Does 2 two mile jogs = 1 four mile jog?

ReaganP13

My question is - Sometimes I run in the morning for about 40 minutes, and I am pretty slow so for me that's usually about 4.5 miles. Other times, I will run 2 miles in the morning, then again 2 miles later in the day. Sometimes I will run 4 separate times (1 mile each) on a weekend when I am free to do something like that. Since my pace, distance, and cumulative time is generally the same, when I log my calories here, it comes out the same. MY QUESTION - is it actually the same? I feel more tired and sweaty and like my heart rate is up more from the longer straight through run. But the shorter broken up runs I could do at a quicker pace (even though right now I am not). My goal is to burn through the calories for weight loss primarily, although the thought of becoming a better runner in general is also very appealing. Anyone have input on what the best method for weight loss is?

Runningmischka

I would suggest getting a device that keeps track of all your runs. There are some nice (but not so cheap) devices out there, but you can also download free apps. I personally use RunMeter, but there are plenty other free apps available. My shortest recent run was 3 miles. However, the stats from my 6 miler were not just doubled. So in general, I believe you will get different results.

ReaganP13

Thanks for that. I run on a super old treadmill, so I am not sure what type of device would be good for me.... a HRM to track my heartrate and see what I burn? I feel so technology-dumb. I just got a smart phone a few weeks ago, and am only really learning how the heck to use apps now. Do those apps just work by tracking your location if you run outdoors?

Runningmischka

Oh treadmill. Ok, the apps won't work because they use GPS to track your location. If the treadmill does not have a calorie counter, your option is getting an HRM. And please don't feel so technology-dumb If my 92 year old granny can somewhat successfully operate a tablet ( if only to skype), I'm sure you can figure out some apps :-) Feel free to add me btw, if you'd like.

heybales

Yes the longer run is harder - feels harder - but still burning the same if same pace, and your weight is probably the same.

HR will likely be higher for that same reason because it feels harder - and that's exactly what a HRM would show you.

Of course, HRM for calorie count would also say you burned more in second half with higher HR - even though that is NOT true.

It's like - does the first set of squats at X weight feel easier or harder than the second set at same weight?

2nd set usually harder, because muscles are tired.

Same with run - when you divide it up, you get recovery.

Use this for calorie count - more accurate than HRM actually.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

The Gross option is what HRM or database or treadmill would report. For what you want to log and eat back so you keep a hopefully reasonable deficit, use the NET option.

vegwrangler

A mile is roughly 100 calories burned regardless of speed or how many you do back to back.

In fact, I had a coach awhile back that suggested that I break long runs into smaller chunks like this whilst running for weightloss and ramping up for a half marathon that I really didn't care if I did all that fast. There was a bunch of talk about glycogen stores and burning fat vs. muscle... but I don't remember all of the details, I just remember he said it was better for me to do three 45 minute runs spread through the day rather than one 2.25 hour run because more fat vs muscle would burn off.

lhippen

If your objective is to burn more calories, then I believe 2 two mile jogs are better due to the after-burn effect. I recommend the following article from Runners World (http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn.) It probably doesn't make a big difference though.

Also, I have been running for many years--enough that my average pace has had to slow substantially. And in my opinion, an 8:53 per mile pace (4.5 mile in 40 minutes) is as fast or faster than your average runner. That pace may not win you any races, but it is nothing to be ashamed of.

ParkerH47

This is just a guess but I would actually think the calorie burn would be different. Think of it like this:your body burns different types of energy depending on what is available. So at first you would be using glycogen stores in your muscle then depending on your intensity you may either use lactic acid (the muscle burn) or fat metabolism.

While it might be a bad analogy think of how different the bodies look of sprinters vs marathon runners. I can look into it more if you would like because I'm not sure if the total energy expenditure would actually be different or if just the type of energy substrate is different (fat vs glycogen vs blood sugar etc)

not sure if that was helpful lol

heybales

A mile is roughly 100 calories burned regardless of speed or how many you do back to back.

In fact, I had a coach awhile back that suggested that I break long runs into smaller chunks like this whilst running for weightloss and ramping up for a half marathon that I really didn't care if I did all that fast. There was a bunch of talk about glycogen stores and burning fat vs. muscle... but I don't remember all of the details, I just remember he said it was better for me to do three 45 minute runs spread through the day rather than one 2.25 hour run because more fat vs muscle would burn off.

The pace of that mile makes a difference. But agreed it's the same in chunks or at once.
http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html


So you and others will understand what was being suggested and why.

It takes about 30 min of exercise for the body to slip in to the final ratio of energy source for carbs:fat (unless going over anaerobic threshold, always burning some ratio).
Prior to that, higher carb%.

There is limited carb stores, and while in a diet, body doesn't even top off what it would like to (hence fast water weight gain when eating at maintenance).

After about 90 min of average intensity exercise (shorter if you go harder), your liver carb store are getting low, but blood sugar must still be maintained, so amino acids are converted to glucose. Amino acids from muscle breakdown that is happening somewhere, or leftover from last meal.

After anywhere from 2-4 hrs the muscle glucose stores have now been used up too (the wall, or bonk in cycling) if too fast a pace, and now your body slows way down so it's normal ratio of carbs:fat energy source is higher fat, and the carbs can now come from that slower amino acid conversion which isn't efficient enough, now your body is breaking down muscle you aren't using or is least used to provide that.

So up to that point, you are burning same amount of fat you were going to burn at whatever pace you are going, but by having several runs where you can eat between and refill stores, much less likely to burn off a tad bit a muscle, and never get to point of burning off a lot.

But it was never a fat vs muscle option. It's carbs vs muscle.

And the solution is to just slow down, just like you'd need to do in a race to finish successfully and not be walking at the end. I've never hit the wall in a marathon - went the correct pace, and no mid-race fueling needed either but a little sports drink for the blood sugar and electrolytes.

lilly101E

Get a fitbit or something similar. It tracks active minuets and steps taken. A Polar loop is also a good choice.

vegwrangler

Sorry OP, going totes off-topic for a minute but heybales fixed a misconception of mine and I wanted to thank him!

A mile is roughly 100 calories burned regardless of speed or how many you do back to back.

The pace of that mile makes a difference. But agreed it's the same in chunks or at once.
http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html

I am now running late for work because I fell down the informational rabbit hole about the differences between "gross caloric burn" and "net metabolic burn."

"Thanks to the Syracuse researchers, we now know the relative NCB of running a mile in 9:30 versus walking the same mile in 19:00. Their male subjects burned 105 calories running, 52 walking; the women, 91 and 43. That is, running burns twice as many net calories per mile as walking. And since you can run two miles in the time it takes to walk one mile, running burns four times as many net calories per hour as walking."

phil6707

Not sure, your body starts to react differently after a certain amount of effort. You should consult a professional trainer to get an accurate answer.

ReaganP13

BIG THANKS to everyone who answered!! It was awesome to come back to this and read all these great responses. I am sorta pleased to hear that breaking up my run into shorter more often runs is pretty much the same at the end of the day calorie-burning-wise. I remember growing up hearing the philosophy of "you have to keep your heart rate up for 20 minutes minimum before you can get a proper cardio calorie burning work out.". For me, I rather run 2 times for 20 minutes, than once for 40. Also, for me personally, the 20 minute burst I can run at a faster pace and push myself further in.

I'm also definitely going to look into a heart rate monitor. Lots to try out and research. Right now money is an issue, but I'll get ehre.

It seems like what my running routine might come down to is whatever feels good for my body and keeps me motivated enough to keep on advancing.

heybales

Exactly.

And indeed you probably should be able to do a shorter run faster, even 2 x, compared to 1 x longer. Faster means more distance in same time, means more calorie burn.

Of course, hope it's not purely about calorie burn, since you want to maintain a reasonable deficit now matter how much you burn.
And if you treat each workout as max to burn calories, you'll actually be missing out on better ways to get your body to improve actually, not just burn calories.

ReaganP13

Well, I'd be lying if I said I didnt start running just because I have an old treadmill, and was looking to burn calories to trigger weight loss. BUT, BUT, BUT..... I can honestly now say I am enjoying how I can run faster and am not as out of breath. I am noticing changes in my endurance that I definitely like, so even though I still want weight loss and calories burned, I am definitely becoming a big fan of actually getting healthier. Who woulda thunk it?

PS. (Warning: big tangent coming): I am also noticing other changes since running/working out in general - I am handling the heat of the summer much much better. I used to sweat like crazy (no joke) and be so uncomfortable in anything about 77 or so degrees, and I am much more comfortable and not sweaty now. Its actually a very dramatic difference from any other summer I have had, and this is the first summer I have been consistently pushing my body physically, so I think it has to be that. I love this side effect. Also my face when I started running was tomato red after 1 mile at 5.7, and now is just pink after 1 mile at 6.5. THAT FEELS AWESOME.

jchite84

At those distances it's pretty close. Running burns between ~100 and ~150 calories depending on intensity. The big difference with what happens after your burn through glycogen stores. After 1-2 hours of running, depending on diet, your body burns through the sugar in your muscles and has to rely on bodyfat for energy. The number of calories you burn is lower on a longer run, but over time it can help lead to more bodyfat reduction. Get a good HRM if you really want to see the difference.

kalegria24

Well, I'd be lying if I said I didnt start running just because I have an old treadmill, and was looking to burn calories to trigger weight loss. BUT, BUT, BUT..... I can honestly now say I am enjoying how I can run faster and am not as out of breath. I am noticing changes in my endurance that I definitely like, so even though I still want weight loss and calories burned, I am definitely becoming a big fan of actually getting healthier. Who woulda thunk it?

PS. (Warning: big tangent coming): I am also noticing other changes since running/working out in general - I am handling the heat of the summer much much better. I used to sweat like crazy (no joke) and be so uncomfortable in anything about 77 or so degrees, and I am much more comfortable and not sweaty now. Its actually a very dramatic difference from any other summer I have had, and this is the first summer I have been consistently pushing my body physically, so I think it has to be that. I love this side effect. Also my face when I started running was tomato red after 1 mile at 5.7, and now is just pink after 1 mile at 6.5. THAT FEELS AWESOME.

Whoo Hooo for you!!!!!!!!! I think you are asking smart questions (I learned a lot!) and have a wonderful attitude! Keep up the good work!!!!

thavoice

My question is - Sometimes I run in the morning for about 40 minutes, and I am pretty slow so for me that's usually about 4.5 miles. Other times, I will run 2 miles in the morning, then again 2 miles later in the day. Sometimes I will run 4 separate times (1 mile each) on a weekend when I am free to do something like that. Since my pace, distance, and cumulative time is generally the same, when I log my calories here, it comes out the same. MY QUESTION - is it actually the same? I feel more tired and sweaty and like my heart rate is up more from the longer straight through run. But the shorter broken up runs I could do at a quicker pace (even though right now I am not). My goal is to burn through the calories for weight loss primarily, although the thought of becoming a better runner in general is also very appealing. Anyone have input on what the best method for weight loss is?

Very good questions.
Many times 2 shorter runs 1 miles can be more beneficial than one 2 mile run, that is if you make those two runs faster and more intense.
If both runs are about the same pace then in the grand scheme of things it isnt going to make a whole lot of difference.
Some people believe in one long workout, but if you really tale off on the run late then you arent burning as much as if you had two, faster, shorter runs.


Now..if your goal was to get miles in for a HM or full marathon, or any other race for that matter, I would suggest getting in the 1 longer run as your legs need to get used to that pounding. With that said though....if you needed to get 6 miles in some day and the only way time wise you can do it is 3 and 3 then that is fine, but for endurancre training the long runs are needed.