Do you burn less calories doing the same exact workout as cardio improves?
mathoma94
Posts: 13 Member
For example, I run 5.5 miles a day in 45 minutes Monday-Friday. I do this exact workout every time without any changes but I notice it's gotten much easier as my cardio has improved and I assume my peak/active heart rate is quite a bit lower as well. I'm not breathing as heavy or feel like I'm "pushing myself" as much doing this workout now versus when I first started out. I'm maintaining my weight so that hasn't changed, I'm doing the same length/distance, the same duration, and even the same exact speed/gradient (treadmill guided). Am I burning less calories now than I did when I started out a month ago because my body has adapted and doesn't need to work as hard to run the 5.5 miles?
I hope this question doesn't sound too stupid but thanks for any advice!
I hope this question doesn't sound too stupid but thanks for any advice!
0
Replies
-
Mikeytom94 wrote: »For example, I run 5.5 miles a day in 45 minutes Monday-Friday. I do this exact workout every time without any changes but I notice it's gotten much easier as my cardio has improved and I assume my peak/active heart rate is quite a bit lower as well. I'm not breathing as heavy or feel like I'm "pushing myself" as much doing this workout now versus when I first started out. I'm maintaining my weight so that hasn't changed, I'm doing the same length/distance, the same duration, and even the same exact speed/gradient (treadmill guided). Am I burning less calories now than I did when I started out a month ago because my body has adapted and doesn't need to work as hard to run the 5.5 miles?
I hope this question doesn't sound too stupid but thanks for any advice!
If you weigh less, and your heart rate is lower for the same 5.5 miles now that you have adapted from when you started doing the same 45 minute run - you "may" or "may not" be burning a few less calories depending on how much weight you have lost and the difference in your heart rates. I doubt that in one month's time you have seen a huge drop off in heart rate to show that you are burning a measurable less amount. It's more to do with the training effect, load, and stress which has led to the adaptation.
Time for some intervals, additional duration, or a combination of both to continue with the training effect which will put the next load/stress on your body to adapt.0 -
You say you're maintaining, so you are moving the same weight the same distance in the same amount of time. Theoretically you are also burning the same number of calories.
What has changed is the ability of your body to move oxygen to those working muscles (VO2max is the technical term). As your VO2max rises, your hear rate drops as does your perceived effort.
Congrats!
I also agree with @SingingSingleTracker. Time to add sprints to your routine.0 -
If you become more efficient in your running (eg weighing less or reduced arm movement), there may be a small decrease in calories burned but it is always good to mix things up a bit. If you always run the same distance at the same speed, you will only become very efficient at running that distance and speed. Why not try adding in an interval or two (sprinting from pedestrian crossings for example) or playing with different times and distances.0
-
Edit: I started writing before other folks replied and lots of my input overlaps with theirs. Good that we're on the same page anyway.
I'm just about certain it has to be fewer calories burned. I'm seriously into endurance and I was wondering this too at some point.
Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but you burn more the higher your heart rate is (and you consequently require more oxygen). Improving endurance while staying the same weight means your resting heart rate will decrease and your VO2 max will increase - you're taking less effort to do the same thing at the same weight.
When I began noticing I was taking distinctly longer to produce sweat and didn't feel as tired by the end of the workout, I stopped governing my cardio by time. Instead, I consciously cranked up the intensity and focused on getting the heart rate up-up-up and getting into a zone where I'd be taking really, really hard breaths.
Try to get past 90% of your max heart rate several times throughout the cardio and maintain it for a couple minutes each time (if you have the conditioning for it).
Remember the feeling next time you finish an endurance workout that you know took all your effort and use it as a measuring stick for your subsequent ones. If I don't feel like collapsing, I know I got lazy.0 -
Calorie burn is about physics, not feeling easier or lower heart rate through fitness improvements, not sweating.....
Net Running calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.63) x (Distance in miles)
So if you get lighter yes you will burn less calories for the same distance.
There's a really insignificant difference in running efficiency compared to other activities.
VO2 improvements show you have increased capacity it doesn't mean less energy to move mass over distance.
Want to burn more calories? Run faster for same duration or run further at same pace.
0 -
Edit: I started writing before other folks replied and lots of my input overlaps with theirs. Good that we're on the same page anyway.
I'm just about certain it has to be fewer calories burned. I'm seriously into endurance and I was wondering this too at some point.
Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but you burn more the higher your heart rate is (and you consequently require more oxygen). Improving endurance while staying the same weight means your resting heart rate will decrease and your VO2 max will increase - you're taking less effort to do the same thing at the same weight.
When I began noticing I was taking distinctly longer to produce sweat and didn't feel as tired by the end of the workout, I stopped governing my cardio by time. Instead, I consciously cranked up the intensity and focused on getting the heart rate up-up-up and getting into a zone where I'd be taking really, really hard breaths.
Try to get past 90% of your max heart rate several times throughout the cardio and maintain it for a couple minutes each time (if you have the conditioning for it).
Remember the feeling next time you finish an endurance workout that you know took all your effort and use it as a measuring stick for your subsequent ones. If I don't feel like collapsing, I know I got lazy.
Totally agree with all that.
You are improving and that is the whole point.
Be proud
And.... also agree with SingingSingle.. Time for some intervals !
0 -
If weight and distance stay the same, then it's not significant enough to mention.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Of course.
I walk a route with my dog nightly that is 1.6 kms. About 1km of that is uphill. When I first started on that route it took me 20 minutes to walk it and I would be puffed at the top of the hill. Now it takes me 12-14 minutes and I am not puffed at all. Now I have a cold, so yesterday I took 20 minutes again, and it didn't even change my breathing to go up the hill that slow.
You have to turn up the intensity or change the type of exercise you do as your condition improves because A)you are carrying less weight and
your body grows more efficient in completing familiar exercises (the muscle to complete them is in place, and accustomed to that degree of use). 0 -
Nothing complicated about this. Of course you are burning less calories. http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html0
-
If weight and distance stay the same, then it's not significant enough to mention.
I don't know brother - wouldn't the significance just depend on how significant the improvement in endurance is? Using myself as an example, I went from a resting heart rate of 75 to 42 (both measured professionally and accurately) and I've remained the same weight. My old workouts would be a joke compared to now; I wouldn't be anywhere near as tired doing them for the same amount of time. Being cognizant of intensity, breathing effort and heart rate and doing my best to heighten all of that in the same allotted time for the same workout is the only way I actually feel tired by the end of it.
I know this is just a personal anecdote but I just have to be curious about how significant. If I change the context to nutrition, changing the temperature of the water and drinking green tea would be what I consider insignificant contributors to metabolic changes that aren't worth considering (for the sake of those changes - in and of themselves they're great of course). When you think insignificant, would the magnitude be comparable to the nutrition example I gave or quite a bit more if there were a significant improvement in endurance?0 -
Calorie burn is about physics, not feeling easier or lower heart rate through fitness improvements, not sweating.....
Net Running calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.63) x (Distance in miles)
So if you get lighter yes you will burn less calories for the same distance.
There's a really insignificant difference in running efficiency compared to other activities.
VO2 improvements show you have increased capacity it doesn't mean less energy to move mass over distance.
Want to burn more calories? Run faster for same duration or run further at same pace.
Yay, physics!
There'll always be an absolute minimum that must be burned just for the physical movement (law of physics, perpetual motion does not exist, every action needs an energy input), plus some small amount for whatever inefficiencies your body has.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »every action needs an energy input
That's the thing though - depending on how much someone has improved, it takes significantly less energy. It takes a lot more to get tired/higher intensity to get the heart rate up in the same amount of time.
See:fyoung1111 wrote: »Nothing complicated about this. Of course you are burning less calories. http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html
(Thanks for that.)
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »every action needs an energy input
That's the thing though - depending on how much someone has improved, it takes significantly less energy. It takes a lot more to get tired/higher intensity to get the heart rate up in the same amount of time.
See:fyoung1111 wrote: »Nothing complicated about this. Of course you are burning less calories. http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html
(Thanks for that.)
The energy required to move your legs forward has nothing to do with heart rate or how tired you get.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »The energy required to move your legs forward has nothing to do with heart rate or how tired you get.
Some of you folks are saying it's fewer burnt but it's by an insignificant amount; you're saying it's not even by an insignificant amount, but it remains the exact same, no matter what?
If someone were running for 90 minutes, how could the tiredness developing over time have nothing to do with how much overall oxygen you need? How could the the tiredness developing over time have nothing to do with, well, "how tired you get" as you phrased it?
Wouldn't endurance related improvements that let you do an activity that involves heart rate going up for a long period of time (which is what cardio is) mean the exhaustion that builds overtime would take more effort if the duration were the same as pre-improvement duration?
In here, for example http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html it calculated an additional 258 cals burnt for the same time with a 10% higher heart rate -- which is absolutely significant.0 -
I am a runner and did the exact same workout today as I did last week and the week before, I am indeed burning less calories, I got more efficient doing this exact workout.
I use HRM every time I run and have data to review so variables are to be considered, such as your sleep, diet the day before, hydration, mood, etc..
Lot' of variables involved but I will say yes if all the variables are the same condition as the first time you did the workout.0 -
HRMs do not and cannot measure calories! Energy cannot be measured in heart beats.
Imagine you had a 200 watt electric motor that could only just move a 200lb weight. It is at its limit and will use X amount of energy.
Now you swap it for a 250 watt electric motor that can easily move the same 200lb weight well within its capabilities. It still just uses X amount of energy.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »The energy required to move your legs forward has nothing to do with heart rate or how tired you get.
Some of you folks are saying it's fewer burnt but it's by an insignificant amount; you're saying it's not even by an insignificant amount, but it remains the exact same, no matter what?
If someone were running for 90 minutes, how could the tiredness developing over time have nothing to do with how much overall oxygen you need? How could the the tiredness developing over time have nothing to do with, well, "how tired you get" as you phrased it?
Wouldn't endurance related improvements that let you do an activity that involves heart rate going up for a long period of time (which is what cardio is) mean the exhaustion that builds overtime would take more effort if the duration were the same as pre-improvement duration?
In here, for example http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html it calculated an additional 258 cals burnt for the same time with a 10% higher heart rate -- which is absolutely significant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)#Work_and_energy
To move your mass you need a certain force F. You do that for x meters you get an amount of energy that is minimally required just by the mechanical work necessary. Any extra required energy is from inefficiencies.0 -
I guess I will ditch the HRM for my running..
OP, maybe you find these useful links..
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/hrms-cannot-count-calories-during-strength-training-176980 -
stevencloser wrote: »https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)#Work_and_energy
To move your mass you need a certain force F. You do that for x meters you get an amount of energy that is minimally required just by the mechanical work necessary. Any extra required energy is from inefficiencies.
I don't mind if I sound like a putz - but could you reconcile that with what I was asking just so I could intuitively understand? Is the heart rate-calorie calculator we were referring to have no science to back it up? (I understand that there could be inaccuracies, but the fundamental concept of burning more while having an indisputably higher heart rate.) Is someone who requires a lot more oxygen/energy and who is categorically at a higher % of their max heart rate not burning more than someone who's their weight and age who needs less of all that?
I'm totally open to changing my mind but I'm having trouble imagining how someone who's at the point of panting and puffing and sweating a pool could not have burned more/expended more energy than someone who's coolly going about without a shred of real difficulty. If you can work in your point to this example (or the one from the previous paragraph), that would explain it to me more than adequately.0 -
Calorie burn is about physics, not feeling easier or lower heart rate through fitness improvements, not sweating.....
Net Running calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.63) x (Distance in miles)
So if you get lighter yes you will burn less calories for the same distance.
There's a really insignificant difference in running efficiency compared to other activities.
VO2 improvements show you have increased capacity it doesn't mean less energy to move mass over distance.
Want to burn more calories? Run faster for same duration or run further at same pace.
This. Running/walking is pretty predictable by formulas.
I'd actually say you are looking at this backwards...I think if you are an untrained beginner and cover x miles you might burn more calories than the calculators suggest. But as you get efficient, you are going to hone in on what a lot of running calculators say. So take a 180 lb person running 5.5 miles per the above calculation = ~624 calories. It's possible this person was burning closer to 650-700 when this activity was new and challenging for them. But they shouldn't drop much below the 624 even if it feels a lot easier for them over time.
It's also actually a good thing that most of your runs are at an 'easy' pace. That said, always re-evaluate and don't be surprised if your easy pace next year is faster than your easy pace was this year. The standard calculation for calories / mile is ~100 calories per mile. Whether you walk, run, whatever (maybe crawling burns more I don't know...) So covering miles in any fashion is still going to be in the ballpark of that calculation. If you aren't trying to improve as a runner, I don't think there's any need for you to push yourself more often than you want to. If you are running just for calorie burn, I see nothing wrong with doing the same thing over and over.0 -
Just because it may be easier for you to burn the calories burned during a run, as you improve, does not mean that you are not burning those calories.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)#Work_and_energy
To move your mass you need a certain force F. You do that for x meters you get an amount of energy that is minimally required just by the mechanical work necessary. Any extra required energy is from inefficiencies.
I don't mind if I sound like a putz - but could you reconcile that with what I was asking just so I could intuitively understand? Is the heart rate-calorie calculator we were referring to have no science to back it up? (I understand that there could be inaccuracies, but the fundamental concept of burning more while having an indisputably higher heart rate.) Is someone who requires a lot more oxygen/energy and who is categorically at a higher % of their max heart rate not burning more than someone who's their weight and age who needs less of all that?
I'm totally open to changing my mind but I'm having trouble imagining how someone who's at the point of panting and puffing and sweating a pool could not have burned more/expended more energy than someone who's coolly going about without a shred of real difficulty. If you can work in your point to this example (or the one from the previous paragraph), that would explain it to me more than adequately.
Your link didn't ask for distance, so I guess it's inferring distance ran by time and heart rate.
As for the calorie burn itself: Dunno. The speed you're running at should have an impact at the very least because of inertia, having to exert more energy to push your body away from crashing into the ground than if you were walking, and that together with heart rate...
I only know that that physics equation is going to be the absolute lowest you'd possibly burn by doing what you're doing, if you were a 100% efficient machine. You're gonna burn some extra as evidenced by getting warm which is energy getting transformed to heat. So running a distance is definitely going to burn more than just walking. The higher heart rate might burn a bit more too.
Is that going to make a big difference? I dunno. 1 kcal = 1 liter of water increasing by 1 degree. The heat you're emitting should not make a big difference then.0 -
Heart rate only loosely correlates to calories burned.
- Heart rate is higher when the temp is higher. Are you burning more calories standing around at 45F or 100F? An HRM would give you the wrong answer.
- Heart rate slowly increases the longer you have been performing an activity even if you keep constant intensity. It's called cardiac drift.
- Heart rate is increased when you feel pain, are stressed, are not well-rested, are dehydrated, have had caffeine in the last 24hrs.
- Heart rate increases when the body needs more oxygen**
**How much work you need to do before you need more oxygen, how much effort you perceive that to be, and how much your HR needs to increase to meet that need depends on your level of fitness. Depending on how you've been training, you can have several adaptations that make your perceived effort much lower for the same amount of actual work.- Increased VO2 max: absolute ability to deliver more oxygen to the cell
- Increased lactate clearance rate: ability to remove lactate faster (at the same work load, burning/fatigue takes longer to accumulate)
- Increased glycogen storage: more 'quick energy' available
- Increased strength of bone, muscle, tendon, ligament
I'll also add that if your HRM isn't calibrated right, the calculations may be really, really off. 50% of the population is at least one standard deviation away from the usual 220-age formulation for max HR that's (along with resting heart rate) used to calculate your relative effort. Some are much farther off. And some of those also have a lower resting heart rate than the HRM estimates based on age.
I'm one that gets the double whammy. I'm 41. 220-age = 179 calculated max HR. My normal HR when running and still able to sing and speak in complete sentences is in the 180s. I've double checked manually (easy, because it matches my cadence) and the HRM is correct. Push myself to breathing hard and I'm in the 200's. On the other hand, my resting HR is somewhere between 40 and 45 (not measured enough times to be sure yet). What that means is that when I run, the HRM calorie calculator basically doubles what I'm actually burning based on distance.
ETA: minor grammar fixes0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions