Calories burned running: is speed a factor at all?
Options
Replies
-
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.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
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 me0 -
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.
Met for walking the dog 3
Met for Walking at 2.5mph 3.5
Met for walking at 3.5mph 4.3
Walking at 4mph give a MET of 5
So at a 100kg walking at
2.5mph burns 314 calories (125.6 calories per mile)
3.5mph burns 451 calories (128.8 calories per mile)
4mph burns 524 calories (131.25 calories per mile)
Does not start at 100 calories per mile and the calories burnt increases along with speed.0 -
I am absolutely certain you'll have a lot of better responses to this, but as far as I understand it's not about speed, but about your effort. So an out-of-shape person who runs for one hour at top speed will burn as much as or even more than the really fit person who runs twice the distance.
This is why people go the whole length of heart-rate monitors, etc, in order to figure out how much effort they put into the exercize, and to get a better idea about how many calories they burn.
my thoughts exactly.0 -
If you're wanting to be totally accurate on expended calories only - then it's Watts and/or METs that you should be using to track your expenditure, and then convert back to kcals. Not HRMs.
HRMs are great for a general user, and unless you're tracking everything meticulously then that is perfectly fine for most people. Remember that for most people, this is a ball-park figure. It doesn't need to be completely accurate.
So to summarise:
Speed _is_ a factor when it comes to calorie expenditure for running - but can be heavily influenced by other factors such as running efficiency, your starting VO2 Max (a lower VO2 Max will result in a higher calorific requirement from your anaerobic system whilst you're training near to, or over it), etc. At the same running efficiency, a higher speed will result in an increased calorific requirement - however the increases in energy required whilst training within your VO2 Max become a case of diminishing returns.
Intervals increase the calorific requirement vs steady state because even though during your active recovery periods you may be running slightly slower, you are forcing your body to work over its standard comfort/efficiency/aerobic capacity levels for short periods which forces you to burn energy LESS efficiently short-term (resulting in more calories to do the work needed during) and longer term helps your body to adapt to increase your ability to train steady state at a higher level. This also forces your body to have to keep expending calories even after you finish training because a) you have probably developed muscle, and b) there is a calorific deficit caused by generating lactic acid that needs to be broken down which requires more energy to do so.
Incline increases this effect because the amount of torque (the effort required to move) is increased - your feet are in contact with the ground for longer periods which means you are pushing against gravity (as opposed to moving forward in mid-air) more, increasing the energy requirement to move at the same speed as if you were on a flat surface.0 -
While I'm not sure how it affects calorie burn rates over slight variations of slow, mechanically efficient speeds....
In running there are two distinct forces, propulsion force and support force. Propulsion force acts in the horizontal plane, propelling you forward, support force acts in the vertical plane, preventing you from falling down.
In many ways running is a bit of a controlled fall. With every step you do a quick negative lunge to brake your forward fall.
The support force required is a function of speed. For sprinters oftentimes the support force is more important than the propulsion force for going faster. This is why squats and lunges will tend to make sprinters faster and vice versa fast sprinters tend to be strong in the squat and lunge.
Walking has very little in the way of support force (your muscles do very little work holding you up, this is not the case for running) which explains the calorie differences.
You can see the interplay of support and propulsion force on hills. On the way up you are going slow, landings feel really soft, but it requires a lot of propulsion to go up. On the way down however you can pick up a lot of speed with virtually no propulsion force, however because of the faster speed the support force increases a great deal. On bigger hills most will have to lean back and slow down. You could lean forward and break into an all out sprint almost free of propulsion force, however since support force is a function of speed, the support force required will rise to the same levels as if you were in an all out sprint on flat land.
Like I said I'm not sure how this effects calorie burn in the jogging area, but in general he who is stronger can run faster when it comes to sprinting (applies to the general population, not outliers), and likewise since support force increases as a function of speed (exponential I believe), running at higher speed does have a higher energy cost than running at slower speeds. Though because you finish faster if you run faster, at jogging pace the calorie cost variance per distance may be fairly negligible. But at higher speeds as the support force really begins to rise, the energy cost of increased speed does become signicant.
Running a mile at Olympic mile pace burns a lot more calories than running a mile at moderate 10K pace.0 -
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. 0 -
Every mile you burn 100calories. That's a fact. If you run or walk. Now if you ride your bike you will need double time to burn 100 calories. I run about 60 min a day if I bicycle I have to ride for 2 hours to burn the same amount of calories. That's easy to remember for me.0
-
For purposes of the same person, running faster of slower either.
1) You run the same distance in less time, the differnce is not enough to matter.
or
2) You run for the same time, it makes a big difference as you are going farther.
If you compare two different people then things like effeciency matter more, but for the same person, the differences are not going to be huge. (Running vs. Walking is different however becasue of the different mechanics involved.)0 -
While I'm not sure how it affects calorie burn rates over slight variations of slow, mechanically efficient speeds....
In running there are two distinct forces, propulsion force and support force. Propulsion force acts in the horizontal plane, propelling you forward, support force acts in the vertical plane, preventing you from falling down.
In many ways running is a bit of a controlled fall. With every step you do a quick negative lunge to brake your forward fall.
The support force required is a function of speed. For sprinters oftentimes the support force is more important than the propulsion force for going faster. This is why squats and lunges will tend to make sprinters faster and vice versa fast sprinters tend to be strong in the squat and lunge.
Walking has very little in the way of support force (your muscles do very little work holding you up, this is not the case for running) which explains the calorie differences.
You can see the interplay of support and propulsion force on hills. On the way up you are going slow, landings feel really soft, but it requires a lot of propulsion to go up. On the way down however you can pick up a lot of speed with virtually no propulsion force, however because of the faster speed the support force increases a great deal. On bigger hills most will have to lean back and slow down. You could lean forward and break into an all out sprint almost free of propulsion force, however since support force is a function of speed, the support force required will rise to the same levels as if you were in an all out sprint on flat land.
Like I said I'm not sure how this effects calorie burn in the jogging area, but in general he who is stronger can run faster when it comes to sprinting (applies to the general population, not outliers), and likewise since support force increases as a function of speed (exponential I believe), running at higher speed does have a higher energy cost than running at slower speeds. Though because you finish faster if you run faster, at jogging pace the calorie cost variance per distance may be fairly negligible. But at higher speeds as the support force really begins to rise, the energy cost of increased speed does become signicant.
Running a mile at Olympic mile pace burns a lot more calories than running a mile at moderate 10K pace.
depends on the fitness of the runner olympic runners are exceptionally fit the guy running is 10k pace if putting in more effort could be burning more0 -
Every mile you burn 100calories. That's a fact. If you run or walk. Now if you ride your bike you will need double time to burn 100 calories. I run about 60 min a day if I bicycle I have to ride for 2 hours to burn the same amount of calories. That's easy to remember for me.
hehehehe.... nice one
You mean "EXACTLY 100 calories, for every person on the planet" fact or "more or less, for me only" fact?0 -
^^^ THIS!!!!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).0 -
Interestingly - at my swimming classes we get given a set of exercises which determine the distance we travel, and then instead of a speed to meet we have an RPE (relative perceived effort - 0-10) which we are asked to meet. With running I effectively have the same thing but through a combination key figures (like my 5K race time, VO2, HRM etc) I can convert this into a target pace. This is really useful for increasing fitness and speed - but from what I've read it has very little baring on the cals I burn per mile at a consistent pace (rather than interval/stress training).0
-
this thread is spiralling out of control. Who would have thought that a discussion about calroies burn during a run would span 5 pages?0
-
Perhaps I should have stated the obvious caveat that I'm talking about the efforts of any one individual - Obviously two different people will burn calories at different rates, in the same way that incline and surface will change the rate of burn too. We should also assume we are comparing running with running - walking, skipping, hopping, kart wheeling, cycling, carrying sacks of gold up hills etc are different mechanics and one would expect them to be different.
In fact - lets make the whole debate a lot simpler from here on -
Person A is running 3 miles at a steady pace - will their speed impact the the number of calories they burn?
(the consensus seems to be only at the extreme ends of their ability)0 -
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html
Here you go... This article supports the theory that you burn many more calories running than walking. Speed is probably a factor, but that isn't included here.0 -
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html
Here you go... This article supports the theory that you burn many more calories running than walking. Speed is probably a factor, but that isn't included here.
..it isn't really a theory.
You do burn more calories running than walking (crazy speedwalking excluded).
Stande for 30 minutes on straight legs. Stand for 30 minutes without ever locking out your knee joints. Which is more tiring?
Just the mechanics of running, you have to expend energy to hold yourself up that you don't have to spend while walking.0 -
JUST DO IT !! I have become increasingly frustrated with my efforts and my heart monitor. Nutritionally dense calories in, muscle building / cardio calories out! I can lift weights for 45 minutes & my HRM says I burned 150, I can run the same 45 & burn 400! But I know it's necessary to maintain & build muscle too.0
-
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.0
-
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.
Met for walking the dog 3
Met for Walking at 2.5mph 3.5
Met for walking at 3.5mph 4.3
Walking at 4mph give a MET of 5
So at a 100kg walking at
2.5mph burns 314 calories (125.6 calories per mile)
3.5mph burns 451 calories (128.8 calories per mile)
4mph burns 524 calories (131.25 calories per mile)
Does not start at 100 calories per mile and the calories burnt increases along with speed.
Your MET values are not correct for the speeds you list.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