Calories burned running: is speed a factor at all?

1235

Replies

  • RunsOnEspresso
    RunsOnEspresso Posts: 3,218 Member
    Here is an interesting article I read last week:

    http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

    It is more walking vs running but there are some interesting numbers the author found at different paces.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    When I run 5k at an easy pace I burn around 250 calories, when I run it at race pace I burn around 490. I use a HRM. I've found MFP estimates to be completely inaccurate as far as calories burned are concerned.

    I agree. The treadmill in my gym said I'd burned 349 cals after 60 mins running/fast walking. MFP said I'd burned 677.


    That's only because MFP didn't have an entry that matched your specific workout.
  • tadpole242
    tadpole242 Posts: 507 Member
    Your MET values are not correct for the speeds you list.

    I think you need to post proof of that please. Just in the interest to see if it is worth bothering to reply or if it’s just some random muttering pulled out of your er hmmm ‘hat’. (I think it is the latter)
    My reference material has been posted twice already but third time's a charm
    https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/home
  • HisPathDaily
    HisPathDaily Posts: 672 Member
    Mile for mile they are close, nobody is going to convince me they are "exactly the same" ... our bodies are not machines, though we can program them like ones sometimes.

    I run so I can have that beer sooner.
  • HisPathDaily
    HisPathDaily Posts: 672 Member
    YOURARGUMENTISINVALIDmemecollection1mutcom2-1.jpg
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Your MET values are not correct for the speeds you list.

    I think you need to post proof of that please. Just in the interest to see if it is worth bothering to reply or if it’s just some random muttering pulled out of your er hmmm ‘hat’. (I think it is the latter)
    My reference material has been posted twice already but third time's a charm
    https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/home

    No, I think I know what I am talking about.

    The compendium is not the most reliable source. It beats making up numbers out of thin air, but it is not nearly precise enough to be used as a reference for this particular discussion. I have described the origins and limitations of the compendium a number of times in other discussions, so I am not going to repeat myself here. You can choose to believe me or not.

    But I'm not trying to be coy--here is the source: The American College of Sports Medicine has published what are the considered the most reliable equations for predicting the energy cost of walking and running, on level ground or at incline. That's what any fitness professional or reliable database will use for a source. They are also the equations that are programmed into most commercial treadmills, which is why the TM calorie readings can be very reliable. If you march out the numbers, you will see that different walking speeds and different running speeds all cluster around the same number of calories/mile (different numbers for walking and for running).
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    this thread is spiralling out of control. Who would have thought that a discussion about calroies burn during a run would span 5 pages?

    Especially since the "dispute" is over physiology that has been described for decades. But, the internet wouldn't be the internet without these kinds of discussions.......:drinker:
  • mikeyrp
    mikeyrp Posts: 1,616 Member
    yup - I've not seen anything new since about P2 - but isn't it nice that people have the opportunity to express them selves :)
  • tadpole242
    tadpole242 Posts: 507 Member
    I’ve just checked the Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine “Compendium of Physical Activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities for 2002 and my numbers are pretty much spot on.
    There is some variation depending on the activity description “occupation/recreation/ volunteer activitiy ” see all within .02 for all my numbers.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    I’ve just checked the Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine “Compendium of Physical Activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities for 2002 and my numbers are pretty much spot on.
    There is some variation depending on the activity description “occupation/recreation/ volunteer activitiy ” see all within .02 for all my numbers.

    In the research article that accompanied publication of the compendium, it was stated:
    It should also be stressed that the Compendium was not developed to determine the precise energy cost of PA within individuals, but instead to provide an activity classification system that standardizes the MET intensities of PAs used in survey research.

    I can't explain why some of the numbers in the compendium differ from the results of the standard, validated ACSM energy prediction equations. Part of the reason is that the compendium is compiled from a variety of research studies and may have featured varying conditions or different populations than the validation studies done for the metabolic equations. I had this question years ago when I first read the research and I haven't seen it discussed anywhere since.

    But the point still stands--the numbers from the compendium are not precise enough to be used to support any speculation related to this topic.
  • Witchmoo
    Witchmoo Posts: 261 Member
    I've lost the will to both walk and run.....and live.....sod the calories!
  • Tracy_03311981
    Tracy_03311981 Posts: 80
    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 :)

    Sorry, but this is not correct. All your HRM knows is your heart beat. It does not know how many calories you burn. It's guess is as good as MFPs. As has been said in this thread, MFP is pretty right on, for the most part. I've checked as compared to different things. If your a not picker and think that 25 cals + or - is a big deal, then we'll never agree on this issue. If its within 100, I'm happy. It doesn't matter that much. It's all relative.



    I disagree.....my HRM does tell me the calories I burn.....I paid good money for my HRM just for that......and MFP has been way off in the past for me.
  • Tracy_03311981
    Tracy_03311981 Posts: 80
    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 :)

    that is because you are effiecent at walking depending on wat speed u are walking lets put it this way when i walk 1 hour at 4miles per hour im not tired or breathless so my heartrate won,t go up if i did intervals 5 mins 4 miles 5 mins 4.5 my heart rate would go up after 4.5 mile an hour my body would be easier running than walking because it gets difficult to walk for long periods at 4.5 + for the average fit person , when u introduce running as a beginner u are running at 4.5 + pace as a beginner your heart rate shoots up as u get fitter 5 miles an hour is a walk in the park so your heart rate lowers the fitter u get do u get me

    I apologize for this but your post makes no sense.....and how do you know what pace I am running at?
  • Tracy_03311981
    Tracy_03311981 Posts: 80
    Speed is a factor, I wouldn't use MFP calulations. I wear a heart rate monitor when I run, and when I run faster I burn more calories.

    AGREED, well put!
  • stephvaile
    stephvaile Posts: 298
    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 :)


    that is because you are effiecent at walking depending on wat speed u are walking lets put it this way when i walk 1 hour at 4miles per hour im not tired or breathless so my heartrate won,t go up if i did intervals 5 mins 4 miles 5 mins 4.5 my heart rate would go up after 4.5 mile an hour my body would be easier running than walking because it gets difficult to walk for long periods at 4.5 + for the average fit person , when u introduce running as a beginner u are running at 4.5 + pace as a beginner your heart rate shoots up as u get fitter 5 miles an hour is a walk in the park so your heart rate lowers the fitter u get do u get me

    I apologize for this but your post makes no sense.....and how do you know what pace I am running at?


    i don,t know wat speed u are running im guessing that as a beginner your speed won,t be really fast butas you get used to running a certain speed then your heart rate won,t get as high at that speed it depends on your fitness as to how high your heart rate goes someone one who is going from walking to running say 5 miles per hour will burn more then someone who as been running 5 miles per hour along time as your heart and lungs get more efficient and you have to run faster to get your heart rate up so the unfit person putting more effort into her 5 mile per hour will burn more than the very fit person running 6 miles per hour because her heart and lungs work harder soif you burn 500 cals for 5miles in a hour with your hrm a unfit person could burn the same at 4 mile per hour
  • stephvaile
    stephvaile Posts: 298
    I feel like I should say something because clearly there aren't enough opinions on this thread yet ;)

    Effort burns calories. The more muscles used, and the more effort they use the more calories it burns.

    Done.

    Now, "today" if I ran 30 minutes at a 7.0 I would burn xxx calories
    Now, "today" if I ran 30 minutes at a 8.0 I would burn xxx + some calories (it's more effort)

    Next month, I may run 30 minutes at an 8.0 and burn less calories than I burned at 7.0 today! Why? I'm more in shape perhaps (and your HRM will 'help' tell you that).

    Now, you could go all out and do some benchmark calculations, determine your VO2 max, etc. But I wouldn't worry about all that ... be fit, eat well, and enjoy life :) ... however I know you just had a question, but it's simply effort, not speed, or distance. There are averages (and rules of thumb) but just like a car, the more you push it, the more it burns ... same as your body.

    yes this wat im try to say also
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    Bump to read later.
  • bigdawg025
    bigdawg025 Posts: 774 Member
    You are absolutely correct!!! I have had to toss this over in my head many times...

    Think of it in terms of TIME rather than distance... 21 minutes at 7mph vice 27 minutes at 9 mph... If you ran the same amount of TIME you burn more calories running faster. The reason they work out to be the same per mile is simply because it doesn't take as long.
  • ixap
    ixap Posts: 675 Member
    Apologies for the hijack, but Shadowsan, I've been doing intervals of more or less 3 min @ 3.5 mph/1.5 min @ 6 mph. Would this give me significantly less benefit than all-out sprinting for 30 seconds/ 3 minutes recovery?

    All out will not only increase the number of calories required to do the exercise, but improve your VO2 Max and improve your muscles ability to do higher intensity work (you may even add more muscle fibre due to the extra strain on your muscles, increasing your resting metabolic rate) So... Yep.

    As you improve at recovery, shorten your recovery down to squeeze more all-out intervals in and/or add incline.
    Shadowsan, I'm surprised to see you recommending all-out sprint intervals for a new runner still working up to a full workout at running pace. Sub-maximal speeds will improve VO2max as well and be less unpleasant.

    I would advise sticking with the 3 min @ 3.5 mph (walking, I assume) / 1.5 min @ 6 mph running, gradually decreasing the length of the walk breaks, until you can run for a full 30-45 minutes or so, then add in some intervals at faster paces - but even then, it doesn't need to be an all-out pace, just a little faster than the 6mph you have mastered.
  • Shadowsan
    Shadowsan Posts: 365 Member
    Apologies for the hijack, but Shadowsan, I've been doing intervals of more or less 3 min @ 3.5 mph/1.5 min @ 6 mph. Would this give me significantly less benefit than all-out sprinting for 30 seconds/ 3 minutes recovery?

    All out will not only increase the number of calories required to do the exercise, but improve your VO2 Max and improve your muscles ability to do higher intensity work (you may even add more muscle fibre due to the extra strain on your muscles, increasing your resting metabolic rate) So... Yep.

    As you improve at recovery, shorten your recovery down to squeeze more all-out intervals in and/or add incline.
    Shadowsan, I'm surprised to see you recommending all-out sprint intervals for a new runner still working up to a full workout at running pace. Sub-maximal speeds will improve VO2max as well and be less unpleasant.

    I would advise sticking with the 3 min @ 3.5 mph (walking, I assume) / 1.5 min @ 6 mph running, gradually decreasing the length of the walk breaks, until you can run for a full 30-45 minutes or so, then add in some intervals at faster paces - but even then, it doesn't need to be an all-out pace, just a little faster than the 6mph you have mastered.

    To be fair, I probably should have asked how far on in their training schedule they were before recommending anything. My bad.
  • ixap
    ixap Posts: 675 Member

    To be fair, I probably should have asked how far on in their training schedule they were before recommending anything. My bad.
    Me too I suppose, LOL, I just assumed based on the fact that she's walking more than running.
    azalais7, how far are you in your training schedule, so we can give you good advice? :)
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,992 Member
    I've been told that if I walk 5 miles I burn exactly the same amount of calories as if I run 5 miles.

    I'm just done a lot faster running :)

    I've read several successtories in papers etc. of people losing huge amount of weight by "just" walking. Never hit the gym or ran, just walking - every day.
    I thought this to be true too till a physics professor showed me different. On average, you burn approximately 50 more calories per mile running it than walking it. Now 50 calories for a mile isn't that big a deal, but if you ran 4 miles and walked 4 miles, 200 calories difference is significant.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
  • tappae
    tappae Posts: 568 Member
    When I run 5k at an easy pace I burn around 250 calories, when I run it at race pace I burn around 490. I use a HRM. I've found MFP estimates to be completely inaccurate as far as calories burned are concerned.

    So, I know this is kind of a hijack, but I don't know why everyone trusts their HRMs so much. It really doesn't seem likely that you could burn twice as much over a given distance just by going faster (even if there is some slight difference).

    Let's try a thought experiment: Say I go out and run a mile at an easy pace and keep my heart rate around 140. MFP database and my HRM agree that I'll burn around 135 calories. Instead, let's say I sprint all out and get my heart rate up to max. Then, I stop and take a break, but not long enough for my heart to recover much. Then, I sprint again. I repeat this for the whole mile and finish in about the same amount of time. My average heart rate for the run is going to be much higher in the second case and my HRM will give me a much higher calorie burn estimate, but I will have done virtually the same amount of work and therefore will have burned approximately the same number of calories.

    Put another way: let's say I run 3 miles in 30 minutes. MFP and HRM will agree that I burned about 400 calories. Let's say I'm not feeling great and I have to stop and rest a few times, but always less than one minute so my heart rate stays elevated. On this day maybe I finish in 33 minutes. The database will still say I burned about 400 calories (since I did the same work). My heart rate monitor will say that I burned more than that because my heart rate was elevated for a longer amount of time.
  • rkr22401
    rkr22401 Posts: 216 Member
    This is another reason HRM's are not so good for strength training. HRMs are pretty good for steady state cardio. Less so for intervals and the like. I believe most manufacturers say so in their literature.
  • meerkat70
    meerkat70 Posts: 4,605 Member
    Ooooh, Ooooh, teacher, I know! I know! [he said with arm raised]

    Here is the physics answer:

    Work/energy (i.e. calories) is force times distance. Increase calories by going greater distance or using greater force. Distance is obvious. Regarding force, a heavier person will burn more calories going the same distance. Also 5 miles uphill will burn more calories than 5 miles on a flat or downhill surface.

    Power is work/energy per unit time. Going equal distance in shorter time will burn the same energy in less time (more power).

    It's slightly more complex: http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html
  • jhardenbergh
    jhardenbergh Posts: 1,035 Member
    Well you basically burned the same amount of calories in less time, so I would say speed is a factor in calorie burn, but probably because your heart rate was higher during the faster portion of your run. I would think terrain would be a factor too, if part of your run was uphill you would more than likely burn more calories as well.
  • Crochetluvr
    Crochetluvr Posts: 3,284 Member
    I did an experiment a couple days ago when I went water jogging. Normally I jog in the 4 1/2 ft. area and the water is up to my chest. I cant move fast but I have to use more effort. I used my HRM to measure my pulse rate...it never got past 111.

    Then I decided to move down into the 3 1/2 ft area of the pool and started jogging again. My heart rate shot up to 138!

    So I can only assume that the faster I move, the more calories I was burning for the same amount of time.
  • BrawlerBella
    BrawlerBella Posts: 400 Member
    Speed is a factor, I wouldn't use MFP calulations. I wear a heart rate monitor when I run, and when I run faster I burn more calories.

    AGREED, well put!

    I use my HRM with the Endomondo app. The app takes heart beat into consideration to give you a gross caloric burn.
  • rkr22401
    rkr22401 Posts: 216 Member
    Ooooh, Ooooh, teacher, I know! I know! [he said with arm raised]

    Here is the physics answer:

    Work/energy (i.e. calories) is force times distance. Increase calories by going greater distance or using greater force. Distance is obvious. Regarding force, a heavier person will burn more calories going the same distance. Also 5 miles uphill will burn more calories than 5 miles on a flat or downhill surface.

    Power is work/energy per unit time. Going equal distance in shorter time will burn the same energy in less time (more power).

    It's slightly more complex: http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

    Of course it is. Isn't everything? But the laws of physics still apply. The difference is in the simplifying assumptions used. We already discussed the differences (mechanics of running, efficiency, etc) at length.
  • meerkat70
    meerkat70 Posts: 4,605 Member
    deleted cause I just can't be arsed ... :-D

Categories