Run vs. slow jog in comparison to calories.

rbors

I'm in a cardio stage, just tring to knock my body fat down. But while also being in a competition to lose weight, I'm trying to knock it down as fast as I can.

Now my question is this. Any machine you get on tells you lower heart rates burn more fat, while higher heart rates are more for conditioning. Has anyone taken the time to experiment with this? It's in my head that "more is better" so I have a harder time slowing down to keep my heart rate in the "fat burning" zone.

So what's y'all's experience with it? Btw, I've lost 6 pounds this month between dieting, and running.

scottb81

The burn per mile is about the same at any speed. If you are going faster you get the miles run quicker. So, by time the burn is higher at a faster speed.

You burn a combination of fat and carbohydrates at all speeds. At lower speeds the ratio is higher for fat burned.

For weight loss the ratio of fat and carbohydrates isn't really important. Just count the calories.

For fitness, you need to run a variety of speeds and distances to target different physiological effects.

dsjohndrow

The burn per mile is about the same at any speed. If you are going faster you get the miles run quicker. So, by time the burn is higher at a faster speed.

You burn a combination of fat and carbohydrates at all speeds. At lower speeds the ratio is higher for fat burned.

For weight loss the ratio of fat and carbohydrates isn't really important. Just count the calories.

For fitness, you need to run a variety of speeds and distances to target different physiological effects.

Scott knows everything! ^^^

nphect

people argue about this , but my opinion is running faster makes you burn more calories after your done. The only reason they tell people to run slow long distances for fat/calorie burn is cause its easier to do. So do whatever you want, its still calories in , calories out. Do whatever process makes you able to burn more calories, which could be walking if you have the time.

myfitnessval

you could also start off with some HIIT and then level off the run with a steady pace. it'll get your HR up for sure and burn a lot of calories but wont totally exhaust you. (like you're not gonna sprint for 30 minutes ya know?)

Zangpakto

The burn per mile is about the same at any speed. If you are going faster you get the miles run quicker. So, by time the burn is higher at a faster speed.

You burn a combination of fat and carbohydrates at all speeds. At lower speeds the ratio is higher for fat burned.

For weight loss the ratio of fat and carbohydrates isn't really important. Just count the calories.

For fitness, you need to run a variety of speeds and distances to target different physiological effects.

Scott knows everything! ^^^

Calorie wise, faster = better for same DURATION.

If you cannot run the speed for the same effort and actually train much less, then it is worst.

Essentially you get an afterburner effect from HIIT that you will NEVER get from low "fat burning zone" running... In fact time is the deciding factor on fat burning more than HR etc... Different systems get used differently at different periods during a run which is where things can get complicated for us ultra runners with regards to nutrition.

But yea, faster = more calories, not just during run, but if can do V02 max runs or similar, then will get a great burn and metabolic boost after the run to boot...

redhousecat

wow, that is entirely too much thinking for me. I just write down whatever the hrm says and be happy with it.

Zangpakto

you could also start off with some HIIT and then level off the run with a steady pace. it'll get your HR up for sure and burn a lot of calories but wont totally exhaust you. (like you're not gonna sprint for 30 minutes ya know?)

I can do 8km in 30m... does that count as a sprint? :P

But I do have to say intervals are king... And getting tired IS a good thing, if you cannot complete the workout it actually means your not training at the correct speed (likely due to using treadmill really...)

Hmm now I think about it, do the runs at 1m/km SLOWER than normal and run for 2-3 hours. you will build up endurance, strengthen muscles and ligaments etc and burn a HIGHER percentage of fat. Also trains your body to use fat as a source of fuel more efficiently but unless you race 2hrs + it wont make a difference mostly... It matters more with racing...

Just.. oops.. I seem to always get carried away with these running threads.. sorry...

michellekicks

Here are some burn comparisons for you based on my info:

43 mins @ avg HR 166 = burn of 644 calories
45 mins @ avg HR 123 = burn of 287 calories
44 mins @ avg HR 158 = burn of 534 calories

Here is another interesting comparison... two runs of the same route:

43:09 for 7.77km (avg pace 5:33) avg HR 166 = burn of 644 calories (see above)
46:25 for 7.78km (avg pace 5:58) avg HR 166 = burn of 563 calories

Same run, 3 1/2 minutes slower with the same HR (bad day?) and my burn is 75 calories less.

... so I guess I'm saying it is all going to depend on the exercise, the day, your HR, your hydration, wellness etc. Just be active as often as you can. I figure the better the overall burn the better, but I won't go for more than an hour in a day unless it's a specific endurance workout (i.e. long run) or, well, hours of snowboarding or something.

nphect

you could also start off with some HIIT and then level off the run with a steady pace. it'll get your HR up for sure and burn a lot of calories but wont totally exhaust you. (like you're not gonna sprint for 30 minutes ya know?)

I can do 8km in 30m... does that count as a sprint? :P

But I do have to say intervals are king... And getting tired IS a good thing, if you cannot complete the workout it actually means your not training at the correct speed (likely due to using treadmill really...)

Hmm now I think about it, do the runs at 1m/km SLOWER than normal and run for 2-3 hours. you will build up endurance, strengthen muscles and ligaments etc and burn a HIGHER percentage of fat. Also trains your body to use fat as a source of fuel more efficiently but unless you race 2hrs + it wont make a difference mostly... It matters more with racing...

Just.. oops.. I seem to always get carried away with these running threads.. sorry...

i disagree , if you can't complete a workout, your training perfectly

summertime_girl

For fat burning, you want to be between 60-80% of your max heart rate. Over that, you become anaerobic, and while you're burning a ton of calories, only 15% of them are from fat stores in the body, rather than closer to 50% with a lower heart rate. You're just burning glycogen with the higher heart rate, and it is good cardio-wise, but you won't lose fat as quickly.

Zangpakto

For fat burning, you want to be between 60-80% of your max heart rate. Over that, you become anaerobic, and while you're burning a ton of calories, only 15% of them are from fat stores in the body, rather than closer to 50% with a lower heart rate. You're just burning glycogen with the higher heart rate, and it is good cardio-wise, but you won't lose fat as quickly.

While wrong... I will give you the info that studies into the sport have shown.

First off as a fact, it requires 9000kcal to burn off 1lb of body fat. In general it would take roughly 15 hours to burn off that amount in the "fat-burning" zone. Not sure about you, but for that amount, it is really not worth it when you can do so more efficiently. Also once stopped your heart rate and metabolic levels will drop down to normal very quickly.

During high intensity training you push your levels much further than above normal, so much so that it can take a few hours to get back to normal operating levels for your metabolism and heart rate meaning you burn more energy for a few hours after instead of only during training like you would for the "fat burning" levels.

A one hour session a trainer could tell a person to go for the fat burning level and only burn maybe 600kcal for that period.

On other hand a high intensity effort could maybe produce roughly 900kcal burnt along with the extra effect afterwards of burning more energy for a few hours after your finished training.

There is plenty of studies on this subject and they all say the same item. While it is true a higher percent will be glucose during high intensity, it is also true you will burn more kcal and you will continue to burn more a few hours after totalling a LOT more than just the low intensity training would provide.

EDIT....

Oh as an edit.. I found it funny when you made the assumption of how fat stores would be the bodies preferred source at low levels... Even at low levels your body loves it glycogen stores... you have any idea how hard we train to get better at burning at our fat stores over the long runs? I am not being rude, but completely DEAD serious... During ultra marathons you burn the majority through fat stores, you need to train the body to adapt by running LONG SLOW DISTANCES. and not short quick ones the body still uses primarily glycogen until about the 1hr 30 - 2hr mark of running... ATP for roughly the first 60 seconds of hard effort etc.. Fat is used but not as fat but by being converted through glyconeogenises to glycogen. As an example my long runs are from 2hrs 30 to 5hrs.

Now entertain me here, why would your body use fat primarily ever if there is glycogen readily available? It doesn't, as most biological bodies, we use the most efficient system first (ATP then Glycogen then Fat...)

arc918

Also remember: our GPS/HRM are NOT gospel.

My $.02 - I assume I burn ~ 125 calories per mile (I weigh ~ 175) whether I'm running 6:30 or 10:00 pace. Perhaps not 100% accurate, but good enough for govt work and tracking on MFP.

summertime_girl

For fat burning, you want to be between 60-80% of your max heart rate. Over that, you become anaerobic, and while you're burning a ton of calories, only 15% of them are from fat stores in the body, rather than closer to 50% with a lower heart rate. You're just burning glycogen with the higher heart rate, and it is good cardio-wise, but you won't lose fat as quickly.

While wrong... I will give you the info that studies into the sport have shown.

First off as a fact, it requires 9000kcal to burn off 1lb of body fat. In general it would take roughly 15 hours to burn off that amount in the "fat-burning" zone. Not sure about you, but for that amount, it is really not worth it when you can do so more efficiently. Also once stopped your heart rate and metabolic levels will drop down to normal very quickly.

During high intensity training you push your levels much further than above normal, so much so that it can take a few hours to get back to normal operating levels for your metabolism and heart rate meaning you burn more energy for a few hours after instead of only during training like you would for the "fat burning" levels.

A one hour session a trainer could tell a person to go for the fat burning level and only burn maybe 600kcal for that period.

On other hand a high intensity effort could maybe produce roughly 900kcal burnt along with the extra effect afterwards of burning more energy for a few hours after your finished training.

There is plenty of studies on this subject and they all say the same item. While it is true a higher percent will be glucose during high intensity, it is also true you will burn more kcal and you will continue to burn more a few hours after totalling a LOT more than just the low intensity training would provide.

EDIT....

Oh as an edit.. I found it funny when you made the assumption of how fat stores would be the bodies preferred source at low levels... Even at low levels your body loves it glycogen stores... you have any idea how hard we train to get better at burning at our fat stores over the long runs? I am not being rude, but completely DEAD serious... During ultra marathons you burn the majority through fat stores, you need to train the body to adapt by running LONG SLOW DISTANCES. and not short quick ones the body still uses primarily glycogen until about the 1hr 30 - 2hr mark of running... ATP for roughly the first 60 seconds of hard effort etc.. Fat is used but not as fat but by being converted through glyconeogenises to glycogen. As an example my long runs are from 2hrs 30 to 5hrs.

Now entertain me here, why would your body use fat primarily ever if there is glycogen readily available? It doesn't, as most biological bodies, we use the most efficient system first (ATP then Glycogen then Fat...)

Where are you getting your numbers and sources?

rbors

Zangpokto,
You have a lot of knowledge on the subject, but it's a bit much for me to take it, even after reading a few times. Could you dumb it down a lot for me so I know what way to go?

Thanks everyone else for your input as well.

Wilbur_NOLA

For what it's worth, I've had good success walking at a moderate pace on a steady incline using a treadmill. For example, after I warmup, I walk at 4.0 mph and gradually increase the incline up to around 10 degrees. If you're "inclined" to do your cardio outdoors, this won't do you much good unless you have an extension cord. The best advice anyone can give is that you have to find what works best for you. Best of luck!

Zangpakto

For fat burning, you want to be between 60-80% of your max heart rate. Over that, you become anaerobic, and while you're burning a ton of calories, only 15% of them are from fat stores in the body, rather than closer to 50% with a lower heart rate. You're just burning glycogen with the higher heart rate, and it is good cardio-wise, but you won't lose fat as quickly.

While wrong... I will give you the info that studies into the sport have shown.

First off as a fact, it requires 9000kcal to burn off 1lb of body fat. In general it would take roughly 15 hours to burn off that amount in the "fat-burning" zone. Not sure about you, but for that amount, it is really not worth it when you can do so more efficiently. Also once stopped your heart rate and metabolic levels will drop down to normal very quickly.

During high intensity training you push your levels much further than above normal, so much so that it can take a few hours to get back to normal operating levels for your metabolism and heart rate meaning you burn more energy for a few hours after instead of only during training like you would for the "fat burning" levels.

A one hour session a trainer could tell a person to go for the fat burning level and only burn maybe 600kcal for that period.

On other hand a high intensity effort could maybe produce roughly 900kcal burnt along with the extra effect afterwards of burning more energy for a few hours after your finished training.

There is plenty of studies on this subject and they all say the same item. While it is true a higher percent will be glucose during high intensity, it is also true you will burn more kcal and you will continue to burn more a few hours after totalling a LOT more than just the low intensity training would provide.

EDIT....

Oh as an edit.. I found it funny when you made the assumption of how fat stores would be the bodies preferred source at low levels... Even at low levels your body loves it glycogen stores... you have any idea how hard we train to get better at burning at our fat stores over the long runs? I am not being rude, but completely DEAD serious... During ultra marathons you burn the majority through fat stores, you need to train the body to adapt by running LONG SLOW DISTANCES. and not short quick ones the body still uses primarily glycogen until about the 1hr 30 - 2hr mark of running... ATP for roughly the first 60 seconds of hard effort etc.. Fat is used but not as fat but by being converted through glyconeogenises to glycogen. As an example my long runs are from 2hrs 30 to 5hrs.

Now entertain me here, why would your body use fat primarily ever if there is glycogen readily available? It doesn't, as most biological bodies, we use the most efficient system first (ATP then Glycogen then Fat...)

Where are you getting your numbers and sources?

Well two of my sources are also runners themselves and you should know them at least... if not one then the other.

Professor Tim Noakes and Norrie Williamson. For running numbers etc, biological issues I get from different science journals as I am kind of obsessed with geeky things... yes, I am also a white hat hacker, computer programmer and repair technician so umm yea, I love all things science related and geeky

Also Rbors, it is simple, essentially what I mean is faster is better. Reason is that it burns more overall.

The issue is if you run too fast and you cannot maintain form for the whole duration of the training.

I mean a 10m run at 15km/hr is not going to burn the same as a 60m run at 7-8km/hr... But if you can maintain the 15km/hr pace for an hour it will be much better for you.

The issue with trainers and zones is that the "fat burning" zone is more akin to the minimum you need to push to get heart healthy benefits from the training really... Their logic however is kind of sound in that most clients do not or cannot maintain a fast speed for a significant amount of time so a longer but slower run will be of more benefit to their general clients.

Best thing to do is if you have recently run a race get your race pace and if it is for 5km, then run that pace if you have a 30m workout, if you have time, run 1m/km slower and do a 10km run... But for pacing there is many sites you can look at that will give you far more accurate guides than I can just off the top of my head...

Pure plain calorie wise and fat burning wise running faster is better. But it needs to be a pace you can MAINTAIN for the full duration of the session.

If you go too fast your not going to complete it faster and might even finish slower overall because of not pacing correctly... It will take a few runs to get the pacing right and a feel for what you can push yourself to do, and in the longer run, it will be worth the effort

Oh and of course, you do not need to run as hard as you can every single session to get the benefit. Having an easy day will help with recovery and allow you to run stronger on hard days. Let me know if you have any questions

jonchew

wow, that is entirely too much thinking for me. I just write down whatever the hrm says and be happy with it.

Agreed!

Well, actually - I use MFPs exercise calories estimator, but I also keep-track of what my HRM is doing (well, Endomondo does). The HRM usually comes-in significantly higher on calories burned, but I figure that I'm on a 1700 cal/day budget (in-other-words - I'm certainly not starving!), if I keep it close to that goal, using all data derived from MFP - than all will be good.

Hey, it's worked so far - & I just don't have the time to obsess over it!

Tilran

First off as a fact, it requires 9000kcal to burn off 1lb of body fat.

Where did you hear this? I've always heard 1 pound is 3500 calories.

SohoCyclist

I look at it this way. Look at a sprinter's body and an endurance athlete's body and ask yourself which you would be your personal preference.

secretlobster

The burn per mile is about the same at any speed

This, and

Look at a sprinter's body and an endurance athlete's body and ask yourself which you would be your personal preference.

This

LuckyLeprechaun

First off as a fact, it requires 9000kcal to burn off 1lb of body fat.

Where did you hear this? I've always heard 1 pound is 3500 calories.

3500 is the correct figure.

djkshdfd

Man people get cocky on here

LuckyLeprechaun

Thee higher your heart rate, the more calories you're burning. Forget about "zones" and just bust your *kitten* as hard as you can, every time you work out.

jsj024519

The burn per mile is about the same at any speed. If you are going faster you get the miles run quicker. So, by time the burn is higher at a faster speed.

You burn a combination of fat and carbohydrates at all speeds. At lower speeds the ratio is higher for fat burned.

For weight loss the ratio of fat and carbohydrates isn't really important. Just count the calories.

For fitness, you need to run a variety of speeds and distances to target different physiological effects.

This is EXACTLY the answer that you are seeking.

ILoveTheBrowns

this is in no way scientific....that being said for some reason i seem to respond better to a 20-30 min 2.5-3 mile jog then doing 20 minutes of intervals.....dont know why have tried and done both for a while and thats what ive noticed for me

AZKristi

Your body is never burning calories from a single source. In the "fat burning zone" a higher percentage of calories are coming from fat. Above that, a smaller percentage of calories are coming from fat but you burn more calories overall. I've read articles advocating for both strategies but I've never read one that really convinced me either way was better than the other way. I try to vary my workouts so I get some of each. When I do cardio, I do it to improve my cardiovascular fitness. I do things like yoga, pilates, and weight lifting which are more in the fat burning zone.

nphect

this is in no way scientific....that being said for some reason i seem to respond better to a 20-30 min 2.5-3 mile jog then doing 20 minutes of intervals.....dont know why have tried and done both for a while and thats what ive noticed for me

because intervals your lowering your heart rate. The only reason to do intervals is to get faster. If your just trying to look better, there is no need.

Zangpakto

First off as a fact, it requires 9000kcal to burn off 1lb of body fat.

Where did you hear this? I've always heard 1 pound is 3500 calories.

Sure, burn 3500 calories on the treadmill and kid yourself into believing you lost 1 lb of pure fat... go right ahead You will burn close to 1lb, but not entirely 1lb of fat... Also I made an error, was 1kg... not lb...

Zangpakto

First off as a fact, it requires 9000kcal to burn off 1lb of body fat.

Where did you hear this? I've always heard 1 pound is 3500 calories.

3500 is the correct figure.

Meant to be 1kg of body fat, my bad I do apologise on that one... Was quoting direct from a book from studies, however misquoted the text...