Running fast pace/low cal burn vs slow pace/high cal burn

Josedavid

Hello all,

I am training regularly and I graduated c25k last year. I ran many different distances and now that i got my personal trainer certification i am training others too.

I run 30 to 40 km per week and I noticed that when I do my runs for my training (i already ran many different distances from five km to half marathon) i burn like 1000 to 1100 cal in one hour running.

Now it comes my question. I noticed when I train with beginners that half an hour slow pace (6 to 8km per hour) I burn a lot more!!

Today I burned 1000 cal in half an hour in my friends c25k graduation day.

Would it be possible that slow pace implies longer time the step is in contact with the ground and therefore every step is as if i were doing a "lunge"?

Maybe the slower I run the more my legs work in every stride?

I dont know and Id like to see what do you think about that... please, to avoid long message threads with no outcome I would thank you if you comment and you have a point about that. Nothing like "i have a friend that has a neighbor that had a relative that had the same question"

Thanks!!

arc918

1,000 calories in 30 minutes of running sounds almost impossible to me (way too high).

At 175 lbs, I burn ~ 125 per mile. At a solid clip, I can run 8 miles in an hour (= ~ 1,000 calories).

Bottom line to burn 1,000 or 1,100 in an hour you need to be pretty heavy and pretty fast.

arc918

Are you wearing an HRM or going by the MFP database?

froeschli

I average 100 calories for 10 minutes. But I usually go the same speed (yes, I know I should mix it up).
As I understand it, whether you run 5k fast, or slow, in the end you burn about the same amount of calories, since you spend more time doing it when going slow. (no scientific research went into that statement, so I might be wrong).

ThickMcRunFast

I always have a lower calorie burn on faster runs. My last tempo run (5 miles at 7-7:15 min pace) netted me 503 calories, while a speed workout (fast 800s with jogs in between) of the same distance only gave me 433. I would burn 20-40 calories in the sprints and twice that in the recovery. For comparison, a 7 mile easy run (8:45 pace) will have me burning nearly 100 cals/mile. I have no idea why this happens, but there you go.

jillybeanruns

You're a certified personal trainer?!

And you think you can burn 1,000 calories in a half hour?!

:noway:

scottb81

At 170 lbs I burn generally between 120 and 130 cal per mile no matter the speed. A few more calories at faster speeds, but not much.

To burn 1000 calories in 30 min you would have to be running 16 mph or a little under 4 minute miles.

Your HRM or other calculation method is off unless you really were running around that fast or weigh more than 350 lbs.

Josedavid

Are you wearing an HRM or going by the MFP database?

Im still very heavy 104kg and very fast i guess...haha 11.5 km in one hour average.... and i am wearing hrm and its well calibrated

ashlinmarie

I burn about 12-15 calories per minute when running and I run at a pace of 12-13:40. I have noticed I burn more calories at a slower run because I stay within my goal heart rate (for me it is between 127-168bpm and usually it hangs around 155-160bpm) whereas, when I run faster, it hits around 170-175 bpm.

jillybeanruns

And for what it's worth, I burned 1630 calories running 20 miles over this weekend (and that includes a 20 minute CD walk).

Josedavid

I always have a lower calorie burn on faster runs. My last tempo run (5 miles at 7-7:15 min pace) netted me 503 calories, while a speed workout (fast 800s with jogs in between) of the same distance only gave me 433. I would burn 20-40 calories in the sprints and twice that in the recovery. For comparison, a 7 mile easy run (8:45 pace) will have me burning nearly 100 cals/mile. I have no idea why this happens, but there you go.

Thanks for the info!

Josedavid

You're a certified personal trainer?!

And you think you can burn 1,000 calories in a half hour?!

:noway:

1- yes i am, no big deal
2- thats why my hrm told me today, thats why i ask

Josedavid

I burn about 12-15 calories per minute when running and I run at a pace of 12-13:40. I have noticed I burn more calories at a slower run because I stay within my goal heart rate (for me it is between 127-168bpm and usually it hangs around 155-160bpm) whereas, when I run faster, it hits around 170-175 bpm.

it makes sense to me, thanks!

WineVine

You know, I was just wondering this myself.
I got a fancy pants HRM last week, and it actually tells me when my heart rate goes up past a certain point (about 130 for me, 5'10" 185lb) I switch from fat burn mode to cardiovascular fitness mode. I just assumes that I go slightly anaerobic at that point and am building more endurance?
Not an educated guess, but my 2 cents...

secretlobster

I really don't think you are burning 1000 calories in 30 minutes of running, regardless of what your HRM says... If that's you in your picture

What's your resting heart rate and your average heart rate when you run?

Edited to add: Many people will debate this, but at a slower pace, many HRMs are programmed to estimate your calorie burn as higher, because the manufacturers believe that you are burning more calories from fat, rather than dietary fuel, at a lower heart rate. There seems to be evidence of truth in this.

scottb81

At your weight you may be burning 200 cal per mile. To burn 1000 in 30 min you would have had to be running around 6 min miles.

ParaSempreAmor11

1000 calories in 30 minutes is just way to fast and harsh on your body, i burned 100 calories every 5 minutes so in 60 minute i burn around 1000 to 1200 calories

dane11235813

1000 calories in 30 minutes is just way to fast and harsh on your body, i burned 100 calories every 5 minutes so in 60 minute i burn around 1000 to 1200 calories

that itself still seems pretty high. how much do you weigh?

FrenchMob

You're a certified personal trainer?!

And you think you can burn 1,000 calories in a half hour?!

:noway:

1- yes i am, no big deal
2- thats why my hrm told me today, thats why i ask

You're not burning 1000 cals in 30 mins..sorry. You need a better HRM or you have an unusually higher HR than most and doesn't translate well to the typical cal burnt algorithms.

Josedavid

I really don't think you are burning 1000 calories in 30 minutes of running, regardless of what your HRM says... If that's you in your picture

What's your resting heart rate and your average heart rate when you run?

Edited to add: Many people will debate this, but at a slower pace, many HRMs are programmed to estimate your calorie burn as higher, because the manufacturers believe that you are burning more calories from fat, rather than dietary fuel, at a lower heart rate. There seems to be evidence of truth in this.

Well, it makes sense too...
my resting heart rate now is sixty five and my cruising is one hundred forty or fifty, it depends....

david081

I use a Polar FT4, and over a fixed distance, I burn less calories if I run the entire route than mixing it with running and walking - my theory is that when I stop running and walk a bit, my heart rate is still quite elevated (140 - 150) and so the hrm records more of a burn..? I would have to run 6.6 miles at 5-6mph to burn 1000 calories, and do so frequently...

Josedavid

Baby... controversy mode OFF. I am not gonna argue with you. I am not going to tell you about the successful stories from many clients. And if this is the kind of help you give when someone ask for something, thank you.

I am not in a competition to prove whos better doing what. But your attitude is just childish

sjohnny

This got me curious so I went and looked at four runs from the last couple of weeks of different distances or intensities. Here's what my results were (I'm 6'4" 205lbs and have only been running since November)
3.1 miles 24:08 (7:47/mile average) 475 calories - 19 calories/minute, 153 calories/mile - this is the fastest I have ever run 5K
3.5 miles 30:06 (8:36/mile average) 530 calories - 17 calories/minute, 151 calories/mile - comfortable pace for that distance
6.2 miles 1:00:29 (9:44/mile avg) 951 calories - 16 calories/minute, 152 calories/mile - pretty easy pace for that distance
10 miles 1:43:18 (10:20/mile avg) 1523 calories - 15 calories/minute, 152 calories/mile

I was surprised at how little difference there was in the calories/mile regardless of time/distance/speed.

Then I looked at a day where I did 10x400m intervals (200m walk breaks in between each) this included about a 5 minute warm up run (this workout kicked my butt)
5 miles 55:15 685 calories - 12 calories/minute, 137 calories/mile - the walk breaks really seem to bring the calorie burn down.

tappae

Estimates based on heart rate aren't particularly accurate, because there are different reasons your heart rate may elevate. Do you get a little nervous when training someone else? Anxiety could raise your heart rate and skew your results. Do you do a lot of talking while training? That can make your heart have to work harder, but it won't necessarily increase your caloric burn. Another possibility is that your HRM is just wrong. I don't know what type you have, but mine is often way off. In building my aerobic base, I've been trying to keep my heart rate down around 140-145 while running. Sometimes, my HRM will report that my heart rate is around 220 or so. When I stop and manually count the beats, I find that it's really around 145 and the HRM usually adjusts while I'm standing there.

camelgirlmn

You're a certified personal trainer?!

And you think you can burn 1,000 calories in a half hour?!

:noway:

1- yes i am, no big deal
2- thats why my hrm told me today, thats why i ask

Oh it's not a big deal at all...just further proof that there are more certified Personal Trainers out there that have little to no knowledge about the human body and its' physiology.

^^^^^^^ EXACTLY

secretlobster

What kind of heart rate monitor do you have? I've used both Polar, which will attribute a higher calorie burn to a lower heart rate sustained for the same amount of time, and the Motorola MOTOACTV which doesn't have "target zones" like the Polar and thus will usually show a lower burn for the same activity.

I maintain that it is EXTREMELY unlikely you are burning 1000 calories in 30 minutes by running, even in an hour that is a remarkably high burn considering your moderate speed. Your heart rate, both resting and running, is on the better side of "normal" so I don't think you are burning as much as the HRM tells you. I'm guessing that the calories burned, in terms of HRM calculation, is based on what "zone" you are in.

It helps to remember that your HRM's calorie calculation is really just an estimate based on the factors it knows about you, and your current heart rate.

TrailRunner61

Good job on the 'as always', awesome burns!

I've noticed the same thing with my biking (HRM). If I go slower, but steady at about 3rd gear, my heart rate stays up at around 135. If I switch the gears up and down to compensate for hills, or to just pedal harder, 1st to 7th gear, I burn less even though I'm breathing and sweating harder and my pulse will go up with the hills but then drop down to about 115. I guess staying 'in your zone' does burn more?

jenncaroon

Hi, I ran 15 miles yesterday and burned 1603 according to my HRM. It took me 2 hrs and 25 mins. I weigh about 150 and am a 48 yo female. In 58 mins of boot camp this am using weights (15 lb dumb bells) and cardio I burned 584 again according to HRM.

Josedavid

Ive been checking my previous run logs and some factors could appear in todays burn. Anyway, thanks all for your input, the well based because you help people and the troll ones because... you know... without you trolls the forums would never be the same...!

dawnorcutt

agreed!!

Zangpakto

I really don't think you are burning 1000 calories in 30 minutes of running, regardless of what your HRM says... If that's you in your picture

What's your resting heart rate and your average heart rate when you run?

Edited to add: Many people will debate this, but at a slower pace, many HRMs are programmed to estimate your calorie burn as higher, because the manufacturers believe that you are burning more calories from fat, rather than dietary fuel, at a lower heart rate. There seems to be evidence of truth in this.

Well not that they believe but it is true you burn a higher percentage of fat during low intensity, however for arguments sake, lets assume 40/60, you burn 1000c in an hour that is 400 fat, 600 glycogen stores because of HR, now lets assume in that hour you only burn 600 because of low intensity fat zone at 60/40 makes it 360 fat and 240 glycogen. Remember I am pulling these percentages out my *kitten*, I have my PT book here somewhere but not looking right now...

But then what about the extra effort and the increased metabolism effect after training? To burn fat at those LOW levels you aren't going to increase your metabolism in the slightest... Also check that? you burn 600calories total at low level, which equates only to glycogen in high levels, and not even fat...

A higher percent doesn't mean it is better... I personally think and feel it gives a people an excuse to be lazy... Lower level? Go for longer, much longer then... that is my recommendation.... Ran 30km on sunday at my best half marathon pace, and the last few km was hell, however depleted liver and muscle glycogen stores means I was primarily using fat as my fuel which is why it was hell as it takes such a long time for the conversion to take place.... Goes usually something like liver glycogen > muscle glycogen THEN only fat for fuel...

Also at end of the day, just run, eat healthy and be happy... If you run and try justify eating more, then when you pick up like millions of other runners do during training don't complain... Diet even when racing is important.... Like racing weight generally could be considering your height in inches * 2.2 then for males * 1.1... Then even around there your looking at roughly 10-15 pounds either way... But would be a good place to start...