Calories burned running: is speed a factor at all?
Replies
-
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.0 -
I was told by personal trainer that speed doesnt effect calories burned as much as resistance or incline does. I cant run on treadmill yet, but i do walk, and i have done 20 mins with 2.0 speed and 1.5 incline and burned 73 more calories than when i did 3.0 speed cuz i was only able to do it at a 1 incline. so at least for me...lower speed with higher incline does better than higher speed with lower incline. I have also noticed this to be same with elliptical..more resistance slower speed i burn more calories0
-
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)
Apologies, I misinterpreted the results. The second study did show increased energy consumption for higher speeds of running, but from what I can tell these increases are linear meaning that speed does not impact energy consumption (because time taken also increases linearly - therefore total energy consumption stays the same).0 -
A lot of people make some very valid points on this subject. Having done an exponential amount of freelance research or my own benefit, I know that it is not about how many calories you burn, but from what fuel source you are attempting to pull from. Someone running 5 miles at a 10:00 pace will absolutely burn MORE calories, but in running so far for so long they are much more subject to carb depletion followed by muscle depletion. Once your glycogen stores are zapped of fuel, I.E. Carbohydrates, your body will pull from its next most energy efficient resource, your muscle mass, with a small amount of energy coming from fat. Interval training will burn far less calories in the long run but you are not nearly as subject to muscle mass loss due to quick acceleration and deceleration. Your body will alternately burn carbohydrates and fat and will actually release hormones and chemicals to not only PROTECT your muscle mass, but actually stimulate growth! Building lean muscle mass is the ultimate goal and your best tool for fighting fat gain. Combining interval training with weight training an eating a diet of good fats, quality carbs, lots of protein, and plenty of water is the ultimate key to success!0
-
Also, adding incline is a key tool to adding resistance and extra burn! I do my interval training uphill at a 8 degree incline myself0
-
I was told by personal trainer that speed doesnt effect calories burned as much as resistance or incline does. I cant run on treadmill yet, but i do walk, and i have done 20 mins with 2.0 speed and 1.5 incline and burned 73 more calories than when i did 3.0 speed cuz i was only able to do it at a 1 incline. so at least for me...lower speed with higher incline does better than higher speed with lower incline. I have also noticed this to be same with elliptical..more resistance slower speed i burn more calories
Incline is a whole new ballgame
The more incline you have, the more contact with the floor your feet have whilst your muscles are contracting, which means longer contractions per footfall which requires more torque, which equals more energy expended.
Also, the 'after burner' effect that was mentioned here regarding interval training I already covered. Interval training at intensity that exceeds your VO2 Max results in your body using your anaerobic system to provide the energy for it which is over 15 times less efficient than your aerobic system, resulting in 15 times more molecules of glucose needed per minute to do the exercise, which equals more calories burned. Once you finish your high intensity part of the interval and you're doing your active recovery, your body slips back into aerobic respiration which attempts to address the lactic acid buildup by pumping it away to break it down at a later time (which also requires energy) - it's this that is referred to as the after burn effect - your body continues to attempt to redress the lactic acid build up even after exercise.0 -
In most cases running burns more calories than walking, but when walking at increasing paces you eventually reach a point at which the walking becomes more difficult than running. That point is called the preferred walk-run transition speed (PTS). It is at this point that walking begins to burn more calories than running. The study from Washington University showed that this point occurs at approximately 5 MPH. However, this will vary slightly depending upon your fitness level and how efficient you are at walking and running. One of the predictors of running performance is running economy. This is simply a measure of how efficient you are at running. If two runners of equal fitness levels were running a race, the runner that is the most efficient will win. That is because a more efficient runner is able to run faster with less effort. Running with less effort means you are burning fewer calories. A more efficient runner would probably reach the walk-run transition speed at slower speeds than a less efficient runner.
The bottom line is that the number of calories burned during walking and running is not a static number. It is a dynamic measure that will increase as your speed and effort level increases. Each of us will have a preferred walk-run transition speed (PTS). Running at speeds slower than your PTS will feel harder and will burn more calories than walking. Walking at speeds faster than your PTS will feel harder and will burn more calories than running. The average PTS is about 5 MPH but your individual PTS will depend upon your fitness level and your walking/running efficiency. Your calorie burn per mile will increase as you accelerate at speeds faster than your PTS.
As you can see, the answer to the question of calorie confusion is that both sides are correct. There is a point at which the calorie burn per mile of walking versus running is equal. There is also a level at which walking burns more calories per mile than running. But, at speeds of 5 MPH or faster, running will burn more calories per mile than walking. It is very difficult to estimate your exact level of calorie burn per mile without expensive laboratory analysis. In order to simplify things you will always get a fairly close estimate of your calorie burn by using the old accepted equation of 100 calories per mile. It will not be exact, but it will be close and easy.0 -
A lot of people make some very valid points on this subject. Having done an exponential amount of freelance research or my own benefit, I know that it is not about how many calories you burn, but from what fuel source you are attempting to pull from. Someone running 5 miles at a 10:00 pace will absolutely burn MORE calories, but in running so far for so long they are much more subject to carb depletion followed by muscle depletion. Once your glycogen stores are zapped of fuel, I.E. Carbohydrates, your body will pull from its next most energy efficient resource, your muscle mass, with a small amount of energy coming from fat. Interval training will burn far less calories in the long run but you are not nearly as subject to muscle mass loss due to quick acceleration and deceleration. Your body will alternately burn carbohydrates and fat and will actually release hormones and chemicals to not only PROTECT your muscle mass, but actually stimulate growth! Building lean muscle mass is the ultimate goal and your best tool for fighting fat gain. Combining interval training with weight training an eating a diet of good fats, quality carbs, lots of protein, and plenty of water is the ultimate key to success!
You lost me at exponential.0 -
From what I understand, if you are performing exercise below the anaerobic threshold, (basically below 8 on the percieved intensity scale where 1 is not doing much and 10 is running from the devil) then you will burn a roughly equal amount of calories for every mile you run regardless of how fast you run it. This assumes you aren't sprinting for a short burst and then walking, but are giving out a relatively constant level of effort.0
-
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!).
Go to this site, and check the MET for your activity (running for example)
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/running
Then go to this site and input your data and the MET from the above and it will give you the relevant data you want
http://lamb.cc/calories-burned-calculator/
According the calculations taken from both sites and applied to me
If I run at 5mph for one hour I burn 933 calories (186.6 calories per mile)
If I run at 6mph for one hour I burn 1102 calories (183.66r calories per mile)
If I run at 7.5mph for one hour I burn 1326 calories (176.8 calories per mile)
If I run at 10mph for one hour I burn 1630 calories (163 calories per mile)0 -
Get an HRM already!
Then, do your original test again with better information. See what happens...
FYI - most of us are thinking more about it this way: I am running for 60 minutes today. If I run FAST, I'll burn more calories (having traveled more distance and expended more effort) than if I run SLOWER. Additionally, most of us are thinking: I will run as fast as I can for as long as I can... and then I'll do something else for the last 45 minutes. :laugh:0 -
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 677.0 -
I asked Sheldon...He said that if you run fast enough, at the end of your run, there would be a slight difference in the time on your wrist watch and the time on your desk clock (assuming they were both syncronized at the start of your run....) The time you experienced during your really really fast run would be slightly LESS than the time on your desk clock.
We haven't figured out which time to use to calculate calories burned...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).0 -
I asked Sheldon...He said that if you run fast enough, at the end of your run, there would be a slight difference in the time on your wrist watch and the time on your desk clock (assuming they were both syncronized at the start of your run....) The time you experienced during your really really fast run would be slightly LESS than the time on your desk clock.
We haven't figured out which time to use to calculate calories burned...
You would want to use the time shown on your wrist watch because that is the reference frame that you ran in. Of course to see any appreciable effects of time dilation, you'd have to be running at >0.1*c.
XD0 -
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?0
-
Yesterday I did a the following running training session:
2 miles warm up @ 9 minute miles
3 miles @ 7 minute miles
1 mile cool down @ 9 minute miles
So I logged my calories burned follows (based on MFP calc):
27 minutes at 9mm: 377 cals
21 minutes at 7mm: 373 cals
In other words - speed has virtually no impact on the number of calories burned per mile ~ (125)
On one hand this seems logical - the amount of work exerted is a factor of weight x distance - this how levers and pulleys function after all. On the other hand, you would think that running outside your comfort zone is going to offer more resistance - a good analogy would be that a car travelling at 70 mph burns more fuel per mile than one travelling at 50 mph because there is additional wind resistance to be overcome by the faster car.
Does anyone know the answer to this?
I'm not sure of the question here. Of course running faster burns more calories. You just stated that both in practice and in theory. Comfort zone doesn't have much to do with anything but your car example is the closer to being on point.
And I don't have a calculator here and am not smart enough to do math in my head, but it seems like you burned 20%ish more calories at the higher speed. 370 cal to 370 cal in about 50% less time. Were you hoping for a much higher number or something? Or just bragging that you can run 7 min miles? Because that's awesome and like 3mph more than I can run without puking. Terrific speed.
Apologies if this duplicates someone's response. Not reading thru the thread because I'm assuming it's 3 pages of get an HRM, get an HRM, get an HRM, which would NOT actually answer the question posed here.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.
You are correct in that there is no calculated difference in cals/mile at different running speeds. This holds true as long as the running is done within the person's steady-state ability.0 -
See my post and you 'll see this is still nonsenseOK - 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).0 -
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.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.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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions