I keep reading this here, but it doesn't make sense to me

Because it's still just physics. It takes X work to move Y mass Z distance.

Take a car for example. If it takes 75 hp to go 60 MPH, it doesn't matter if it comes from a I4 or a V12, it's the same amount of work (hp).

I honestly disagree. I have a HRM. Even if I go to the Polar training website and type in my sex/height/weight/etc--I enter my exercise time and the amount it calculates is almost double the calories my HRM confirms. Even if I enter my "average" heart rate (which my polar watch gives me) it still calculates WAY over the calories my watch gives me. Your heartrate is going to be unique to you. Nobody works out the same during a run.

What is more heavy? 5 pounds of popcorn or 5 pounds of stones?

Lets say you take two 5 pound bags. One is bag of of popcorn and other is bag of stones. Popcorn bag is bigger but stones bag is smaller even if they both weight the same. Which do you think you will need more strength to lift? They both weight the same...

In this case your muscle strength = energy necessary to move the object. Even if they both are different size the weight is the same, therefore you will need same amount of energy to move them.

In runner example energy necessary to move the object (person) = calories (cos calories are basically energy). Even if they are different size it doesn't matter because they both weight the same.

Now the thing is, just because it is harder for you to run than other guy doesn't mean he burns less calories. Energy necessary to move the mass is still the same, basics rules of physics apply. It's just that he doesn't feel it anymore cos he is used to it.

I am strongly looking forward to being strongly entrenched with my maintenence and not worrying about how many calories I'm burning while I am running. I haven't done the math and trending but my calorie burn from running (per distance/time) seems to have gotten lower quicker than my weightloss and I believe it is because I have become a stronger / more efficient runner and running isn't quite the effort it used to be and I don't believe that the ease has come completely from being lighter and having to move less of a body to move my body.

But that's all just empirical evidence and not backed by even simple statistical analysis.

Thanks for all the thoughts and opinions on this!

scorpio516, that's the simple explanation I needed. But it just opens up another question in my mind. If you drive 60 mph in a 4 cylinder, a 6 cylinder and an 8 cylinder, isn't the fuel used more based on the size of the engine?

Alehmer, thanks. You are right, it can be overly complicated! I am not the most logical person in the world, but if it doesn't make sense, I try to figure out how to make it make sense. lol

Exactly!!! You can't compare a 4cy to an 8 cy.

What is more heavy? 5 pounds of popcorn or 5 pounds of stones?

Lets say you take two 5 pound bags. One is bag of of popcorn and other is bag of stones. Popcorn bag is bigger but stones bag is smaller even if they both weight the same. Which do you think you will need more strength to lift? They both weight the same...

In this case your muscle strength = energy necessary to move the object. Even if they both are different size the weight is the same, therefore you will need same amount of energy to move them.

In runner example energy necessary to move the object (person) = calories (cos calories are basically energy). Even if they are different size it doesn't matter because they both weight the same.

Now the thing is, just because it is harder for you to run than other guy doesn't mean he burns less calories. Energy necessary to move the mass is still the same, basics rules of physics apply. It's just that he doesn't feel it anymore cos he is used to it.

This is incorrect. You are assuming the exact same machinery behind the work when that's not the case. Looking at the support system alone, a seasoned athlete has a much more efficient energy delivery to those muscles for the same muscular output. Greater capillary density in the muscle tissue, expanded lung capacity and oxygen absorption, higher red blood cell count, greater standing glycogen stores in the muscles, etc etc etc. An athlete of the same weight on the same run will burn fewer calories than a beginner on the run, and then most importantly will burn far fewer after the run in recovery because of that same support system.

Why do you think one person is doubled over, gasping for air and red-faced after a mile run while another person barely breaks a sweat? The out of shape person has a significant bottleneck on their ability to deliver oxygen and glycogen to those muscles and has to work much harder to fuel the same activity. They are gasping because they can't get enough oxygen out of the same air, shaking because those muscles have exhausted their 'ready' energy stores and have fallen back on much less efficient processes, and their hearts are pounding because the heart is struggling to delivery the necessary resources through a cruddy delivery system with far more beats to get the same job done.

There is a lot of good information on this topic in this thread: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/97228-fit-vs-unfit-calories-burned-doing-identical-exercise

The summary seems to be that if you take two runners who are the same age, height and weight and only differ in fitness level then, yes, the energy they use to run the same distance at the same speed will be roughly the same. The thread doesn't mention it but I'd imagine this has been confirmed by getting people to run on a treadmill and measuring how much CO2 they breathe out and thus how many calories they are burning.

The thread also says that HRMs can be misleading when you use them to calculate calories burned. To work out calories HRMs take your age, weight etc. and use a statistical model to work out the maximum rate at which you can use oxygen or VO2 max. As you get fitter your VO2 max will improve and move further away from this statistical average. This will lead the HRM to underestimate the calories you are burning unless you measure your own VO2 max and enter it.

Thanks for all the thoughts and opinions on this!

scorpio516, that's the simple explanation I needed. But it just opens up another question in my mind. If you drive 60 mph in a 4 cylinder, a 6 cylinder and an 8 cylinder, isn't the fuel used more based on the size of the engine?

Alehmer, thanks. You are right, it can be overly complicated! I am not the most logical person in the world, but if it doesn't make sense, I try to figure out how to make it make sense. lol

Not necessarily. Fuel use is based on load on an engine, which is dictated by gearing and aerodynamics.
My 4 cylinder Volvo gets 18-20 MPG. A Corvette gets about 30 MPG at highway speeds because it's geared to go 175 MPH, so 70 mph is barely working the engine at all. Not totally comparable with a human running.

I know this goes against your whole plain english point, but this is where the numbers come from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150

And here's another article that refutes the counterpoint:
http://jap.physiology.org/content/18/2/367

The research states that elite runners only burn 5-7% fewer calories than an average runner/schlub off the street. Economy of running only counts for very, very little changes.

Intensity is a key point in this discussion that has not been well addressed.

It's key because in part the highly developed body will see a greater return on those physiological efficiencies at higher intensities. Take for instance the fact that the more basic strength you have to use for a movement, the less blood flow you get through that muscle. Generally, at about 50% of maximal strength limit the muscle is constricting tight enough with the effort that effectively zero blood flow is happening at contraction. This means 2 things for fit vs. non-fit. At a set pace, the fit body is using a lower % of strength and can rely on greater blood flow to the muscles. This is in addition to an already higher ability to deliver blood to the muscles via a more developed support system.

Why would this matter in the workout? It actually means very little..... in the workout

However, when we consider the recovery phase, where MOST of the calorie burn happens for intense exercise, the difference is dramatic. The non-fit person has to maintain a higher heart rate, oxygen intake, etc. during the recovery phase to replenish the muscles as they had to use more glycogen stores and have an inferior ability to replenish it. IE that workout that had you beat all day and sore for 2 wouldn't even register to a pro athlete. Even more so, as a more intense input gets a more intense response from the body in healing/building, the not-fit person's body will be building muscle and infra-structure in response at a much higher degree than the fit person as it simply wasn't nearly as intense for them.

Picture the Corvette vs. Volvo analogy. Run that Volvo to it's very limits for 20 laps around a racetrack, then have the Corvette match that pace for 20 laps. What are you left with? A fun day in a Corvette and a few gallons of gas burnt, and a Volvo that has significant tire wear, a stressed cooling system, smoking brakes, etc. etc. It's not the cost of the gas on track, it's the cost to get it back to healthy after the race. Now on top of that the Volvo mechanic recommends better tires, shocks, brake pads, etc. so that it will be able to take that pace better on the next track day. All additional cost that the Vette driver doesn't need to pay out (or you could say has already paid for)

This is why Tabatas and HIIT work as well as they do. It's not the calories burned in a few minutes, it's how many it takes to recover from that expenditure.

Do people still use Heart Rate monitors? ha

If those 3 people ran 3 miles they wouldn't burn the same calories. You didnt say how fast they did it?!

Calculations like this are very generic and used as a average range to give a very average result. Before you put your heart rate monitor on, did you do a test to see what your maximum heart rate is? Please say you didn't do 220-your age? again, a very generic result!

IMO running for distance is a bye gone era. If you run 3 miles 3 times a week your bound to be good at it somewhere which would make your time decrease, why would you want to burn less calories than the week before?! Run for 30 minutes instead, you hit 3.5 miles at some point ans so on.

slow and long cardio is also a bye gone too, New studies show that HIIT and interval is the way forward and that Tabata training is quickest form of raising fitness levels (VO2 max). Get an iphone and get an interval training app. their cheaper, more effective and a lot more fun

Do people still use Heart Rate monitors?

HRM are a myth.. just like everything else..

:drinker: