Does distance running have any post workout benefits?

Yes. However, a steady state run will not yield as great an EPOC as resistance training or HIIT. So consider adding interval runs into you runnning training regimen. They will improve your both your speed and body composition.

http://www.charlespoliquin.com/Blog/tabid/130/EntryId/1537/Tip-426-Lose-Fat-Save-Time-Improve-Conditioning-with-Sprints.aspx

You won't get much at the distances you are describing. Distance running can provide an afterburn, but it takes running at a pretty decent intensity (70+% VO2 max) for 45+ minutes.

My DH certainly thinks so. I'm less cranky? :explode: :laugh:

EPOC does rise with steady state work but the % increase is smaller compared to higher intensity exercise (7% v 14%)

In practical terms though EPOC does not amount to anything of significance for the normal person so is not really a good basis for changing a routine.

I do think intervals etc are a great technique for improving performance and fitness but if you are thinking of doing them simply because of the higher EPOC effect it won't be worth it.

ETA: as Azdak has already said I see...

the study he is referencing was done in a metabolic chamber. 155bpm HR with joe average guys at 70% VO2MAX saw an afterburn increase just below 200 calories over 24 hours. 420 calories were burned in 45min exercise at this intensity. making the % afterburn a LOT higher then 7 or 14%.

That said, the fact of there being afterburn only when you start to push anaerobic threshholds seems to be true. at lower intensities, the afterburn is far less.

EPOC does rise with steady state work but the % increase is smaller compared to higher intensity exercise (7% v 14%)

In practical terms though EPOC does not amount to anything of significance for the normal person so is not really a good basis for changing a routine.

I do think intervals etc are a great technique for improving performance and fitness but if you are thinking of doing them simply because of the higher EPOC effect it won't be worth it.

ETA: as Azdak has already said I see...

the study he is referencing was done in a metabolic chamber. 155bpm HR with joe average guys at 70% VO2MAX saw an afterburn increase just below 200 calories over 24 hours. 420 calories were burned in 45min exercise at this intensity. making the % afterburn a LOT higher then 7 or 14%.

That said, the fact of there being afterburn only when you start to push anaerobic threshholds seems to be true. at lower intensities, the afterburn is far less.

The "7% vs 14%" number comes from a meta analysis done (I believe) in 2004, which reviewed dozens of studies on the topic and determined the "best fit" average.

I believe the study you are referencing is one by David Nieman from Appalachian State? If so, that is a single study, with results that (so far) are substantially outside the averages reported by previous research. Doesn't make it wrong, but it needs to be replicated with various other populations, etc, before it can be considered proof of anything.

metabolic chambers are relatively new far as i'm aware. the one where this study was done was built only a few years ago. And far as I know, metabolic chambers are 100% accurate. as for replicated, well again as far as I know, this is the only metabolic chamber avail to do this sort of testing.

According to my HRM my heart rate drops back to normal after any long run basically as soon as I sit or lay down to elevate my legs afterwards. And my BMF shows no increased caloric burn for the time after a run. After my half marathon last Sunday my heart rate was down to normal as soon as I walked back to the hotel.

For me, the only post-long run benefit I get is getting to eat a nice, big meal to replenish some of those 1400 calories I burned off.

EPOC does rise with steady state work but the % increase is smaller compared to higher intensity exercise (7% v 14%)

In practical terms though EPOC does not amount to anything of significance for the normal person so is not really a good basis for changing a routine.

I do think intervals etc are a great technique for improving performance and fitness but if you are thinking of doing them simply because of the higher EPOC effect it won't be worth it.

ETA: as Azdak has already said I see...

the study he is referencing was done in a metabolic chamber. 155bpm HR with joe average guys at 70% VO2MAX saw an afterburn increase just below 200 calories over 24 hours. 420 calories were burned in 45min exercise at this intensity. making the % afterburn a LOT higher then 7 or 14%.

That said, the fact of there being afterburn only when you start to push anaerobic threshholds seems to be true. at lower intensities, the afterburn is far less.

The "7% vs 14%" number comes from a meta analysis done (I believe) in 2004, which reviewed dozens of studies on the topic and determined the "best fit" average.

I believe the study you are referencing is one by David Nieman from Appalachian State? If so, that is a single study, with results that (so far) are substantially outside the averages reported by previous research. Doesn't make it wrong, but it needs to be replicated with various other populations, etc, before it can be considered proof of anything.

metabolic chambers are relatively new far as i'm aware. the one where this study was done was built only a few years ago. And far as I know, metabolic chambers are 100% accurate. as for replicated, well again as far as I know, this is the only metabolic chamber avail to do this sort of testing.

There are a number of them available around the country. I don't know that any methodology can be considered "100% accurate", and even if it were, both human variables and experimental structure can affect results as well.

Again, I am not dismissing the study or saying it is wrong. If this is the study that I think it is, then the main researcher (Dr Nieman) does quality work and I paid attention to the results. But no matter how good a study seems, especially in the area of EPOC and post-exercise calorie burn, you need a lot more than one study to provide definitive results. That's all I am saying.