"The" Question: Does running 10 miles at an easy intensity burn the same calories as 10 miles at a hard pace?

Elites don't run to burn calories.

Yes, but the higher intensity burns calories for a longer amount of time after run.

No. That's absurd. It takes more energy to move at a faster pace.

No. The difference is modest, but it does exist.

"why are elite runners or just people who run fast all the time so much leaner than ultra runners?"

I assume--if this is true, and the ultra events don't involve dealing with extreme cold--that ultra events simply are not that competitive, **yet**, and it is possible to reach the top without achieving the extreme levels of conditioning--including very low body fat percentages--of top distance runners in the 5000, 10000, etc.

Ex Phys MS wrote:

No. That's absurd. It takes more energy to move at a faster pace.

People burn the same amount of calories for each mile wether you walk, jog, run or race, but the faster you go burns MORE calories for a longer amount of time after the person has stopped.

douglas burke wrote:

Ex Phys MS wrote:

No. That's absurd. It takes more energy to move at a faster pace.

People burn the same amount of calories for each mile wether you walk, jog, run or race, but the faster you go burns MORE calories for a longer amount of time after the person has stopped.

I don't think that's true. When you run, your center of gravity goes up and down more than if you walk. So there is a cost involved for that- so it does burn more calories to run than to walk the same distance.

Yes, but I think the point is that it would take more energy for a shorter amount of time. Because you say your a phys MS:

work=f*s=f*v*t, try playing with the numbers and see for yourself.

Obviously running is much more complex, but that is the idea. To the OP's question running faster burns a bit more calories during the workout, but it burns significantly more calories after the workout.

This is very, very simple science. The faster you travel the more energy you need to expend. More energy = more calories.

Are you confusing burning fat with burning calories? Running at a lower heart rate (slower) apparently burns more fat, but running at a higher heart rate apprentice continues to burn fat for longer after you stop.

another dimension to consider wrote:quote]

I don't think that's true. When you run, your center of gravity goes up and down more than if you walk. So there is a cost involved for that- so it does burn more calories to run than to walk the same distance.

Not true unless your form is bad. If you are going up and down significantly more than when you walk, your form needs some work.

Apprentice = apparently according to autocorrect

Simple scientist wrote:

This is very, very simple science. The faster you travel the more energy you need to expend. More energy = more calories.

Are you confusing burning fat with burning calories? Running at a lower heart rate (slower) apparently burns more fat, but running at a higher heart rate apprentice continues to burn fat for longer after you stop.

That's not science. That's physics.

It's not simple at all. People have spent thousands if not millions of dollars on the relevant research.

Running at a lower rate does not burn more fat.

Simple scientist wrote:

This is very, very simple science. The faster you travel the more energy you need to expend. More energy = more calories.

Are you confusing burning fat with burning calories? Running at a lower heart rate (slower) apparently burns more fat, but running at a higher heart rate apprentice continues to burn fat for longer after you stop.

No. The faster you travel, the more POWER you need. Energy used is the amount of work done. Moving a mass from point A to point B requires a fixed amount of work unless there is energy consumed due to inefficiencies.

Which is more efficient - walking, jogging, or running? Depends on each person's biomechanics; though, I suspect that walking is most efficient since it has the least amount vertical displacement per mile and jogging is the least efficicent since it has the most vertical displacement. At sufficiently high speeds the energy consumed by drag overtakes the difference due to vertical displacements per mile and running becomes less efficient than jogging.

However, I think research has been quite clear in recent years that slow aerobic activity is less effective at burning calories than more intense work done for a shorter period of time even if the amount of calories burned during the workout is the same, due to the additional calories burned after the workout. Hence, the more intense work is more likely to burn more total calories.

If someone really wants to lose excess body weight, I think the current research is suggesting they they should do interval/weight training rather than walking/jogging. I expect there are experts lurking here that could provide more specific insights/links to research.

I don't know the answer actually, but I would hope someone could quantify it as:

Running at 6:00/mile pace = approx. X calories/hour, then Y calories/hour for Z hours after.

Running at 9:00/mile = same info

Etc.

But keep in mind that a person running 9:00/mile is going to run 50% longer for 10 miles than someone running 6:00/mile. So you now have two variables.

RW has a great piece related to this:

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

douglas burke wrote:

Ex Phys MS wrote:

No. That's absurd. It takes more energy to move at a faster pace.

People burn the same amount of calories for each mile wether you walk, jog, run or race, but the faster you go burns MORE calories for a longer amount of time after the person has stopped.

Not true. Running faster produces more total heat and more wind resistance.

Walk 10 miles and race 10 miles in similar conditions. Weigh yourself before and after. You will find that you lost a few pounds in the race, but not so much during the walk. That extra sweat = extra calories.

The wind resistance factor is more significant in shorter races, but still a factor in distance races.

K up and down wrote:That's not science. That's physics.

:)

There is a misconception that lower intensity exercise, such as jogging and walking, burns more fat. It burns a higher percentage of fat in comparison to carbohydrates, but higher intensity workouts will still burn more calories and with it, more fat.

Example:

30 minutes of low intensity exercise:

240 total calories burned: 96 fat = 41% fat, 59% carbs

30 minutes of high intensity exercise:

450 total calories burned: 108 fat = 24% fat, 76% carbs

The poster who mentioned intervals and higher intensity exercise is best when wanting to lose weight is correct.

Loss of lean muscle mass will decrease the resting metabolic rate, making exercise including resistance training important.

Oh? wrote:

K up and down wrote:That's not science. That's physics.

:)

It made me laugh out loud. Pretty awesome.

Fitness Diet wrote:

There is a misconception that lower intensity exercise, such as jogging and walking, burns more fat. It burns a higher percentage of fat in comparison to carbohydrates, but higher intensity workouts will still burn more calories and with it, more fat.

Example:

30 minutes of low intensity exercise:

240 total calories burned: 96 fat = 41% fat, 59% carbs

30 minutes of high intensity exercise:

450 total calories burned: 108 fat = 24% fat, 76% carbs

The poster who mentioned intervals and higher intensity exercise is best when wanting to lose weight is correct.

Loss of lean muscle mass will decrease the resting metabolic rate, making exercise including resistance training important.

youre still not specifying what is high and what is low intensity.

I (and I think the OP) want to know: do I burn more calories running 10 miles in 60 minutes or 10 miles in 80 minutes?