Calories burned running: is speed a factor at all?
Options
Replies
-
So - to summarise:
The MFP calories burned running might just as well ask you the number of miles you ran - the speed you ran it (and therefore the time it took) isn't relevant.
In reality, the above calculation can only be used if you are running at a comfortable pace - interval training and pace runs will burn more calories and really the only way to fully understand their impact is to use a HRM.
Thanks everyone
0 -
Where's Sheldon Cooper when you need him....?!0
-
Where's Sheldon Cooper when you need him....?!
Sheldon Cooper would be useless because:
1) He would consider this beneath him and refuse to contribute
2) He knows nothing about sports and exercise whatsoever
3) He is a fictional character.0 -
How about we actually refer to some properly published and peer-reviewed studies instead of basing it on uninformed theory and hearsay....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150 - CONCLUSION: Running has a greater energy cost than walking on both the track and treadmill
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11296999 - CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrated that walking at speeds > or =8.0 km.hr(-1) resulted in rates of energy expenditure that were as high or higher than jogging at the same speeds. This study also showed that the faster you go over a given distance, the higher your energy consumption.
Basically the faster you go, the more energy you use over the same distance. Also walking is easier than running until you get to 8km/h at which point it is more efficient to run.
The posters above doing the calculations were oversimplifying things by assuming equal efficiency at all speeds and ignoring things like the energy used in absorbing the shock of each step, which is obviously higher when running at higher speed.0 -
pace / cals
6 / 122
7 / 124
8 / 127
9 / 126
10 / 127
12 / 122
What is nice to see form Mikes MFP data is that (for his weight) the difference in cals per mile is small. 5 cals between lowest and highest. So for mike, even a 13.1 mile run the variation in pace cals of MFP is only 66 cals (lowest 1599 highest 1664). So, from a "how much can I eat today" standpoint the differences are insignificant when compared to UK food labeling variation (estimated at +/- 10% of label claim).0 -
How about we actually refer to some properly published and peer-reviewed studies instead of basing it on uninformed theory and hearsay....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150 - CONCLUSION: Running has a greater energy cost than walking on both the track and treadmill
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11296999 - CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrated that walking at speeds > or =8.0 km.hr(-1) resulted in rates of energy expenditure that were as high or higher than jogging at the same speeds. This study also showed that the faster you go over a given distance, the higher your energy consumption.
Basically the faster you go, the more energy you use over the same distance. Also walking is easier than running until you get to 8km/h at which point it is more efficient to run.
The posters above doing the calculations were oversimplifying things by assuming equal efficiency at all speeds and ignoring things like the energy used in absorbing the shock of each step, which is obviously higher when running at higher speed.
But these studies are comparing walking against running. Mike's original question was about the difference between running speeds. So how about we read the original question rather than deciding what we "think" the OP is asking?0 -
How about we actually refer to some properly published and peer-reviewed studies instead of basing it on uninformed theory and hearsay....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150 - CONCLUSION: Running has a greater energy cost than walking on both the track and treadmill
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11296999 - CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrated that walking at speeds > or =8.0 km.hr(-1) resulted in rates of energy expenditure that were as high or higher than jogging at the same speeds. This study also showed that the faster you go over a given distance, the higher your energy consumption.
Basically the faster you go, the more energy you use over the same distance. Also walking is easier than running until you get to 8km/h at which point it is more efficient to run.
The posters above doing the calculations were oversimplifying things by assuming equal efficiency at all speeds and ignoring things like the energy used in absorbing the shock of each step, which is obviously higher when running at higher speed.
Neither uninformed theory nor hearsay. It's the basic immutable laws of physics published in every physics book since Newton. The thread already explained why running burns more calories than walking. Thanks for backing up the physics with a study.0 -
The second study indicates higher energy consumption for higher speeds of running over the same distance.0
-
How about we actually refer to some properly published and peer-reviewed studies instead of basing it on uninformed theory and hearsay....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150 - CONCLUSION: Running has a greater energy cost than walking on both the track and treadmill
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11296999 - CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrated that walking at speeds > or =8.0 km.hr(-1) resulted in rates of energy expenditure that were as high or higher than jogging at the same speeds. This study also showed that the faster you go over a given distance, the higher your energy consumption.
Basically the faster you go, the more energy you use over the same distance. Also walking is easier than running until you get to 8km/h at which point it is more efficient to run.
The posters above doing the calculations were oversimplifying things by assuming equal efficiency at all speeds and ignoring things like the energy used in absorbing the shock of each step, which is obviously higher when running at higher speed.
Yeah, I was intentionally oversimplifying it to attempt to explain that increased speed on the whole for a set distance will increase calorific expenditure. There are plenty of variables to consider, namely gravity (as you've pointed out) - this is affected by footfall for that distance travelled, etc.0 -
Running calories are pretty much the same per mile.
Walking calories are pretty much the same per mile, up to, say 5mph, where your mechanics start getting forced.
Running burns more calories per mile than walking.
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html0 -
How about we actually refer to some properly published and peer-reviewed studies instead of basing it on uninformed theory and hearsay....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150 - CONCLUSION: Running has a greater energy cost than walking on both the track and treadmill
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11296999 - CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrated that walking at speeds > or =8.0 km.hr(-1) resulted in rates of energy expenditure that were as high or higher than jogging at the same speeds. This study also showed that the faster you go over a given distance, the higher your energy consumption.
Basically the faster you go, the more energy you use over the same distance. Also walking is easier than running until you get to 8km/h at which point it is more efficient to run.
The posters above doing the calculations were oversimplifying things by assuming equal efficiency at all speeds and ignoring things like the energy used in absorbing the shock of each step, which is obviously higher when running at higher speed.
Actually - I cant see anything in these summary which compares running at different speeds - I took the whole walking / running thing as a given from the start. Might as well ask if the effort is the same per mile on a bike (obviously not!).0 -
Work is force times distance. Force is mass times acceleration. Ergo work is mass times acceleration times distance. Intervals require more acceleration than steady state running...more energy/calories if your intervals are at sufficient frequency.
Acceleration is not the same as speed. It is the rate of change in momentum.
You just turned me on. *ahem*0 -
The second study indicates higher energy consumption for higher speeds of running over the same distance.
I must be missing something here... I don't get that from the abstract (I've not read full study)0 -
I was hoping for help here as I 'm about to go run. I typically run 4 miles at about a 10min/mi pace. I always believed faster meant more calories burned but since no one seems to agree that this is infact true, I will just enjoy my run at what ever time it ends up being :-)0
-
(edited as the article I quoted refers back to the runners world article)
Interestingly - the run vs walk articles shows an average guy burning 124 cals per mile irrespective of speed - almost exactly matching the mfp figures0 -
Where's Sheldon Cooper when you need him....?!
Sheldon Cooper would be useless because:
1) He would consider this beneath him and refuse to contribute
2) He knows nothing about sports and exercise whatsoever
3) He is a fictional character.
Perhaps ones sense of humour and ability to tolerate humour decrease proportionately to the speed and distance you run.......?0 -
Work is force times distance. Force is mass times acceleration. Ergo work is mass times acceleration times distance. Intervals require more acceleration than steady state running...more energy/calories if your intervals are at sufficient frequency.
Acceleration is not the same as speed. It is the rate of change in momentum.
You just turned me on. *ahem*
Where's the "like" button on this thing?
I've had an internet crush on you for some time. Brains and braun are not mutually exclusive. I recently separated from the military where my field was "technical" (submarines/nuclear). Apologize for the technical jargon, but I still look good in uniform ;-)0 -
OK - I'm going to rephrase the question because I think some people are missing my point- if my target was to burn, say, 500 calories running - would I always go the same distance irrespective of the speed I was running at?
my personal experience thus far: I started running on our high school track the beginning of July. Having never run before, I obviously didnt just start running my full distance right away. I have found that it doesnt matter how much distance I cover, what matters is the amount of effort used that changes the calories burned. (I use a heart rate monitor and stop watch faithfully). I consistantly do 3 miles - two of them running with the same calorie burn almost with in the 10's each day. But in the beginning when I was only able to walk the 3 miles the calorie burn was alot less - because the heart rate wasnt increased from effort.)
so my advice - as you try to improve your times, you should see an increase in calorie burn on your heart rate monitor. (becareful not to just use the MFP values as they can be off depending on your fitness level and the "average" person they base their calories on)0 -
Well actually in interval training "after burner affect" is the main cause to burn more calories.0
-
Where's Sheldon Cooper when you need him....?!
Sheldon Cooper would be useless because:
1) He would consider this beneath him and refuse to contribute
2) He knows nothing about sports and exercise whatsoever
3) He is a fictional character.
Perhaps ones sense of humour and ability to tolerate humour decrease proportionately to the speed and distance you run.......?
Or maybe your sense of humour gets dehydrated (i.e. drier)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions