Power vs Energy
Replies
-
I purposely posted this knowing how the power and energy thing worked to get people to think and also to get feedback on why it will overall be better to go faster on the biological level (assuming you don't get injured).
Biology and engineering aren't really related. To move faster a person has to convert ATP into ADP at a higher rate.
Power is the rate of energy. You are talking about power. Biological systems have mass and are moved by forces. They do relate in this context.
No, they really don't. We aren't machines.
You cannot say they don't relate, they do relate. No we are not machines, but the rules of mechanics, physics, and thermodynamics still apply to us. There is a relation, the degree of relation can be argued, but the relation cannot be denied
Go ahead and help explain to me how running 2 miles and walking 2 miles should burn the same amount of calories.0 -
If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
So, are you saying if for two miles I stroll at 2.5 or power walk at 4.5, the calorie expenditure will be the same?
I think you might be wrong about that, because a 4.5 power walk will use a whole lot more oxygen than that 2.5 stroll.
Not that I'm into power walking, as I'm not because my cardio choice is running (hence my username
) 0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
Erm.... no, not even a little bit. To get someplace faster, you expend MORE energy because you worked harder than the slower pace. Because you had to fight gravity harder, your muscles required more oxygen and your body put off more heat, your heart rate had to increase. All the things that happen when one exercises. If you burned 300 calories going from point A to point B at 3.0 mph, you're for sure gonna burn more than that going from point A to point B at 6.5 mph. Jogging is harder than walking, and thus, you expend more energy putting out the extra effort to increase your speed.
ETA: In case there's about to be an argument about walking, this is still the case. More effort is required to walk at 4 mph than to walk at 2.5 mph.
Sorry, but I'm an engineer and understand energy and power very well. I don't know biology very well. If you go 10miles/hr for 30 min you go five miles. If you go 5miles/hr for and 1 hr, you go five miles. Both will expend the same energy (Energy=Force x Distance). You will have been operating at a higher power setting (Power=Force x Velocity) when you go faster but for only 1/2 the time with my example. The energy expended is the same for both. I'm not including small factors like wind resistance or heat expended.
Effort at a given instant is associated with your power level. Effort over time or distance is associated with energy expended.
That's not even true for cars, which get different gas mileage at different speeds. (In the real world, factors like wind resistance actually exist and affect results.)
For the human machine, running is not as efficient a movement as walking -- you'll get there faster, but you must expend more energy than you would if you walked the same distance.
I know wind resistance increases as a function of velocity squared and is significant at hight speeds where it is a big factor compared to friction (cars). At low running speeds, it will not be any where as significant. It will require a higher power level to overcome but not much. Power integrated over time is energy. That is why we pay our power bills in Kw-hrs which is a unit of energy.
I agree real-world, more energy will be expended by going faster. Double the speed isnt double the calories though for the same distance due to factors discussed on this thread. It increases it some more but the dominant effect is as I originally stated (energy =force x distance).
My main interest is how going fast changes the bmr.
It doesn't.
BMR is the amount of calories your body burns if you were in a coma. Absolutely zero movement is factored into that.
NEAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Non-Exercise. That's sitting at a desk, typing, cooking dinner, grocery shopping, driving your car.
EAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Exercise. That generally does not include EPOC (the amount of calories your body burns after exercise during recovery) partially due to your BMR still counting during the exercise period.
TEF is the amount of energy your body uses while digesting foods. Most people eat fairly balanced macros, so we usually ignore this number except to talk about why eating 2 meals versus 6 meals creates the same response in the body, which means you can skip breakfast because it doesn't "kick start" your metabolism.
I don't beieve you are correct. Even if you're not moving, your BMR/EAT can be higher or lower depending on things like how active you have been. I believe that is due to the number and size of the mitochondria in your cells. Not everyone with the exact same mass has the same bmr/EAT. It is a function of how active you are or have been in the past.
I didn't say those numbers are permanent. Higher lean mass will result in higher BMR. Better VO2max results in lower EAT for exercising at the same level, which is why you have to increase intensity over time to get the same burn. Better VO2max results in an increase in BMR.
Running 6mph once isn't going to improve any of the markers that impact BMR or EAT. Doing it on a continual basis will improve BMR. Walking on a continual basis will have a similar impact, but because it requires less effort to sustain you have to increase intensity earlier to continue getting increased benefits. Lifting weights has a lower calorie burn than running, but a greater EPOC. Lifting weights improves BMR more than running due to increase of lean mass, which burns more calories.
I concur and am saying the same. I just want to know how the bmr is increased over time by going consistently faster over time.
If you are looking to impact BMR I highly suggest resistance training. It improves lean mass and VO2max.
I agree, but how does this work? I think it is the power cells (mitochondria effect) but I'm not sure.0 -
I'm surprised that nobody has brought up the main reason why running burns more calories than walking: the fact that when you run, you must do more work to lift yourself completely off the ground with each stride vs when you walk, you are just transferring your body weight from one foot to the other. More work = more energy. All these points being made about heart beats, breathing rates, and body tempurature regulation, the difference in energy expenditure from these between running and walking over normal distances (1-5 miles) is so small that it's borderline negligible. It's just like how EPOC is so small that it's basically negligible. Yes your heart beats faster when you are running, but you complete the distance in fraction of the time. Walking elevates your heart rate above resting as well, but you are walking for a longer amount of time. The difference is not this huge amount that it's being made out to be...0
-
I purposely posted this knowing how the power and energy thing worked to get people to think and also to get feedback on why it will overall be better to go faster on the biological level (assuming you don't get injured).
Biology and engineering aren't really related. To move faster a person has to convert ATP into ADP at a higher rate.
Power is the rate of energy. You are talking about power. Biological systems have mass and are moved by forces. They do relate in this context.
No, they really don't. We aren't machines.
You cannot say they don't relate, they do relate. No we are not machines, but the rules of mechanics, physics, and thermodynamics still apply to us. There is a relation, the degree of relation can be argued, but the relation cannot be denied
The rules of science apply to a great many things that aren't related. Gravity, inertia, mass, wind resistance, etc all apply to a traveling bullet as well as a human body.
0 -
I purposely posted this knowing how the power and energy thing worked to get people to think and also to get feedback on why it will overall be better to go faster on the biological level (assuming you don't get injured).
Biology and engineering aren't really related. To move faster a person has to convert ATP into ADP at a higher rate.
Power is the rate of energy. You are talking about power. Biological systems have mass and are moved by forces. They do relate in this context.
No, they really don't. We aren't machines.
You cannot say they don't relate, they do relate. No we are not machines, but the rules of mechanics, physics, and thermodynamics still apply to us. There is a relation, the degree of relation can be argued, but the relation cannot be denied
Go ahead and help explain to me how running 2 miles and walking 2 miles should burn the same amount of calories.
They shouldn't, they burn different amounts of calories, but it's not as if the laws of physics, mechanics, and thermodynamics don't apply in any way to the human body, that's an absurd claim.0 -
If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
So, are you saying if for two miles I stroll at 2.5 or power walk at 4.5, the calorie expenditure will be the same?
I think you might be wrong about that, because a 4.5 power walk will use a whole lot more oxygen than that 2.5 stroll.
Not that I'm into power walking, as I'm not because my cardio choice is running (hence my username)
No, higher speed will be more cals but a doubling of speed will not double cals expended. Since your going faster you get there quicker and are going faster for less time.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
Erm.... no, not even a little bit. To get someplace faster, you expend MORE energy because you worked harder than the slower pace. Because you had to fight gravity harder, your muscles required more oxygen and your body put off more heat, your heart rate had to increase. All the things that happen when one exercises. If you burned 300 calories going from point A to point B at 3.0 mph, you're for sure gonna burn more than that going from point A to point B at 6.5 mph. Jogging is harder than walking, and thus, you expend more energy putting out the extra effort to increase your speed.
ETA: In case there's about to be an argument about walking, this is still the case. More effort is required to walk at 4 mph than to walk at 2.5 mph.
Sorry, but I'm an engineer and understand energy and power very well. I don't know biology very well. If you go 10miles/hr for 30 min you go five miles. If you go 5miles/hr for and 1 hr, you go five miles. Both will expend the same energy (Energy=Force x Distance). You will have been operating at a higher power setting (Power=Force x Velocity) when you go faster but for only 1/2 the time with my example. The energy expended is the same for both. I'm not including small factors like wind resistance or heat expended.
Effort at a given instant is associated with your power level. Effort over time or distance is associated with energy expended.
That's not even true for cars, which get different gas mileage at different speeds. (In the real world, factors like wind resistance actually exist and affect results.)
For the human machine, running is not as efficient a movement as walking -- you'll get there faster, but you must expend more energy than you would if you walked the same distance.
I know wind resistance increases as a function of velocity squared and is significant at hight speeds where it is a big factor compared to friction (cars). At low running speeds, it will not be any where as significant. It will require a higher power level to overcome but not much. Power integrated over time is energy. That is why we pay our power bills in Kw-hrs which is a unit of energy.
I agree real-world, more energy will be expended by going faster. Double the speed isnt double the calories though for the same distance due to factors discussed on this thread. It increases it some more but the dominant effect is as I originally stated (energy =force x distance).
My main interest is how going fast changes the bmr.
It doesn't.
BMR is the amount of calories your body burns if you were in a coma. Absolutely zero movement is factored into that.
NEAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Non-Exercise. That's sitting at a desk, typing, cooking dinner, grocery shopping, driving your car.
EAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Exercise. That generally does not include EPOC (the amount of calories your body burns after exercise during recovery) partially due to your BMR still counting during the exercise period.
TEF is the amount of energy your body uses while digesting foods. Most people eat fairly balanced macros, so we usually ignore this number except to talk about why eating 2 meals versus 6 meals creates the same response in the body, which means you can skip breakfast because it doesn't "kick start" your metabolism.
I don't beieve you are correct. Even if you're not moving, your BMR/EAT can be higher or lower depending on things like how active you have been. I believe that is due to the number and size of the mitochondria in your cells. Not everyone with the exact same mass has the same bmr/EAT. It is a function of how active you are or have been in the past.
I didn't say those numbers are permanent. Higher lean mass will result in higher BMR. Better VO2max results in lower EAT for exercising at the same level, which is why you have to increase intensity over time to get the same burn. Better VO2max results in an increase in BMR.
Running 6mph once isn't going to improve any of the markers that impact BMR or EAT. Doing it on a continual basis will improve BMR. Walking on a continual basis will have a similar impact, but because it requires less effort to sustain you have to increase intensity earlier to continue getting increased benefits. Lifting weights has a lower calorie burn than running, but a greater EPOC. Lifting weights improves BMR more than running due to increase of lean mass, which burns more calories.
I concur and am saying the same. I just want to know how the bmr is increased over time by going consistently faster over time.
If you are looking to impact BMR I highly suggest resistance training. It improves lean mass and VO2max.
I agree, but how does this work? I th8nk it is the power cells (mitochondria effect) but I'm not sure.
There is an energy cost associated with maintaining skeletal muscle. The more skeletal muscle your body has, the more energy is required to maintain it, even at rest. This is how you can effect your BMR by putting on muscle mass.0 -
I'm surprised that nobody has brought up the main reason why running burns more calories than walking: the fact that when you run, you must do more work to lift yourself completely off the ground with each stride vs when you walk, you are just transferring your body weight from one foot to the other. More work = more energy. All these points being made about heart beats, breathing rates, and body tempurature regulation, the difference in energy expenditure from these between running and walking over normal distances (1-5 miles) is so small that it's borderline negligible. It's just like how EPOC is so small that it's basically negligible. Yes your heart beats faster when you are running, but you complete the distance in fraction of the time. Walking elevates your heart rate above resting as well, but you are walking for a longer amount of time. The difference is not this huge amount that it's being made out to be...
Good point, thanks. Mechanical efficiency doesn't scale linearly with speed. This probably is the main effect as you stated.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »I purposely posted this knowing how the power and energy thing worked to get people to think and also to get feedback on why it will overall be better to go faster on the biological level (assuming you don't get injured).
Biology and engineering aren't really related. To move faster a person has to convert ATP into ADP at a higher rate.
Power is the rate of energy. You are talking about power. Biological systems have mass and are moved by forces. They do relate in this context.
No, they really don't. We aren't machines.
You cannot say they don't relate, they do relate. No we are not machines, but the rules of mechanics, physics, and thermodynamics still apply to us. There is a relation, the degree of relation can be argued, but the relation cannot be denied
The rules of science apply to a great many things that aren't related. Gravity, inertia, mass, wind resistance, etc all apply to a traveling bullet as well as a human body.
Yes, I agree. All I'm saying is that you cannot make the claim that there is no relation between the human body, and mechanics. We are not simple machines, but we are complex organic machines.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
Erm.... no, not even a little bit. To get someplace faster, you expend MORE energy because you worked harder than the slower pace. Because you had to fight gravity harder, your muscles required more oxygen and your body put off more heat, your heart rate had to increase. All the things that happen when one exercises. If you burned 300 calories going from point A to point B at 3.0 mph, you're for sure gonna burn more than that going from point A to point B at 6.5 mph. Jogging is harder than walking, and thus, you expend more energy putting out the extra effort to increase your speed.
ETA: In case there's about to be an argument about walking, this is still the case. More effort is required to walk at 4 mph than to walk at 2.5 mph.
Sorry, but I'm an engineer and understand energy and power very well. I don't know biology very well. If you go 10miles/hr for 30 min you go five miles. If you go 5miles/hr for and 1 hr, you go five miles. Both will expend the same energy (Energy=Force x Distance). You will have been operating at a higher power setting (Power=Force x Velocity) when you go faster but for only 1/2 the time with my example. The energy expended is the same for both. I'm not including small factors like wind resistance or heat expended.
Effort at a given instant is associated with your power level. Effort over time or distance is associated with energy expended.
That's not even true for cars, which get different gas mileage at different speeds. (In the real world, factors like wind resistance actually exist and affect results.)
For the human machine, running is not as efficient a movement as walking -- you'll get there faster, but you must expend more energy than you would if you walked the same distance.
I know wind resistance increases as a function of velocity squared and is significant at hight speeds where it is a big factor compared to friction (cars). At low running speeds, it will not be any where as significant. It will require a higher power level to overcome but not much. Power integrated over time is energy. That is why we pay our power bills in Kw-hrs which is a unit of energy.
I agree real-world, more energy will be expended by going faster. Double the speed isnt double the calories though for the same distance due to factors discussed on this thread. It increases it some more but the dominant effect is as I originally stated (energy =force x distance).
My main interest is how going fast changes the bmr.
It doesn't.
BMR is the amount of calories your body burns if you were in a coma. Absolutely zero movement is factored into that.
NEAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Non-Exercise. That's sitting at a desk, typing, cooking dinner, grocery shopping, driving your car.
EAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Exercise. That generally does not include EPOC (the amount of calories your body burns after exercise during recovery) partially due to your BMR still counting during the exercise period.
TEF is the amount of energy your body uses while digesting foods. Most people eat fairly balanced macros, so we usually ignore this number except to talk about why eating 2 meals versus 6 meals creates the same response in the body, which means you can skip breakfast because it doesn't "kick start" your metabolism.
I don't beieve you are correct. Even if you're not moving, your BMR/EAT can be higher or lower depending on things like how active you have been. I believe that is due to the number and size of the mitochondria in your cells. Not everyone with the exact same mass has the same bmr/EAT. It is a function of how active you are or have been in the past.
I didn't say those numbers are permanent. Higher lean mass will result in higher BMR. Better VO2max results in lower EAT for exercising at the same level, which is why you have to increase intensity over time to get the same burn. Better VO2max results in an increase in BMR.
Running 6mph once isn't going to improve any of the markers that impact BMR or EAT. Doing it on a continual basis will improve BMR. Walking on a continual basis will have a similar impact, but because it requires less effort to sustain you have to increase intensity earlier to continue getting increased benefits. Lifting weights has a lower calorie burn than running, but a greater EPOC. Lifting weights improves BMR more than running due to increase of lean mass, which burns more calories.
I concur and am saying the same. I just want to know how the bmr is increased over time by going consistently faster over time.
If you are looking to impact BMR I highly suggest resistance training. It improves lean mass and VO2max.
I agree, but how does this work? I th8nk it is the power cells (mitochondria effect) but I'm not sure.
I think you want to read up on cellular respiration.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
Erm.... no, not even a little bit. To get someplace faster, you expend MORE energy because you worked harder than the slower pace. Because you had to fight gravity harder, your muscles required more oxygen and your body put off more heat, your heart rate had to increase. All the things that happen when one exercises. If you burned 300 calories going from point A to point B at 3.0 mph, you're for sure gonna burn more than that going from point A to point B at 6.5 mph. Jogging is harder than walking, and thus, you expend more energy putting out the extra effort to increase your speed.
ETA: In case there's about to be an argument about walking, this is still the case. More effort is required to walk at 4 mph than to walk at 2.5 mph.
Sorry, but I'm an engineer and understand energy and power very well. I don't know biology very well. If you go 10miles/hr for 30 min you go five miles. If you go 5miles/hr for and 1 hr, you go five miles. Both will expend the same energy (Energy=Force x Distance). You will have been operating at a higher power setting (Power=Force x Velocity) when you go faster but for only 1/2 the time with my example. The energy expended is the same for both. I'm not including small factors like wind resistance or heat expended.
Effort at a given instant is associated with your power level. Effort over time or distance is associated with energy expended.
That's not even true for cars, which get different gas mileage at different speeds. (In the real world, factors like wind resistance actually exist and affect results.)
For the human machine, running is not as efficient a movement as walking -- you'll get there faster, but you must expend more energy than you would if you walked the same distance.
I know wind resistance increases as a function of velocity squared and is significant at hight speeds where it is a big factor compared to friction (cars). At low running speeds, it will not be any where as significant. It will require a higher power level to overcome but not much. Power integrated over time is energy. That is why we pay our power bills in Kw-hrs which is a unit of energy.
I agree real-world, more energy will be expended by going faster. Double the speed isnt double the calories though for the same distance due to factors discussed on this thread. It increases it some more but the dominant effect is as I originally stated (energy =force x distance).
My main interest is how going fast changes the bmr.
It doesn't.
BMR is the amount of calories your body burns if you were in a coma. Absolutely zero movement is factored into that.
NEAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Non-Exercise. That's sitting at a desk, typing, cooking dinner, grocery shopping, driving your car.
EAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Exercise. That generally does not include EPOC (the amount of calories your body burns after exercise during recovery) partially due to your BMR still counting during the exercise period.
TEF is the amount of energy your body uses while digesting foods. Most people eat fairly balanced macros, so we usually ignore this number except to talk about why eating 2 meals versus 6 meals creates the same response in the body, which means you can skip breakfast because it doesn't "kick start" your metabolism.
I don't beieve you are correct. Even if you're not moving, your BMR/EAT can be higher or lower depending on things like how active you have been. I believe that is due to the number and size of the mitochondria in your cells. Not everyone with the exact same mass has the same bmr/EAT. It is a function of how active you are or have been in the past.
I didn't say those numbers are permanent. Higher lean mass will result in higher BMR. Better VO2max results in lower EAT for exercising at the same level, which is why you have to increase intensity over time to get the same burn. Better VO2max results in an increase in BMR.
Running 6mph once isn't going to improve any of the markers that impact BMR or EAT. Doing it on a continual basis will improve BMR. Walking on a continual basis will have a similar impact, but because it requires less effort to sustain you have to increase intensity earlier to continue getting increased benefits. Lifting weights has a lower calorie burn than running, but a greater EPOC. Lifting weights improves BMR more than running due to increase of lean mass, which burns more calories.
I concur and am saying the same. I just want to know how the bmr is increased over time by going consistently faster over time.
If you are looking to impact BMR I highly suggest resistance training. It improves lean mass and VO2max.
I agree, but how does this work? I th8nk it is the power cells (mitochondria effect) but I'm not sure.
I think you want to read up on cellular respiration.
Your average engineer tends to know basically nothing when it comes to biology cause they are exempt from biology classes in college, at least that was my experience.0 -
I'm surprised that nobody has brought up the main reason why running burns more calories than walking: the fact that when you run, you must do more work to lift yourself completely off the ground with each stride vs when you walk, you are just transferring your body weight from one foot to the other. More work = more energy. All these points being made about heart beats, breathing rates, and body tempurature regulation, the difference in energy expenditure from these between running and walking over normal distances (1-5 miles) is so small that it's borderline negligible. It's just like how EPOC is so small that it's basically negligible. Yes your heart beats faster when you are running, but you complete the distance in fraction of the time. Walking elevates your heart rate above resting as well, but you are walking for a longer amount of time. The difference is not this huge amount that it's being made out to be...
I did bring it up. I didn't break it down, but I mentioned the difference in use of muscles. Even isolating upper body differences, running requires the body purposefully held upright with either tight arms or fairly forceful arm swing.0 -
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
Erm.... no, not even a little bit. To get someplace faster, you expend MORE energy because you worked harder than the slower pace. Because you had to fight gravity harder, your muscles required more oxygen and your body put off more heat, your heart rate had to increase. All the things that happen when one exercises. If you burned 300 calories going from point A to point B at 3.0 mph, you're for sure gonna burn more than that going from point A to point B at 6.5 mph. Jogging is harder than walking, and thus, you expend more energy putting out the extra effort to increase your speed.
ETA: In case there's about to be an argument about walking, this is still the case. More effort is required to walk at 4 mph than to walk at 2.5 mph.
Sorry, but I'm an engineer and understand energy and power very well. I don't know biology very well. If you go 10miles/hr for 30 min you go five miles. If you go 5miles/hr for and 1 hr, you go five miles. Both will expend the same energy (Energy=Force x Distance). You will have been operating at a higher power setting (Power=Force x Velocity) when you go faster but for only 1/2 the time with my example. The energy expended is the same for both. I'm not including small factors like wind resistance or heat expended.
Effort at a given instant is associated with your power level. Effort over time or distance is associated with energy expended.
That's not even true for cars, which get different gas mileage at different speeds. (In the real world, factors like wind resistance actually exist and affect results.)
For the human machine, running is not as efficient a movement as walking -- you'll get there faster, but you must expend more energy than you would if you walked the same distance.
I know wind resistance increases as a function of velocity squared and is significant at hight speeds where it is a big factor compared to friction (cars). At low running speeds, it will not be any where as significant. It will require a higher power level to overcome but not much. Power integrated over time is energy. That is why we pay our power bills in Kw-hrs which is a unit of energy.
I agree real-world, more energy will be expended by going faster. Double the speed isnt double the calories though for the same distance due to factors discussed on this thread. It increases it some more but the dominant effect is as I originally stated (energy =force x distance).
My main interest is how going fast changes the bmr.
It doesn't.
BMR is the amount of calories your body burns if you were in a coma. Absolutely zero movement is factored into that.
NEAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Non-Exercise. That's sitting at a desk, typing, cooking dinner, grocery shopping, driving your car.
EAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Exercise. That generally does not include EPOC (the amount of calories your body burns after exercise during recovery) partially due to your BMR still counting during the exercise period.
TEF is the amount of energy your body uses while digesting foods. Most people eat fairly balanced macros, so we usually ignore this number except to talk about why eating 2 meals versus 6 meals creates the same response in the body, which means you can skip breakfast because it doesn't "kick start" your metabolism.
I don't beieve you are correct. Even if you're not moving, your BMR/EAT can be higher or lower depending on things like how active you have been. I believe that is due to the number and size of the mitochondria in your cells. Not everyone with the exact same mass has the same bmr/EAT. It is a function of how active you are or have been in the past.
I didn't say those numbers are permanent. Higher lean mass will result in higher BMR. Better VO2max results in lower EAT for exercising at the same level, which is why you have to increase intensity over time to get the same burn. Better VO2max results in an increase in BMR.
Running 6mph once isn't going to improve any of the markers that impact BMR or EAT. Doing it on a continual basis will improve BMR. Walking on a continual basis will have a similar impact, but because it requires less effort to sustain you have to increase intensity earlier to continue getting increased benefits. Lifting weights has a lower calorie burn than running, but a greater EPOC. Lifting weights improves BMR more than running due to increase of lean mass, which burns more calories.
I concur and am saying the same. I just want to know how the bmr is increased over time by going consistently faster over time.
If you are looking to impact BMR I highly suggest resistance training. It improves lean mass and VO2max.
I agree, but how does this work? I th8nk it is the power cells (mitochondria effect) but I'm not sure.
I think you want to read up on cellular respiration.
Your average engineer tends to know basically nothing when it comes to biology cause they are exempt from biology classes in college, at least that was my experience.
That is true. The opposite also seems to be true about biologists knowledge of mechanics and dynamics:)0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
Erm.... no, not even a little bit. To get someplace faster, you expend MORE energy because you worked harder than the slower pace. Because you had to fight gravity harder, your muscles required more oxygen and your body put off more heat, your heart rate had to increase. All the things that happen when one exercises. If you burned 300 calories going from point A to point B at 3.0 mph, you're for sure gonna burn more than that going from point A to point B at 6.5 mph. Jogging is harder than walking, and thus, you expend more energy putting out the extra effort to increase your speed.
ETA: In case there's about to be an argument about walking, this is still the case. More effort is required to walk at 4 mph than to walk at 2.5 mph.
Sorry, but I'm an engineer and understand energy and power very well. I don't know biology very well. If you go 10miles/hr for 30 min you go five miles. If you go 5miles/hr for and 1 hr, you go five miles. Both will expend the same energy (Energy=Force x Distance). You will have been operating at a higher power setting (Power=Force x Velocity) when you go faster but for only 1/2 the time with my example. The energy expended is the same for both. I'm not including small factors like wind resistance or heat expended.
Effort at a given instant is associated with your power level. Effort over time or distance is associated with energy expended.
That's not even true for cars, which get different gas mileage at different speeds. (In the real world, factors like wind resistance actually exist and affect results.)
For the human machine, running is not as efficient a movement as walking -- you'll get there faster, but you must expend more energy than you would if you walked the same distance.
I know wind resistance increases as a function of velocity squared and is significant at hight speeds where it is a big factor compared to friction (cars). At low running speeds, it will not be any where as significant. It will require a higher power level to overcome but not much. Power integrated over time is energy. That is why we pay our power bills in Kw-hrs which is a unit of energy.
I agree real-world, more energy will be expended by going faster. Double the speed isnt double the calories though for the same distance due to factors discussed on this thread. It increases it some more but the dominant effect is as I originally stated (energy =force x distance).
My main interest is how going fast changes the bmr.
It doesn't.
BMR is the amount of calories your body burns if you were in a coma. Absolutely zero movement is factored into that.
NEAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Non-Exercise. That's sitting at a desk, typing, cooking dinner, grocery shopping, driving your car.
EAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Exercise. That generally does not include EPOC (the amount of calories your body burns after exercise during recovery) partially due to your BMR still counting during the exercise period.
TEF is the amount of energy your body uses while digesting foods. Most people eat fairly balanced macros, so we usually ignore this number except to talk about why eating 2 meals versus 6 meals creates the same response in the body, which means you can skip breakfast because it doesn't "kick start" your metabolism.
I don't beieve you are correct. Even if you're not moving, your BMR/EAT can be higher or lower depending on things like how active you have been. I believe that is due to the number and size of the mitochondria in your cells. Not everyone with the exact same mass has the same bmr/EAT. It is a function of how active you are or have been in the past.
I didn't say those numbers are permanent. Higher lean mass will result in higher BMR. Better VO2max results in lower EAT for exercising at the same level, which is why you have to increase intensity over time to get the same burn. Better VO2max results in an increase in BMR.
Running 6mph once isn't going to improve any of the markers that impact BMR or EAT. Doing it on a continual basis will improve BMR. Walking on a continual basis will have a similar impact, but because it requires less effort to sustain you have to increase intensity earlier to continue getting increased benefits. Lifting weights has a lower calorie burn than running, but a greater EPOC. Lifting weights improves BMR more than running due to increase of lean mass, which burns more calories.
I concur and am saying the same. I just want to know how the bmr is increased over time by going consistently faster over time.
If you are looking to impact BMR I highly suggest resistance training. It improves lean mass and VO2max.
I agree, but how does this work? I th8nk it is the power cells (mitochondria effect) but I'm not sure.
I think you want to read up on cellular respiration.
I would like to do that.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
Erm.... no, not even a little bit. To get someplace faster, you expend MORE energy because you worked harder than the slower pace. Because you had to fight gravity harder, your muscles required more oxygen and your body put off more heat, your heart rate had to increase. All the things that happen when one exercises. If you burned 300 calories going from point A to point B at 3.0 mph, you're for sure gonna burn more than that going from point A to point B at 6.5 mph. Jogging is harder than walking, and thus, you expend more energy putting out the extra effort to increase your speed.
ETA: In case there's about to be an argument about walking, this is still the case. More effort is required to walk at 4 mph than to walk at 2.5 mph.
Sorry, but I'm an engineer and understand energy and power very well. I don't know biology very well. If you go 10miles/hr for 30 min you go five miles. If you go 5miles/hr for and 1 hr, you go five miles. Both will expend the same energy (Energy=Force x Distance). You will have been operating at a higher power setting (Power=Force x Velocity) when you go faster but for only 1/2 the time with my example. The energy expended is the same for both. I'm not including small factors like wind resistance or heat expended.
Effort at a given instant is associated with your power level. Effort over time or distance is associated with energy expended.
That's not even true for cars, which get different gas mileage at different speeds. (In the real world, factors like wind resistance actually exist and affect results.)
For the human machine, running is not as efficient a movement as walking -- you'll get there faster, but you must expend more energy than you would if you walked the same distance.
I know wind resistance increases as a function of velocity squared and is significant at hight speeds where it is a big factor compared to friction (cars). At low running speeds, it will not be any where as significant. It will require a higher power level to overcome but not much. Power integrated over time is energy. That is why we pay our power bills in Kw-hrs which is a unit of energy.
I agree real-world, more energy will be expended by going faster. Double the speed isnt double the calories though for the same distance due to factors discussed on this thread. It increases it some more but the dominant effect is as I originally stated (energy =force x distance).
My main interest is how going fast changes the bmr.
It doesn't.
BMR is the amount of calories your body burns if you were in a coma. Absolutely zero movement is factored into that.
NEAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Non-Exercise. That's sitting at a desk, typing, cooking dinner, grocery shopping, driving your car.
EAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Exercise. That generally does not include EPOC (the amount of calories your body burns after exercise during recovery) partially due to your BMR still counting during the exercise period.
TEF is the amount of energy your body uses while digesting foods. Most people eat fairly balanced macros, so we usually ignore this number except to talk about why eating 2 meals versus 6 meals creates the same response in the body, which means you can skip breakfast because it doesn't "kick start" your metabolism.
I don't beieve you are correct. Even if you're not moving, your BMR/EAT can be higher or lower depending on things like how active you have been. I believe that is due to the number and size of the mitochondria in your cells. Not everyone with the exact same mass has the same bmr/EAT. It is a function of how active you are or have been in the past.
I didn't say those numbers are permanent. Higher lean mass will result in higher BMR. Better VO2max results in lower EAT for exercising at the same level, which is why you have to increase intensity over time to get the same burn. Better VO2max results in an increase in BMR.
Running 6mph once isn't going to improve any of the markers that impact BMR or EAT. Doing it on a continual basis will improve BMR. Walking on a continual basis will have a similar impact, but because it requires less effort to sustain you have to increase intensity earlier to continue getting increased benefits. Lifting weights has a lower calorie burn than running, but a greater EPOC. Lifting weights improves BMR more than running due to increase of lean mass, which burns more calories.
I concur and am saying the same. I just want to know how the bmr is increased over time by going consistently faster over time.
If you are looking to impact BMR I highly suggest resistance training. It improves lean mass and VO2max.
I agree, but how does this work? I th8nk it is the power cells (mitochondria effect) but I'm not sure.
I think you want to read up on cellular respiration.
Your average engineer tends to know basically nothing when it comes to biology cause they are exempt from biology classes in college, at least that was my experience.
Which is why I am encouraging the OP to go read about it instead of me trying to cover it. There's a lot out there and if they insist on getting that in depth will cellular activity they should go study it.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
Erm.... no, not even a little bit. To get someplace faster, you expend MORE energy because you worked harder than the slower pace. Because you had to fight gravity harder, your muscles required more oxygen and your body put off more heat, your heart rate had to increase. All the things that happen when one exercises. If you burned 300 calories going from point A to point B at 3.0 mph, you're for sure gonna burn more than that going from point A to point B at 6.5 mph. Jogging is harder than walking, and thus, you expend more energy putting out the extra effort to increase your speed.
ETA: In case there's about to be an argument about walking, this is still the case. More effort is required to walk at 4 mph than to walk at 2.5 mph.
Sorry, but I'm an engineer and understand energy and power very well. I don't know biology very well. If you go 10miles/hr for 30 min you go five miles. If you go 5miles/hr for and 1 hr, you go five miles. Both will expend the same energy (Energy=Force x Distance). You will have been operating at a higher power setting (Power=Force x Velocity) when you go faster but for only 1/2 the time with my example. The energy expended is the same for both. I'm not including small factors like wind resistance or heat expended.
Effort at a given instant is associated with your power level. Effort over time or distance is associated with energy expended.
That's not even true for cars, which get different gas mileage at different speeds. (In the real world, factors like wind resistance actually exist and affect results.)
For the human machine, running is not as efficient a movement as walking -- you'll get there faster, but you must expend more energy than you would if you walked the same distance.
I know wind resistance increases as a function of velocity squared and is significant at hight speeds where it is a big factor compared to friction (cars). At low running speeds, it will not be any where as significant. It will require a higher power level to overcome but not much. Power integrated over time is energy. That is why we pay our power bills in Kw-hrs which is a unit of energy.
I agree real-world, more energy will be expended by going faster. Double the speed isnt double the calories though for the same distance due to factors discussed on this thread. It increases it some more but the dominant effect is as I originally stated (energy =force x distance).
My main interest is how going fast changes the bmr.
It doesn't.
BMR is the amount of calories your body burns if you were in a coma. Absolutely zero movement is factored into that.
NEAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Non-Exercise. That's sitting at a desk, typing, cooking dinner, grocery shopping, driving your car.
EAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Exercise. That generally does not include EPOC (the amount of calories your body burns after exercise during recovery) partially due to your BMR still counting during the exercise period.
TEF is the amount of energy your body uses while digesting foods. Most people eat fairly balanced macros, so we usually ignore this number except to talk about why eating 2 meals versus 6 meals creates the same response in the body, which means you can skip breakfast because it doesn't "kick start" your metabolism.
I don't beieve you are correct. Even if you're not moving, your BMR/EAT can be higher or lower depending on things like how active you have been. I believe that is due to the number and size of the mitochondria in your cells. Not everyone with the exact same mass has the same bmr/EAT. It is a function of how active you are or have been in the past.
I didn't say those numbers are permanent. Higher lean mass will result in higher BMR. Better VO2max results in lower EAT for exercising at the same level, which is why you have to increase intensity over time to get the same burn. Better VO2max results in an increase in BMR.
Running 6mph once isn't going to improve any of the markers that impact BMR or EAT. Doing it on a continual basis will improve BMR. Walking on a continual basis will have a similar impact, but because it requires less effort to sustain you have to increase intensity earlier to continue getting increased benefits. Lifting weights has a lower calorie burn than running, but a greater EPOC. Lifting weights improves BMR more than running due to increase of lean mass, which burns more calories.
I concur and am saying the same. I just want to know how the bmr is increased over time by going consistently faster over time.
If you are looking to impact BMR I highly suggest resistance training. It improves lean mass and VO2max.
I agree, but how does this work? I th8nk it is the power cells (mitochondria effect) but I'm not sure.
I think you want to read up on cellular respiration.
Your average engineer tends to know basically nothing when it comes to biology cause they are exempt from biology classes in college, at least that was my experience.
Which is why I am encouraging the OP to go read about it instead of me trying to cover it. There's a lot out there and if they insist on getting that in depth will cellular activity they should go study it.
Yea, I was agreeing with you. I graduated Mechanical Engineering and Materials Engineering, then when I got into fitness I realized that the only way to get past all the broscience was to learn the actual science behind it, it's the only way to go.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
Erm.... no, not even a little bit. To get someplace faster, you expend MORE energy because you worked harder than the slower pace. Because you had to fight gravity harder, your muscles required more oxygen and your body put off more heat, your heart rate had to increase. All the things that happen when one exercises. If you burned 300 calories going from point A to point B at 3.0 mph, you're for sure gonna burn more than that going from point A to point B at 6.5 mph. Jogging is harder than walking, and thus, you expend more energy putting out the extra effort to increase your speed.
ETA: In case there's about to be an argument about walking, this is still the case. More effort is required to walk at 4 mph than to walk at 2.5 mph.
Sorry, but I'm an engineer and understand energy and power very well. I don't know biology very well. If you go 10miles/hr for 30 min you go five miles. If you go 5miles/hr for and 1 hr, you go five miles. Both will expend the same energy (Energy=Force x Distance). You will have been operating at a higher power setting (Power=Force x Velocity) when you go faster but for only 1/2 the time with my example. The energy expended is the same for both. I'm not including small factors like wind resistance or heat expended.
Effort at a given instant is associated with your power level. Effort over time or distance is associated with energy expended.
That's not even true for cars, which get different gas mileage at different speeds. (In the real world, factors like wind resistance actually exist and affect results.)
For the human machine, running is not as efficient a movement as walking -- you'll get there faster, but you must expend more energy than you would if you walked the same distance.
I know wind resistance increases as a function of velocity squared and is significant at hight speeds where it is a big factor compared to friction (cars). At low running speeds, it will not be any where as significant. It will require a higher power level to overcome but not much. Power integrated over time is energy. That is why we pay our power bills in Kw-hrs which is a unit of energy.
I agree real-world, more energy will be expended by going faster. Double the speed isnt double the calories though for the same distance due to factors discussed on this thread. It increases it some more but the dominant effect is as I originally stated (energy =force x distance).
My main interest is how going fast changes the bmr.
It doesn't.
BMR is the amount of calories your body burns if you were in a coma. Absolutely zero movement is factored into that.
NEAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Non-Exercise. That's sitting at a desk, typing, cooking dinner, grocery shopping, driving your car.
EAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Exercise. That generally does not include EPOC (the amount of calories your body burns after exercise during recovery) partially due to your BMR still counting during the exercise period.
TEF is the amount of energy your body uses while digesting foods. Most people eat fairly balanced macros, so we usually ignore this number except to talk about why eating 2 meals versus 6 meals creates the same response in the body, which means you can skip breakfast because it doesn't "kick start" your metabolism.
I don't beieve you are correct. Even if you're not moving, your BMR/EAT can be higher or lower depending on things like how active you have been. I believe that is due to the number and size of the mitochondria in your cells. Not everyone with the exact same mass has the same bmr/EAT. It is a function of how active you are or have been in the past.
I didn't say those numbers are permanent. Higher lean mass will result in higher BMR. Better VO2max results in lower EAT for exercising at the same level, which is why you have to increase intensity over time to get the same burn. Better VO2max results in an increase in BMR.
Running 6mph once isn't going to improve any of the markers that impact BMR or EAT. Doing it on a continual basis will improve BMR. Walking on a continual basis will have a similar impact, but because it requires less effort to sustain you have to increase intensity earlier to continue getting increased benefits. Lifting weights has a lower calorie burn than running, but a greater EPOC. Lifting weights improves BMR more than running due to increase of lean mass, which burns more calories.
I concur and am saying the same. I just want to know how the bmr is increased over time by going consistently faster over time.
If you are looking to impact BMR I highly suggest resistance training. It improves lean mass and VO2max.
I agree, but how does this work? I th8nk it is the power cells (mitochondria effect) but I'm not sure.
I think you want to read up on cellular respiration.
Your average engineer tends to know basically nothing when it comes to biology cause they are exempt from biology classes in college, at least that was my experience.
That is true. The opposite also seems to be true about biologists knowledge of mechanics and dynamics:)
Yea, I've noticed that too lol0 -
I'm surprised that nobody has brought up the main reason why running burns more calories than walking: the fact that when you run, you must do more work to lift yourself completely off the ground with each stride vs when you walk, you are just transferring your body weight from one foot to the other. More work = more energy. All these points being made about heart beats, breathing rates, and body tempurature regulation, the difference in energy expenditure from these between running and walking over normal distances (1-5 miles) is so small that it's borderline negligible. It's just like how EPOC is so small that it's basically negligible. Yes your heart beats faster when you are running, but you complete the distance in fraction of the time. Walking elevates your heart rate above resting as well, but you are walking for a longer amount of time. The difference is not this huge amount that it's being made out to be...
I did bring it up. I didn't break it down, but I mentioned the difference in use of muscles. Even isolating upper body differences, running requires the body purposefully held upright with either tight arms or fairly forceful arm swing.
Oh, my bad, I tried to scan through all the previous posts, I must have missed it.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
Erm.... no, not even a little bit. To get someplace faster, you expend MORE energy because you worked harder than the slower pace. Because you had to fight gravity harder, your muscles required more oxygen and your body put off more heat, your heart rate had to increase. All the things that happen when one exercises. If you burned 300 calories going from point A to point B at 3.0 mph, you're for sure gonna burn more than that going from point A to point B at 6.5 mph. Jogging is harder than walking, and thus, you expend more energy putting out the extra effort to increase your speed.
ETA: In case there's about to be an argument about walking, this is still the case. More effort is required to walk at 4 mph than to walk at 2.5 mph.
Sorry, but I'm an engineer and understand energy and power very well. I don't know biology very well. If you go 10miles/hr for 30 min you go five miles. If you go 5miles/hr for and 1 hr, you go five miles. Both will expend the same energy (Energy=Force x Distance). You will have been operating at a higher power setting (Power=Force x Velocity) when you go faster but for only 1/2 the time with my example. The energy expended is the same for both. I'm not including small factors like wind resistance or heat expended.
Effort at a given instant is associated with your power level. Effort over time or distance is associated with energy expended.
That's not even true for cars, which get different gas mileage at different speeds. (In the real world, factors like wind resistance actually exist and affect results.)
For the human machine, running is not as efficient a movement as walking -- you'll get there faster, but you must expend more energy than you would if you walked the same distance.
I know wind resistance increases as a function of velocity squared and is significant at hight speeds where it is a big factor compared to friction (cars). At low running speeds, it will not be any where as significant. It will require a higher power level to overcome but not much. Power integrated over time is energy. That is why we pay our power bills in Kw-hrs which is a unit of energy.
I agree real-world, more energy will be expended by going faster. Double the speed isnt double the calories though for the same distance due to factors discussed on this thread. It increases it some more but the dominant effect is as I originally stated (energy =force x distance).
My main interest is how going fast changes the bmr.
It doesn't.
BMR is the amount of calories your body burns if you were in a coma. Absolutely zero movement is factored into that.
NEAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Non-Exercise. That's sitting at a desk, typing, cooking dinner, grocery shopping, driving your car.
EAT is the amount of calories your body burns through Exercise. That generally does not include EPOC (the amount of calories your body burns after exercise during recovery) partially due to your BMR still counting during the exercise period.
TEF is the amount of energy your body uses while digesting foods. Most people eat fairly balanced macros, so we usually ignore this number except to talk about why eating 2 meals versus 6 meals creates the same response in the body, which means you can skip breakfast because it doesn't "kick start" your metabolism.
I don't beieve you are correct. Even if you're not moving, your BMR/EAT can be higher or lower depending on things like how active you have been. I believe that is due to the number and size of the mitochondria in your cells. Not everyone with the exact same mass has the same bmr/EAT. It is a function of how active you are or have been in the past.
I didn't say those numbers are permanent. Higher lean mass will result in higher BMR. Better VO2max results in lower EAT for exercising at the same level, which is why you have to increase intensity over time to get the same burn. Better VO2max results in an increase in BMR.
Running 6mph once isn't going to improve any of the markers that impact BMR or EAT. Doing it on a continual basis will improve BMR. Walking on a continual basis will have a similar impact, but because it requires less effort to sustain you have to increase intensity earlier to continue getting increased benefits. Lifting weights has a lower calorie burn than running, but a greater EPOC. Lifting weights improves BMR more than running due to increase of lean mass, which burns more calories.
I concur and am saying the same. I just want to know how the bmr is increased over time by going consistently faster over time.
If you are looking to impact BMR I highly suggest resistance training. It improves lean mass and VO2max.
I agree, but how does this work? I th8nk it is the power cells (mitochondria effect) but I'm not sure.
I think you want to read up on cellular respiration.
I would like to do that.
http://study.com/articles/7_Universities_with_Free_Online_Biology_Courses.html
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/biology/0 -
If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
So, are you saying if for two miles I stroll at 2.5 or power walk at 4.5, the calorie expenditure will be the same?
I think you might be wrong about that, because a 4.5 power walk will use a whole lot more oxygen than that 2.5 stroll.
Not that I'm into power walking, as I'm not because my cardio choice is running (hence my username)
No, higher speed will be more cals but a doubling of speed will not double cals expended. Since your going faster you get there quicker and are going faster for less time.
Well, of course not. I might have missed the boat, but I don't think anyone said that doubling your speed will double the calories burned. You will burn more calories at a higher speed, but....where did the double analogy come from? For the calorie burn to be double would be kind of odd, in my opinion.
0 -
If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
So, are you saying if for two miles I stroll at 2.5 or power walk at 4.5, the calorie expenditure will be the same?
I think you might be wrong about that, because a 4.5 power walk will use a whole lot more oxygen than that 2.5 stroll.
Not that I'm into power walking, as I'm not because my cardio choice is running (hence my username)
No, higher speed will be more cals but a doubling of speed will not double cals expended. Since your going faster you get there quicker and are going faster for less time.
Well, of course not. I might have missed the boat, but I don't think anyone said that doubling your speed will double the calories burned. You will burn more calories at a higher speed, but....where did the double analogy come from? For the calorie burn to be double would be kind of odd, in my opinion.
I think he was just trying to illustrate that there wasn't a linear relationship between speed and energy0 -
When you run, you are airborne for a split second with each step. This involves pushing your body mass upwards against gravity, over and over. Much more work than walking.0
-
I purposely posted this knowing how the power and energy thing worked to get people to think and also to get feedback on why it will overall be better to go faster on the biological level (assuming you don't get injured).
Biology and engineering aren't really related. To move faster a person has to convert ATP into ADP at a higher rate.
Power is the rate of energy. You are talking about power. Biological systems have mass and are moved by forces. They do relate in this context.
No, they really don't. We aren't machines.
You cannot say they don't relate, they do relate. No we are not machines, but the rules of mechanics, physics, and thermodynamics still apply to us. There is a relation, the degree of relation can be argued, but the relation cannot be denied
Go ahead and help explain to me how running 2 miles and walking 2 miles should burn the same amount of calories.
Energy = force x distance (not speed). That is the definition of mechanical work/energy.
10miles/hr x .5 hr = 5mile
5miles/hr x 1hr = 5 miles
At the lower speed your only going for 1/2 the time. Assuming the force is constant (isnt with our bodies going different speeds).
E1 = F x D1 = F x (V1 x T1) = F x (V2 x T2). E is energy, D is dist, V is velocity, T is time.
I need to read about cellular respiration and you need to pick up a physics book!0 -
If a person walks a certain distance, the energy expended getting there is the same no matter how fast you go to get there. If you get someplace fast, the power level you operated at to get there was higher than if you went slower but the energy expended (cals) is the same whether you go fast or slow.
How does going faster help us then in loosing cals? I think the answer is that the higher power levels required for going faster (or lifting heavier) will increase our base metabolism rate. I'm not sure how that works but maybe going faster helps develop bigger mitochondria to handle the power levels required to go faster which then require more energy to function when peak loads are not placed on them thus upping the bmr. Any biologists out there to explain?
So, are you saying if for two miles I stroll at 2.5 or power walk at 4.5, the calorie expenditure will be the same?
I think you might be wrong about that, because a 4.5 power walk will use a whole lot more oxygen than that 2.5 stroll.
Not that I'm into power walking, as I'm not because my cardio choice is running (hence my username)
No, higher speed will be more cals but a doubling of speed will not double cals expended. Since your going faster you get there quicker and are going faster for less time.
Well, of course not. I might have missed the boat, but I don't think anyone said that doubling your speed will double the calories burned. You will burn more calories at a higher speed, but....where did the double analogy come from? For the calorie burn to be double would be kind of odd, in my opinion.
I think he was just trying to illustrate that there wasn't a linear relationship between speed and energy
I was trying to show that e=f x d is a main factor and is applicable even to human bodies. Going up and down while running is also a large factor as discussed.0 -
I thought this would generate some discussion!0
-
I purposely posted this knowing how the power and energy thing worked to get people to think and also to get feedback on why it will overall be better to go faster on the biological level (assuming you don't get injured).
Biology and engineering aren't really related. To move faster a person has to convert ATP into ADP at a higher rate.
Power is the rate of energy. You are talking about power. Biological systems have mass and are moved by forces. They do relate in this context.
No, they really don't. We aren't machines.
You cannot say they don't relate, they do relate. No we are not machines, but the rules of mechanics, physics, and thermodynamics still apply to us. There is a relation, the degree of relation can be argued, but the relation cannot be denied
Go ahead and help explain to me how running 2 miles and walking 2 miles should burn the same amount of calories.
Energy = force x distance (not speed). That is the definition of mechanical work/energy.
10miles/hr x .5 hr = 5mile
5miles/hr x 1hr = 5 miles
At the lower speed your only going for 1/2 the time. Assuming the force is constant (isnt with our bodies going different speeds).
E1 = F x D1 = F x (V1 x T1) = F x (V2 x T2). E is energy, D is dist, V is velocity, T is time.
I need to read about cellular respiration and you need to pick up a physics book!
I have taken a physics course. Your formula doesn't work for the human body.0 -
I purposely posted this knowing how the power and energy thing worked to get people to think and also to get feedback on why it will overall be better to go faster on the biological level (assuming you don't get injured).
Biology and engineering aren't really related. To move faster a person has to convert ATP into ADP at a higher rate.
Power is the rate of energy. You are talking about power. Biological systems have mass and are moved by forces. They do relate in this context.
No, they really don't. We aren't machines.
You cannot say they don't relate, they do relate. No we are not machines, but the rules of mechanics, physics, and thermodynamics still apply to us. There is a relation, the degree of relation can be argued, but the relation cannot be denied
Go ahead and help explain to me how running 2 miles and walking 2 miles should burn the same amount of calories.
Energy = force x distance (not speed). That is the definition of mechanical work/energy.
10miles/hr x .5 hr = 5mile
5miles/hr x 1hr = 5 miles
At the lower speed your only going for 1/2 the time. Assuming the force is constant (isnt with our bodies going different speeds).
E1 = F x D1 = F x (V1 x T1) = F x (V2 x T2). E is energy, D is dist, V is velocity, T is time.
I need to read about cellular respiration and you need to pick up a physics book!
I have taken a physics course. Your formula doesn't work for the human body.
I dont know how to help you. It most assuredly does. It isnt a complete model for sure due to all things talked about in this thread but until we are massless, it does apply.0 -
I purposely posted this knowing how the power and energy thing worked to get people to think and also to get feedback on why it will overall be better to go faster on the biological level (assuming you don't get injured).
Biology and engineering aren't really related. To move faster a person has to convert ATP into ADP at a higher rate.
Power is the rate of energy. You are talking about power. Biological systems have mass and are moved by forces. They do relate in this context.
No, they really don't. We aren't machines.
You cannot say they don't relate, they do relate. No we are not machines, but the rules of mechanics, physics, and thermodynamics still apply to us. There is a relation, the degree of relation can be argued, but the relation cannot be denied
Go ahead and help explain to me how running 2 miles and walking 2 miles should burn the same amount of calories.
Energy = force x distance (not speed). That is the definition of mechanical work/energy.
10miles/hr x .5 hr = 5mile
5miles/hr x 1hr = 5 miles
At the lower speed your only going for 1/2 the time. Assuming the force is constant (isnt with our bodies going different speeds).
E1 = F x D1 = F x (V1 x T1) = F x (V2 x T2). E is energy, D is dist, V is velocity, T is time.
There's an efficiency involved that this formula neglects, not too mention that it neglects the complex mechanics of movement inherent in the human body.I need to read about cellular respiration
Yes, you doyou need to pick up a physics book!
No, I think she's good.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions