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

DavPul

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

Can this right here be the nail in the world coffin for all the HRM is the most accurate way to record calorie burn arguments? Because 1000 cal burned in 30 mins..... no, just NO

DavPul

My $.02 - having run over 18,000 miles in the last 10 years (which does not make me an expert):

Very few people on this site can burn 1,000 calories in a half hour. Burning an honest 1,000 in a hour is a tall enough order.

Obviously the information was proven to be wrong

Sure thing.

Why don't you try walking tomorrow, I bet you could burn 2,000 in 15 minutes if you slow it way down...

Can you imagine the awesome burn if he just goes to the trail and stands there not moving? Lke infinity times infinity calorie burn.

megmay2591

For me it's quite the opposite. I wear an HRM while running so I get an accurate reading every time. I am quite short 5"4' and 139lbs (21 year old female). For instance, I just ran my first official 5k race and I did it in 32 minutes, and burned 470 calories. Today, I ran 5 miles, but at a much slower pace: 68 minutes of running and 691 calories burned. So for myself, running faster like I did for the 5k allows me to burn more calories in a shorter time, but when I'm pacing myself and taking it easier I burned less.

DavPul

Dudes, dudettes,

Look, I had a question, I asked it. I got some very good inputs and some troll ones. I asked administration to remove this thread because is just not beneficial for the community.

All the people who helped me with the information provided, thank you.

All the people trying just to prove i am a very bad trainer or my question had no sense at all... hey, is your word, ok, i just hope you are all fine and perfect.

Once and again... do not create controversy and do not start "fights" which is absolutely not nice in the forum

Wrong again,my friend. Admin absolutely should NOT remove this thread because it IS helpful. Very much so.
1. People can realize that just because a CPT says it, it is not gospel. That's not a shot at you. PTs are human,just like the rest of us and capable of misconceptions.
2. People can realize that the number spit out by an HRM is not gospel either. Way too many on this site have too much confidence in their HRM.
3. Some people are helpful
4. Some people are trolls
5. Most of us have a bit of both in us. Hopefully more #3 than #4, but some days are better than others.

Best of luck to you sir.

tappae

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 think you probably would be working harder (and maybe burning more) the longer your feet are on the ground, but that has more to do with stride rate than speed. This is why it's recommended to move your feet at around 170 steps per minute. It's more efficient and isn't using up energy supporting your body weight that a slower rate would.

That said, you shouldn't trust your HRM. It sounds like it may be accurate enough for your longer, faster runs (maybe even 1200 calories for 7 fast miles at your size). The shorter, slower runs are going to be less than half of that. The amount of calories you burn is a function of how much work you do. If you do less than half of the work, you will burn less than half of the calories. Your heart rate is only correlated to how hard you're working. There is no causal relationship between how fast your heart is beating and how many calories you're burning.

rheelizabeth

Can always tell the trolls, they have more than 1000+ posts and get way too much enjoyment out of bullying/putting people down :P

carriann2012

Dudes, dudettes,

Look, I had a question, I asked it. I got some very good inputs and some troll ones. I asked administration to remove this thread because is just not beneficial for the community.

All the people who helped me with the information provided, thank you.

All the people trying just to prove i am a very bad trainer or my question had no sense at all... hey, is your word, ok, i just hope you are all fine and perfect.

Once and again... do not create controversy and do not start "fights" which is absolutely not nice in the forum

You can be my trainer any day!! :flowerforyou: Just ignore the rude people ~

Mighty_Rabite

It takes a lot of exertion to eek out 1000 calories in an hour.

I think 1000 calories in only half an hour (at any kind of relatively normal body weight) would require a decent pace while hauling a serious vest and/or sled around. >_>

sjohnny

It takes a lot of exertion to eek out 1000 calories in an hour.

I think 1000 calories in only half an hour (at any kind of relatively normal body weight) would require a decent pace while hauling a serious vest and/or sled around. >_>

Up a really steep hill on a really hot day.


After a big ole hit of meth.

MissWana

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

Wow, that was harsh. There is no reason to be so cruel to someone who is merely asking for advice. Discouragement and criticism just aren't needed on a site where motivation and support are a driving force.

In terms of your calorie burn I think you may need to check your equipment dear, I could be wrong since I'm a newbie to running but it does seem rather high.

leopard_barbie

I burn on average 100 cals for 10mins running. I run at about 6mph.
1000 in half an hour sounds pretty impossible, but slow running probably burns more than fast running as you can do it for longer.