Calories burned running: is speed a factor at all?
Options
Replies
-
Tuesday I ran 7K in 48 minutes and burned 350 calories
Thursday I ran 4K between sprinting and walking in 30 minutes and burned 315 calories
So speed, at least in the case of intervals, increases burn.
If you are using an HRM to estimate calories, you can't use those numbers as a comparison. The reason is that for some activities, a person might get an exaggerated HR response, due to things anatomical variations (i.e. higher than avg HR), and general conditioning.
The HRM has no idea what activity you are doing--it just counts heart beats and makes a guess. However, the HRM is only programmed to evaluated steady-state cardio workouts. So, if you are doing something different, it will spit out a number, but it can be significantly inaccurate.0 -
Sheldon would point out that you didn't actually ask a question, but you did incorrectly state that work is equal to weight x distance of lever, which is actually the equation for force. What you require is the amount of work done which takes into account the amount of time it took to move a known weight a certain distance.
What you also seem to be getting confused with is efficiency.
To use your own analogy, the faster a car travels, the more fuel it will take to maintain a constant speed, but the average car has been designed for the engine to be most efficient when the car is travelling at 50mph. A race car may well be designed to have a maximum efficiency at a higher speed, but a city car much lower.
OK - I explained the lever thing badly (principle is correct)... work = force * distance. Force is directly proportional to weight as it equals mass * acceleration where acceleration is a constant (gravity). lets say the we want to lift a block of metal 1 meter. if you have a lever lifting the block of metal, and the total distance moved on the counter point to the block is 2 meters, the required force is half that of lifting the metal directly and the total work is the same - in other words if you put a block of metal half the weight of the original on the end of the fulcrum they would balance. Regardless of the lever length, the same amount of work is required to lift the block! Time doesn't impact the work either!
Efficiency - I think you are just expanding my analogy to confuse the issue - the point is simply that efficiency isn't a constant and speed will have an impact.
You are right about not actually making my original question clear (although there was a question in the title) - hence later clarification.
Sheldon would have gotten bored by now and gone home to play with his Spock doll.0 -
By the way - I opened the thread purely out of curiosity - my main goal is to improve fitness and get some PB's for my running - weight loss isn't a driving force for me any more, therefore calorie burn isn't that important.0
-
By the way - I opened the thread purely out of curiosity - my main goal is to improve fitness and get some PB's for my running - weight loss isn't a driving force for me any more, therefore calorie burn isn't that important.
Then in that case - interval training is your friend.
0 -
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/home
The above website uses Metabolic Equivalent Task (MET). I found it to be useful.0 -
What I took away from all this, and also confirms my own studies, is that the MFP calculations are pretty right on, despite the fact that members here constantly say how "off" they are. Then they go buy an HRM and say they told us so because their HRM says something different. Lol. That's like saying yr scale isn't accurate, so you go buy a new scale and it says something different and you say, "see, I told you." lol ...without considering that maybe the new scale is wrong. Ha, ha.0
-
Sheldon would point out that you didn't actually ask a question, but you did incorrectly state that work is equal to weight x distance of lever, which is actually the equation for force. What you require is the amount of work done which takes into account the amount of time it took to move a known weight a certain distance.
What you also seem to be getting confused with is efficiency.
To use your own analogy, the faster a car travels, the more fuel it will take to maintain a constant speed, but the average car has been designed for the engine to be most efficient when the car is travelling at 50mph. A race car may well be designed to have a maximum efficiency at a higher speed, but a city car much lower.
OK - I explained the lever thing badly (principle is correct)... work = force * distance. Force is directly proportional to weight as it equals mass * acceleration where acceleration is a constant (gravity). lets say the we want to lift a block of metal 1 meter. if you have a lever lifting the block of metal, and the total distance moved on the counter point to the block is 2 meters, the required force is half that of lifting the metal directly and the total work is the same - in other words if you put a block of metal half the weight of the original on the end of the fulcrum they would balance. Regardless of the lever length, the same amount of work is required to lift the block! Time doesn't impact the work either!
Efficiency - I think you are just expanding my analogy to confuse the issue - the point is simply that efficiency isn't a constant and speed will have an impact.
You are right about not actually making my original question clear (although there was a question in the title) - hence later clarification.
Sheldon would have gotten bored by now and gone home to play with his Spock doll.
Yeah, think I'm confusing the term power/watts with work.
I think what Stephvaile said made the point I was trying to make about efficiency far better. I introduced it to help explain the curve you are seeing in burn results.0 -
By the way - I opened the thread purely out of curiosity - my main goal is to improve fitness and get some PB's for my running - weight loss isn't a driving force for me any more, therefore calorie burn isn't that important.
Then in that case - interval training is your friend.
Yup - I do one track / interval session, one pace run and one long run a week... then I do two cycle sessions (one interval, one distance) and (ideally) two swims a weeks (learning to swim crawl so pretty much steady or technical)...0 -
It is really useful, but the people on this site don't want facts they just don't bother reading post that don't agree with their own blinkered point of view, and keep repeating long disproved nonsense.https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/home
The above website uses Metabolic Equivalent Task (MET). I found it to be useful.0 -
By the way - I opened the thread purely out of curiosity - my main goal is to improve fitness and get some PB's for my running - weight loss isn't a driving force for me any more, therefore calorie burn isn't that important.
Then in that case - interval training is your friend.
What?!?!? He's going for personal bests in time and distance and your advice is to do something completely different? How would he clock his times if he starts interval training?0 -
Tuesday I ran 7K in 48 minutes and burned 350 calories
Thursday I ran 4K between sprinting and walking in 30 minutes and burned 315 calories
So speed, at least in the case of intervals, increases burn.
If you are using an HRM to estimate calories, you can't use those numbers as a comparison. The reason is that for some activities, a person might get an exaggerated HR response, due to things anatomical variations (i.e. higher than avg HR), and general conditioning.
The HRM has no idea what activity you are doing--it just counts heart beats and makes a guess. However, the HRM is only programmed to evaluated steady-state cardio workouts. So, if you are doing something different, it will spit out a number, but it can be significantly inaccurate.
TTTTHPBT!
:-)0 -
By the way - I opened the thread purely out of curiosity - my main goal is to improve fitness and get some PB's for my running - weight loss isn't a driving force for me any more, therefore calorie burn isn't that important.
Then in that case - interval training is your friend.
What?!?!? He's going for personal bests in time and distance and your advice is to do something completely different? How would he clock his times if he starts interval training?
Throwing interval training into any routine will force your body to adapt to increased requirements over and above what you would be able to do steady-state, at which point once these adaptations have occurred you will be able to increase your steady state performance.
I'm by no means saying totally ditch your steady state stuff - i'm saying that putting some interval training in to break plateaus and improve your maximal performance will be a great benefit if you're looking for PB's.
And to say that only steady state improves steady state performance for time in running... Look at long-distance runners. They practice sprint finishes (which are nearly 400/800m in length) which are well over and above the pace they could hold out at a steady state.0 -
OK - I just did an experiment with MFP exercise calorie calculator - I took the pace and entered the same value for the minutes of exercise (eg 6 minute mile pace, 6 minutes) - which means that the output is the number of calories per mile. As my weight is a fixed quantity and MFP doesn't know my fitness level we can assume that there are no other factors changing.These are the results.
pace / cals
6 / 122
7 / 124
8 / 127
9 / 126
10 / 127
12 / 122
As you can see, there is no linear correlation between pace and cals per mile shown here - meaning either MFP has incorrect values (possible) or that there really is no correlation and that the body doesn't have a peak efficiency in terms of running speed.
Note that I would define efficiency here in terms of calories burnt - obviously muscle fatigue sets in over a shorter distance at higher speeds.
This means that the calculator is wrong really.
Although how wrong is debatable. Obviously to increase speed, you may be able to do that simply by increasing your stride length which would result in nearly the same amount of muscle contractions as the slower speed.
Which ties in to what I originally said - as your speed increases, the difference in expenditure begins to result in an inverse exponential curve - diminishing returns.
Can I ask what you are basing this information on? I'm not saying its wrong - I'm just trying to determine if this is something you are deriving for yourself of based on a study.
My instinct is that most people have a 'natural pace' which is going to be very efficient - running below this pace will burn marginally less efficient but will produce a pretty similar cals burned / mile. As you start to increase from this pace I would expect efficiency to decrease as technique will start to suffer.
Also - as you pointed out there are two ways to increase speed - the first is to increase cadence (number of foot falls per minute) - the second is to increase stride length. Interestingly - my learning is that during a long distance run you should maintain cadence and alter stride length to manage your effort levels - however to improve your net running speed you need to work on increasing your cadence. I have no idea how this impacts efficiency either.
You are talking about two different things here. I wasn't sure if that's what you meant, so I didn't go into detail in my other response.
You plotted out different cal/mile at different speeds. As you discovered, the cals/mile is roughly the same at any given speed. However, that is true as long as: a) the running speed represents a steady-state exertion level, and b) falls within the "umbrella of mechanical efficiency" for any given individual.
Yes, every person is going to have an "ideal" stride/pace combination at which they are most mechanically efficient--if you plot stride length, for instance, against VO2 (for a constant speed), you will get a "U" shaped curve as you move from short strides to long strides. At some point--the bottom of the "U"--you hit a stride length that is most mechanically efficient FOR YOU and that has the lowest VO2 for that speed. That "ideal" stride is not fixed--it can be moved a bit depending on training.
As far as training for stride/cadence goes, there is some science out there, but there is also a lot of ideology. As one increases running speed, one soon reaches an optimal cadence. At that point, further increases in speed come from increasing stride length. If you continue to increase speed, you will eventually reach a point where stride length can no longer increase, and you then must increase cadence again (this is what happens in sprinting).
As said before, each individual body has a "range" of cadences and stride lengths in which it can efficiently perform. I believe that, with training and experience, most people will "naturally" find their optimal cadence/stride length combination.
As a rule, if you are going to be "off" from your "optimum" stride pattern, there is less of an inefficiency penalty for running w/ a higher cadence/shorter stride than vice versa--lower injury risk as well. However, in addition to increased fitness, one of the effects of interval training is that it naturally increases your stride length as well. These days, the current fad in running is for everyone to try to run like elite Kenyan marathoners--despite the fact that 99% of runners are neither elite, nor are they remotely Kenyan. This is not necessarily a bad thing, since many new runners tend to overstride and since, as a mentioned, if you are going to make a mistake, doing so with shorter strides is less detrimental. However, people should realize that there is no one "optimum" cadence for everyone and they should not be browbeaten into running 180 steps/min if it does not feel comfortable.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?
Pretty much. If you are running, you will burn essentially the same # of calories per mile, regardless of running speed.
If you are walking, you will burn essentially the same # of calories per mile, regardless of walking speed.
If you are comparing running to walking, you will burn exponentially more calories per mile running than walking. (with the exception of more extreme racewalking speeds).
This doesn't make any sense to me. It's essentially saying that speed makes no difference... Until we rename the activity. So walking at 1mph is the same as 4mph until we call it race walking and running at 5mph is the same as 10mph is the same as 12 mph until we call it sprinting? Seems to me that speed increases effort which increases burn rate. When does more output not require more input?0 -
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
Well, you still have to have weight, but yes for #1.
#2 conclusion: no. For the scenario you describe, HRMs provide no additional advantage, and in fact can be way off.
If you are doing a tempo run, i.e. high or higher-intensity continuous run, then the ACSM calculations will still work, but research has suggested they might overestimate by about 15%. That's more than close enough.
For full interval training--e.g. sprint repeats or even 1/4 mile repeats--there basically is no practical way to determine calories, and quite frankly, it's not worth the effort. If you need some extra fuel, throw in 200-300 into your meal plan, and call it a day.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?
Pretty much. If you are running, you will burn essentially the same # of calories per mile, regardless of running speed.
If you are walking, you will burn essentially the same # of calories per mile, regardless of walking speed.
If you are comparing running to walking, you will burn exponentially more calories per mile running than walking. (with the exception of more extreme racewalking speeds).
This doesn't make any sense to me. It's essentially saying that speed makes no difference... Until we rename the activity. So walking at 1mph is the same as 4mph until we call it race walking and running at 5mph is the same as 10mph is the same as 12 mph until we call it sprinting? Seems to me that speed increases effort which increases burn rate. When does more output not require more input?
This can turn into one of those "muscle weighs more than fat" debates where everyone is using different terms of measurement.
This discussion is about calories burned per mile, not calories burned per minute.
It is absolutely true that an increase in speed = an increase in the rate of calories burned per minute. However, when expressing the amount in terms of DISTANCE, when running (or walking), the increased cal/min burn is offset by the decreased time it takes to cover the mile at the faster speed, thus making the calories burned PER MILE (or other unit of distance) the same.
Walking 3.0 mph has an energy cost of 3 METS. A 100kg person will burn 300kcal in an hour. The pace is 20 min/mile, so they will burn 100 kcal walking one mile.
Walking 4.0 mph has an energy cost of ~ 4 METs. A 100 kg person will burn 400 kcal in an hour. The pace is 15 min/mile, so they will burn 100 kcal walking one mile.
So if the question is "how many kcals per mile?", the total will be the same--100 kcals for each mile regardless of speed. If the question is "how many kcals per hour?", then it is obvious that walking faster will burn more kcal per hour.
It's best to leave sprinting out of this discussion. First of all, no one can sprint for a mile, and, secondly, none of the calculations, data tables, HRM estimates, etc, apply.0 -
Running is too slow in absolute terms for wind resistance to have a practical effect (Yes the wind can affect results, it's going 30 or 40 mph, not 6 or 7)
The best way to estimate calorie consumption is with your heart rate, and that is directly related to your speed.0 -
Sheldon would point out that you didn't actually ask a question, but you did incorrectly state that work is equal to weight x distance of lever, which is actually the equation for force. What you require is the amount of work done which takes into account the amount of time it took to move a known weight a certain distance.
What you also seem to be getting confused with is efficiency.
To use your own analogy, the faster a car travels, the more fuel it will take to maintain a constant speed, but the average car has been designed for the engine to be most efficient when the car is travelling at 50mph. A race car may well be designed to have a maximum efficiency at a higher speed, but a city car much lower.
OK - I explained the lever thing badly (principle is correct)... work = force * distance. Force is directly proportional to weight as it equals mass * acceleration where acceleration is a constant (gravity). lets say the we want to lift a block of metal 1 meter. if you have a lever lifting the block of metal, and the total distance moved on the counter point to the block is 2 meters, the required force is half that of lifting the metal directly and the total work is the same - in other words if you put a block of metal half the weight of the original on the end of the fulcrum they would balance. Regardless of the lever length, the same amount of work is required to lift the block! Time doesn't impact the work either!
Efficiency - I think you are just expanding my analogy to confuse the issue - the point is simply that efficiency isn't a constant and speed will have an impact.
You are right about not actually making my original question clear (although there was a question in the title) - hence later clarification.
Sheldon would have gotten bored by now and gone home to play with his Spock doll.
Yeah, think I'm confusing the term power/watts with work.
I think what Stephvaile said made the point I was trying to make about efficiency far better. I introduced it to help explain the curve you are seeing in burn results.
what i tend to do is put in my overall time for distance and it evens out walking/running mfp actually to me is low as other sites ie runners world (they also calculate on your weight and distance not speed) and they give much higher burn you could make it very complicated if u wished but it does go on your actual fitness at the speed u are running someone may run 5 miles steady and the walker maybe really pushing it at 5 miles even stevens at end of day i believe intervel training is the best to gain improvement0 -
This is a big debate. I think the faster you are the better the breathing is -that VO Max stuff. Which I so do not bother understanding. Bottom line- you are moving. All of the paces help in overall results. (Better running)0
-
I'm not even going to get remotely mathematical like everyone has done I'm going to try and make it simple from someone who has just started running......
I use a HRM.....MFP usually either overestimates or underestimates calories burned (HRM is the best investment)
I know for a fact that with me, I burn more calories running, and if I run faster I burn more calories (uphill even more)....my HRM is proof of that
I also know that when I walk I know I don't burn as many calories, again HRM tells me so.....
My two cents 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