chupacabra wrote:
Anecdotal Andre wrote:No question that I'm leaner when running workouts 3x per week versus just getting out and running, assuming constant mileage. Running 8 miles hard burns more calories than running 8 miles easy. Simple as that.
Not true.
Then show your calculations. Go on, show them.
I won't wait up.
If you build lean muscle doing faster running, your metabolism becomes faster. So doing hard workouts and fast running causes you to gain muscle and burn more calories.
Anecdotal Andre wrote:
No question that I'm leaner when running workouts 3x per week versus just getting out and running, assuming constant mileage. Running 8 miles hard burns more calories than running 8 miles easy. Simple as that.
This has been recycled several times on LR. I believe the conclusion was that calorie-wise it is basically a wash between, say hard 8 in 40 mins vs easy 8 in 56 mins. Greater rate of burn but shorter time.
Jon Orange wrote:
chupacabra wrote:Not true.
Then show your calculations. Go on, show them.
I won't wait up.
W = F*d = m*a*d = m*v*d/t
m & d are constants, v & t are inversely related in a 1:1 relationship, so W only depends on m & d.
Boom.
chupacabra wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:Then show your calculations. Go on, show them.
I won't wait up.
W = F*d = m*a*d = m*v*d/t
m & d are constants, v & t are inversely related in a 1:1 relationship, so W only depends on m & d.
Boom.
Lol class is in session and Jon Orange just got schooled.
My $.02 wrote:
If you build lean muscle doing faster running, your metabolism becomes faster. So doing hard workouts and fast running causes you to gain muscle and burn more calories.
So how come faster runners are more energy efficient? This is the OPs question/conundrum that we haven't seen a good answer for.
I think that it has to do with the range of motion in our movements. To accomate or achieve a greater range of movement and faster speed our body has to adapt the way it uses energy. Somehow we can use less energy when we run, but eat more and be leaner.
Perhaps the answer lies in greater energy storage in the brain, i.e. more glycoge stored in the astrocytes? These are the energy suppliers for the neurons.
chupacabra wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:Then show your calculations. Go on, show them.
I won't wait up.
W = F*d = m*a*d = m*v*d/t
m & d are constants, v & t are inversely related in a 1:1 relationship, so W only depends on m & d.
Boom.
Wrong. Nice try though. You didn't account for wind resistance or heat production. Try again.
Jon Orange wrote:
So how come faster runners are more energy efficient?
No evidence for this. A runner can be fast by...having more energy than they lose by being inefficient.
doot doot wrote:
Lol class is in session and Jon Orange just got schooled.
Ding ding. Schools out. chupacabra has to go home and read up.
aosdufy wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:So how come faster runners are more energy efficient?
No evidence for this. A runner can be fast by...having more energy than they lose by being inefficient.
You need to read up too.
Jon Orange wrote:
chupacabra wrote:W = F*d = m*a*d = m*v*d/t
m & d are constants, v & t are inversely related in a 1:1 relationship, so W only depends on m & d.
Boom.
Wrong. Nice try though. You didn't account for wind resistance or heat production. Try again.
KISS system is your friend.
1) Wind resistance between 8.6 mph (7:00/mile) and 10.9 mph (5:30/mile) is negligible. 2.3 mph difference = negligible. Keep It Simple Stupid.
2) Heat production? lol. What are you talking about? Calories burned is the same because W=W so long as you cover the same distance. Again, Keep It Simple Stupid.
Jon Orange wrote:
chupacabra wrote:W = F*d = m*a*d = m*v*d/t
m & d are constants, v & t are inversely related in a 1:1 relationship, so W only depends on m & d.
Boom.
Wrong. Nice try though. You didn't account for wind resistance or heat production. Try again.
Chupacabra is right. It's a simple Physics 101 problem.
At the speed you are running, there are slight differences.
Heat production comes from the Lactate dehydrogenase reaction of which there is much more in a race than an easy run.
Ozzie Strawman wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:Wrong. Nice try though. You didn't account for wind resistance or heat production. Try again.
Chupacabra is right. It's a simple Physics 101 problem.
It's not simple.
Jon Orange wrote:
Ozzie Strawman wrote:Chupacabra is right. It's a simple Physics 101 problem.
It's not simple.
I'm not in the habit of siding with Jon Orange, but he's right that this problem isn't this simple. What's the force, F, here? How do you know it itself is independent of v or t?
People who run in the mid 17 minutes are NOT on the average to heavier side, these people are very skinny and muscular too probably around 7-10% body fat. A 17 min 5k is 5:xx minute miles for 3 miles straight, the "average" person, as you say they are, definitely can not do this.
Running fast doesnt make people thin. Being thin enables people to run fast. Your whole post is idiotic from the get go.
On this forum we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics
And his notion that an average to overweight person can run a 17:30 5k is ridiculous
Carter Rods wrote:
What I have noticed as this:
Take 5k races for the first example:
People who run over 20 tend to be overweight
People who run 17-20 tend to be average or on the heavier side
People who run 15-7 tend to be on the below average to average size
People who run sub 15 tend to have that "runners look": very thin, almost evacuated looking, yet are extremely fit
What I've noticed as well is all these runners tend to have the same diets. In fact, the guys who run really fast, sub 15, tend to eat junk, no healthier, and even more of it! Yet they are very lean. Something about running fast changes the body.
Take marathoners as well:
People who run over 4:00 tend to be overweight
People who run 3:00-4:00 tend to be average or on the heavier side
People who run 2:40-3:00 tend to be a little below average or average
People who run sub 2:40 tend to be very lean, and let's not even get into sub 2:20!
Yet diets remain the same.
So what I am saying is no way is it all calories in versus calories out in the end. These people who train more have to eat more obviously to prevent injury, worse performance, and to keep improving as you need the calories aka energy
BUT I think there is something to making your body run FAST that causes certain metabolism shifts to take place. Your body *just without changing anything* will lean up to make running more efficient on itself. It adapts to its environment. People that jog 100 miles per week at 10:00/mi won't be nearly as lean as people running 100 miles per week at 6:00-7:00/mi, despite eating the same foods and in fact even more calories to make up for the greater energy expenditure. Something about fast running...
You can see this is people who start running, get faster, and never change their diets (like most of us). I've seen people eat standard junk diets and start off overweight and running 25 for 5k, and without changing their diet begin to lean up and run 15 over the course of years. When they get hurt if their diet doesn't change they gain weight. Whether it's due to their body not needing to stay lean anymore to make running (or lack thereof) easier or because they eat poor diets is up for debate. May be both.
So there is something to running fast that makes your body "adapt to its environment" if you will.
Thoughts?
0/10. Obviously metabolisms vary person to person but it is calories in calories out. The reason most 2:30 marathoners will be way skinnier than 4hr marathoners when eating the same is the 2:30 person trains way more thus burning way more calories. If you want to look only at race day then the 4hr guy probably burns more calories over the same distance. But what about every other day of the year when the elite guy is training 10 times as much. Or the ten additional miles the elite did the day of the 5K that the fat guy didn't do.
Colin Sahlman runs 1:45 and Nico Young runs 1:47 in the 800m tonight at the Desert Heat Classic
Molly Seidel Fails To Debut As An Ultra Runner After Running A Road Marathon The Week Before
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
Hallowed sub-16 barrier finally falls - 3 teams led by Villanova's 15:51.91 do it at Penn Relays!!!
Need female opinions: I’m dating a woman that is very sexual with me in public. Any tips/insight?