Distance vs intensity

2»

Replies

  • berrydana7
    berrydana7 Posts: 78 Member
    they both have their benefits! steady state cardio is good for burning a large amount of calories due to the length of the workout and you can do it more frequently since it's not as demanding on your nervous system. HIIT training is more efficient and it boosts your metabolism, but it's best to limit it to 2-3 non consecutive days per week :) so it would be ideal to include both in your workout routine :smile:
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »
    AJ_G wrote: »
    DeannaSofia886 wrote: »
    Is it more beneficial to weight loss to run longer distances at a steady pace or shorter distance at a faster, more intense pace?

    As long as you're running, not walking, distance determines calorie burn, not intensity or speed. If you run a mile in 7 minutes, or you run a mile in 10 minutes, as long as you're running, the calorie burn is the same. The benefit that intensity has it that it conditions your cardiovascular system and your heart.
    Is this true? I thought intensity mattered. Otherwise, why wear an HRM for a more accurate calorie burn?
    Surprising, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely perplexed.

    Intensity mostly matters as far as calories burned per unit of time. There's a minor difference with significant change in intensity as far as calories burned per unit of distance.

    To answer the OP, though, you can go much farther at lower intensity so you have the potential for burning a lot more calories if you can spend the time to do it. If you're talking a fixed time, best to do as intensely as you can manage and still be able to recover properly.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    MissJay75 wrote: »
    *shrug*

    I've been using a HRM to help me determine calorie burn for 18 months. I eat back all my exercise calories, and I have lost and then maintained at exactly the calories MFP says, which could not happen if the HRM wasn't accurate.

    And I used MFP's estimates and lost as expected.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited August 2015
    kcjchang wrote: »
    AJ_G wrote: »
    You DO burn more calories for energy production when you work at a higher intensities.

    For the same unit of time - yes (usually).

    But not so much for the same distance, if we're still talking about running.
  • kcjchang
    kcjchang Posts: 709 Member
    Might want to consult Compendium of Physical Activity, https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/running and supporting references (scientific studies).
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited August 2015
    kcjchang wrote: »
    Might want to consult Compendium of Physical Activity, https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/running and supporting references (scientific studies).

    From your link...

    1 mile @ 6mph -> 10 minutes @ 9.8 METs -> 141 calories @ 190lbs
    1 mile @ 7mph -> 8.5 minutes @ 11.0 METs -> 135 calories @ 190lbs

    The difference is a roundoff error. And it favours the slower speed.

    Same distance -> same calories, to a far greater level of accuracy than you'll get from a food label.
  • kcjchang
    kcjchang Posts: 709 Member
    First it was the same for 5mph vs 10mph now picking a more narrow range... how convenient. Point is there's a difference whether you like it or not.
  • mwyvr
    mwyvr Posts: 1,883 Member
    edited August 2015
    Mr. Knight was right to compare two different running intensities. Walking is not like running much as playing water polo is not like table tennis. Sure both walking and running activities make use of feet and legs but the bio-mechanics are not the same.

    The mechanics of running don't vary that much for a slightly faster pace. The mechanics between walking fast but comfortably, and running, differ greatly.

    Walking 5mph is pretty tough. Most can't or won't, certainly not for 10km. Let's use something more reasonable like 3.5mph.

    Running 6mph (1 hour 10km) is within the realm of possibilities for many people, yet most can't. But let's use that anyway because a 1 hour 10km run is reasonable for many.
    MET * weight (86 kg) * time (hours) = kcals

MET 17200	4.3	walking, 3.5 mph (10km/ 1.7 hours), level, brisk, firm surface, walking for exercise

    4.3 * 86 * 1.7 = 628 calories or 105 calories per mile or 369 calories per hour.

    vs running @ 6 mph
    MET 12050	9.8	running, 6 mph (10km/60 minutes)

    9.8 * 86 * 1 = 843 calories or 140 calories per mile or 843 calories per hour.

    There's a bigger difference because running vs walking at a comfortable but fast pace requires more of the body - a higher intensity if you will. You can negate much of that difference by cattle-prodding the walker into moving at a difficult pace like 5mph:
    17231	8.3	walking, 5.0 mph, level, firm surface

    8.3 * 86 * 1.2 = 856 calories or 142 calories per mile or 713 calories per hour.

    Notice how big a jump the MET value is from 3.5mph (4.3 MET), far out of proportion with the pace increase. This is because it becomes more difficult in a non-linear fashion to walk (two feet on the ground) as pace increases.

    None of this data gazing is really helping the OP with their question though except perhaps to underscore that for runners / other steady state cardio fans looking to hit 90 minutes plus and reduce chance of injury that it's quite ok to slow down their running as they'll still get most of the same calorie burn and the benefits of the longer workout session.

    They won't get nearly the same cardio benefit from a 90 minute walk and that's a fact Jack. (Is there a Jack in the house?)

    The other takeaway is that running burns more calories per hour than most person's exercise walk pace and time is often the most important factor for many exercisers. If time *and* cardio improvement are your hot buttons running delivers where walking simply can't.
  • kcjchang
    kcjchang Posts: 709 Member
    The assertion was there is no difference in calorie expenditure for running at differing intensity. No one was talking about walking vs running. Stop twisting the analysis to make it fit.

    Whether the OP has the fitness to made a big difference is another matter altogether, but stop give out bad information.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited August 2015
    It would be really helpful if you actually read the links you use as a reference.

    Once again, from your link...and this time using your completely arbitrary speeds of 5mph vs 10mph...

    1 mile @ 5mph -> 12 minutes @ 8.3 METs -> 143 calories @ 190lbs
    1 mile @ 10mph -> 6 minutes @ 14.5 METs -> 125 calories @ 190lbs

    Once again, the difference is not meaningful. And, once again, it is the *slower* speed that has a higher burn number.

    Back out the RMR for the two different durations, and the numbers get even closer (125 vs 116).


  • mwyvr
    mwyvr Posts: 1,883 Member
    edited August 2015
    kcjchang wrote: »
    The assertion was there is no difference in calorie expenditure for running at differing intensity. No one was talking about walking vs running. Stop twisting the analysis to make it fit.

    Mr. Knight has already shown you how running at different pace burns calories at a relatively similar rate per mile. The differences are not meaningful between runners at various paces, particularly when comparing speeds at which the OP might be able to run. Disagree? Fine, but ask yourself why you quoted the MET methodology in the first place.

    A faster pace is delivered as the product of various factors of which energy burn is but one.

    I've shown that calorie burn while walking differs more substantially (until pace starts approaching running) because walking vs running are two different activities although walking is often mistaken as running at a lower intensity. Such questions or mistaken observations are often made here by newbies and it's my prerogative to go there pro-actively.



  • 7lenny7
    7lenny7 Posts: 3,498 Member
    @mwyvr & @Mr_Knight, you both did a very good job explaining your points!
  • kcjchang
    kcjchang Posts: 709 Member
    mwyvr wrote: »
    Fine, but ask yourself why you quoted the MET methodology in the first place.

    Maybe a stab in the dark approach?
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    It would be really helpful if you actually read the links you use as a reference

    Again just pointing out there is a difference, which you begrudgingly demonstrated. Statistical error and individual composition will of course increase or negate the differences (although negation is not likely for the untrained). But guess nuance is not you thing.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    kcjchang wrote: »
    mwyvr wrote: »
    Fine, but ask yourself why you quoted the MET methodology in the first place.

    Maybe a stab in the dark approach?
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    It would be really helpful if you actually read the links you use as a reference

    Again just pointing out there is a difference, which you begrudgingly demonstrated. Statistical error and individual composition will of course increase or negate the differences (although negation is not likely for the untrained). But guess nuance is not you thing.

    Wow.

    :smiley:
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    7lenny7 wrote: »
    @mwyvr & @Mr_Knight, you both did a very good job explaining your points!

    And it didn't do any good, at all.

    :drinker:
  • mwyvr
    mwyvr Posts: 1,883 Member
    I'm thinking nuance means something else in kcj's personal dictionary than for the rest of us.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,401 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »
    AJ_G wrote: »
    DeannaSofia886 wrote: »
    Is it more beneficial to weight loss to run longer distances at a steady pace or shorter distance at a faster, more intense pace?

    As long as you're running, not walking, distance determines calorie burn, not intensity or speed. If you run a mile in 7 minutes, or you run a mile in 10 minutes, as long as you're running, the calorie burn is the same. The benefit that intensity has it that it conditions your cardiovascular system and your heart.
    Is this true? I thought intensity mattered. Otherwise, why wear an HRM for a more accurate calorie burn?
    Surprising, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely perplexed.

    Intensity mostly matters as far as calories burned per unit of time. There's a minor difference with significant change in intensity as far as calories burned per unit of distance.

    To answer the OP, though, you can go much farther at lower intensity so you have the potential for burning a lot more calories if you can spend the time to do it. If you're talking a fixed time, best to do as intensely as you can manage and still be able to recover properly.

    This is the way I view it for my purposes. The minor changes from biking faster don't make a lot of difference to me. But the time saved does. I can bike harder and burn more calories if I only have an hour, or if I have plenty of time I can slow my pace enough to go for big miles and a big calorie burn.

    And though the discussion seems more focused on calorie burn, I'd also add that depending on the exercise involved, the intensity level might also have impact on whether a person is maintaining, losing, or building muscle.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories