart) burns about 550 calories/mile, while 6 minute/mile pace burns 592 for him. Moving the same amount of weight FASTER requires more energy.
Somone mentioned "fat burning zone". Even at tempo or 5k race pace for intervals, you are still burning a certain amount of fat. The difference comes when you stay below (roughly) 75% of you max heart rate, where your body begins to burn almost strictly fat. Different speeds demand different energy sources. Racing and workouts burn carbohydrates obviously more than anything else.
I'm rambling. I'm done. If someone wants to correct me with any published evidence, please do so.
Burning calories is purely a function of lean muscle mass. Lean muscle mass is the only thing capable of burning calories, hence for that reason bodybuilders actually burn more calories during exercise. Thus, over the same distance intense exercise burns more calories due to alot more muscle mass being involved in the exercise.
BisonHurdler wrote:
Calories burned are the same for any distance, regardless of intensity (it may vary slightly by 1-10 calories, but no significant difference).
Running a mile in 12 minutes or running a mile in 4 minutes will burn almost exactly the same amount of calories.
The TYPE of calories (i.e. fat vs. carbohydrates) will vary.
Calories burned is a function of distance, not time.
absolute crap, running faster burns more calories because you produce more heat and wind resistance.
fighting blue hen wrote:
A 150 lb. runner moving at 7 minutes/mile (according to the chart) burns about 550 calories/mile, while 6 minute/mile pace burns 592 for him.
No.
whoa whoa whoa. Apologies. I meant to say:
a 150 lb. runner burns 550 calories/30 MINUTES of running at 7 minute mile pace. Same for the other stuff (/30 minutes)
Haha, I figured that it was probably a typo. That makes a bit more sense.
I've seen this from several reputable sources: There is only a slight variation of energy expenditure with respect to velocity. There is a direct relationship with mass. A 140 lb runner moving at a normal aerobic pace will burn approximately 100 kcals per mile (Glover's book shows kcals burned per 30 minute workout, not per mile). Walking will burn about 85 kcals/mile. If that 140 lber. runs faster, he will burn more than 100 kcals/mile, but not much more (maybe a few percent). If he slows down, a few percent less. His 200 lb. buddy will burn proportionately more per mile.
Some of you are confusing work (energy) with power. Power is the rate of energy consumption. Running fast increases the rate, but you do it for a shorter time, thus the total energy is fairly constant for a given distance (changes in biomechanics and such will yield some slight variations, but again, only a few percent in general).
An interesting site that calculates equivalents calories burned for cycling and running as well as calories burned per mile relative to cycling speed.
B.S. detector wrote:
absolute crap, running faster burns more calories because you produce more heat and wind resistance.
Nope.
energy expenditure is more related to distance than intensity. An article (schrauwen et al...i don't have any other details in front of me) recently showed that energy expenditure and CHO and fat utilization were similar over a 24 hr period after exercise regardless of intensity. As in, running 5 miles at hard intensity will expend more calories from CHO (higher RER), but RER will be lower during the post-exercise period compared to after running 5 miles at easy intensity so it has a funny way of evening itself out.
harbs wrote:
energy expenditure is more related to distance than intensity. An article (schrauwen et al...i don't have any other details in front of me) recently showed that energy expenditure and CHO and fat utilization were similar over a 24 hr period after exercise regardless of intensity. As in, running 5 miles at hard intensity will expend more calories from CHO (higher RER), but RER will be lower during the post-exercise period compared to after running 5 miles at easy intensity so it has a funny way of evening itself out.
Right. I hope you weren't trying to refute my points with your post, because you and I are on the same page here.
I'm with B.S. detector here. As burning calories is a funtion of the amount lean muscle mass during intenses exercise there is alot more muscle mass involved. As shown with the cycling link you have to burn more calories when the distance is kept constant. Just the type of calories will vary. As well you get an increase in metabolic rate for up to the next 12 hours after a decent intense session.
Look, if Jason Rexing runs 10 miles in 70 minutes, he burns X number of calories. Lets say 1200, because it doesn't matter.
If Jason Rexing runs that same 10 miles in 90 minutes, which is a slower pace, his intensity will be less, but the amount of time spent running will quite possibly make it 1200 calories. This is the argument from the other side that I am hearing. I am sure they could support this with numbers; I get it. This makes sense to me.
However, if Jason Rexing runs his Sunday long run with a TIME goal, say 120 minutes, and runs it at 7 minute mile pace, lets say he burns 2,200 calories (mostly fat, and the chicks and groupies rejoice). If he runs that same 120 minutes at 6 minute mile pace, there is no question that he will burn more calories from the higher intensity OVER THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME.
So, distance can be covered in many ways. And yes, concerning MILEAGE - it does make sense that you will burn the same amount over 10 miles regardless of pace. But, INTENSITY IS a factor, no matter how you look at it.
Saying that 10 miles burns the same amount of calories no matter how you run it is asinine, and ultimately, a moot point. What's the big deal? Who gives a shit?
If you still think an increase in intensity over the same DURATION (AMOUNT OF TIME) please consult your local library.