Ideal running time?

magster67dm
magster67dm Posts: 11 Member
edited November 15 in Fitness and Exercise
Whats the least amount of time spent running to burn off calories?

Replies

  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    All running burns calories. What specifically are you trying to accomplish?
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    magster67dm wrote: »
    Whats the least amount of time spent running to burn off calories?

    Depends how many you want to burn, what your physical condition is.
  • magster67dm
    magster67dm Posts: 11 Member
    I'm aiming to use running to help burn off fat but Ionly have limited time i.e. 30 mins in the morning to run. Is this enough time to make a real difference fat burning wise?
  • Amplifiedx11
    Amplifiedx11 Posts: 15 Member
    This is just a guestimate, but I've found it to be fairly accurate over time:


    Your Body Weight (times) Total Miles ran (times) .3 = Calories Burned


    Again, just a rough, rough estimate.

    Did I mention it was rough?
  • besaro
    besaro Posts: 1,858 Member
    calorie deficient will help you lose weight, running will help you burn more calories so you can have a larger deficient. 10,20,30 minutes, it all adds up.
  • TriShamelessly
    TriShamelessly Posts: 905 Member
    Yes, 30 min is plenty to get a good burn in. I suggest starting off with a C25K app on your phone. It will help you work up to a full 30-minute run (~ 5K depending on your pace, etc.). Also get a good pair of running shoes that are properly fitted for you. Of course, the more you run in both distance and time, the more calories you can burn. At 5'10" and ~200#, I will burn about 500 calories in a half hour at my normal pace just shy of 10 minutes per mile. Best of luck and happy trails!
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    magster67dm wrote: »
    I'm aiming to use running to help burn off fat but Ionly have limited time i.e. 30 mins in the morning to run. Is this enough time to make a real difference fat burning wise?

    I lost two stone doing Couch to 5K, so yes. The main thing is managing your calorie deficit though.
  • TheDarkestStar87
    TheDarkestStar87 Posts: 246 Member
    If you only have a limited time but want the best result, I'd throw in some HIIT. Basic one would be 5 min warm up jog, then alternate 1min flat out and 1min jog for however much time you have, end with 5 min cool down. Burns more than a jog at unchanging pace (and absolutely kills after half an hour).

    There's tons of different variations for intervals, a bit of internet research and experimenting will find the combo that's best for you.give yourself break with a slow run once or twice a week though (depending n how often you want to go running).
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited March 2015
    magster67dm wrote: »
    I'm aiming to use running to help burn off fat but Ionly have limited time i.e. 30 mins in the morning to run. Is this enough time to make a real difference fat burning wise?

    200 pounder running 5k (which is totally doable in 30 minutes) is burning an extra 400 calories.

    Scale for your distance and body weight....
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    TheDarkestStar87 wrote: »
    If you only have a limited time but want the best result, I'd throw in some HIIT.

    Only a matter of time until someone trotted this out.

    Notwithstanding the need for a base level of fitness before intervals have any significant effect, it's not going to expend more calories than just doing endurance runing for the same length of time.

    For a HIIT session to be worthwhile it needs a good 15 minutes warming up, and the same cooling down. So straightway it doesn't meet the requirement for a 30 minute session.
  • AllanMisner
    AllanMisner Posts: 4,140 Member
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    TheDarkestStar87 wrote: »
    If you only have a limited time but want the best result, I'd throw in some HIIT.

    Only a matter of time until someone trotted this out.

    Notwithstanding the need for a base level of fitness before intervals have any significant effect, it's not going to expend more calories than just doing endurance runing for the same length of time.

    For a HIIT session to be worthwhile it needs a good 15 minutes warming up, and the same cooling down. So straightway it doesn't meet the requirement for a 30 minute session.

    Not true. If I’m doing a HIIT session in the afternoon and have already been moving around for a few hours, a five minute warm up is more than enough (even for me now at age 49). I’ll do 5 minute warm up, 8 - 10 rounds of 30-90 HIIT, followed by a 5 minute cool down (30 minutes or less).


  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited March 2015
    AllanMisner wrote: »
    ... - 10 rounds of 30-90 HIIT

    Anything you can do for 10 rounds of 90 seconds is not HIIT.

    The point of HIIT is to get WAY above 100% V02max - 20 seconds at a time, 4-6 rounds, is about all even an elite athlete can manage before the body just can't do it anymore.

    What you're doing is normal-ish intervals.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited March 2015
    AllanMisner wrote: »
    Not true. If I’m doing a HIIT session in the afternoon and have already been moving around for a few hours, a five minute warm up is more than enough (even for me now at age 49). I’ll do 5 minute warm up, 8 - 10 rounds of 30-90 HIIT, followed by a 5 minute cool down (30 minutes or less).

    Ok, so we're talking running. Someone who doesn't yet run, the originator, could run for 30 minutes and by the end of a C25K plan be running 2.5-3 miles by the end of the plan. For me, 30 minutes will give me 300-350 calories, can't speak for the originator.

    Or, notwithstanding the length of warm up, could do 4-5 sprint intervals. Given the lack of condition those sprints are unlikely to even be 100 metres. So if you're doing 5 minutes warm up and cool down, then that session would be 1.5-2 miles. Again for me, in the order of 200 cals.

    I'm sure someone will cite afterburn, so that's an extra 5-10%, if one is doing true HIIT which is very unlikely given the starting condition. For steady state the EPOC is 4-6% anyway.

    Still expending more calories by just doing steady state for 30 minutes.

    It's nonsensical to recommend HIIT to someone with an unknown aerobic base, and given the nature of the original question it's unlikely there is enough of a base to exploit HIIT.


  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    It's nonsensical to recommend HIIT to someone with an unknown aerobic base, and given the nature of the original question it's unlikely there is enough of a base to exploit HIIT.

    :drinker:

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Amplifiedx11 wrote: »
    This is just a guestimate, but I've found it to be fairly accurate over time:


    Your Body Weight (times) Total Miles ran (times) .3 = Calories Burned


    Again, just a rough, rough estimate.

    Did I mention it was rough?


    That is for walking ... not running.

    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    AllanMisner wrote: »
    Not true. If I’m doing a HIIT session in the afternoon and have already been moving around for a few hours, a five minute warm up is more than enough (even for me now at age 49). I’ll do 5 minute warm up, 8 - 10 rounds of 30-90 HIIT, followed by a 5 minute cool down (30 minutes or less).


    It's nonsensical to recommend HIIT to someone with an unknown aerobic base, and given the nature of the original question it's unlikely there is enough of a base to exploit HIIT.


    Agree.
  • Amplifiedx11
    Amplifiedx11 Posts: 15 Member
    Yup, my mistake. The .3 multiplier is for walking, not running. Running, they say, is .63 per mile per pound of body weight.

    Good catch, Brian, my mistake.

    Again, it's a rough estimate, but in my experience it's fairly accurate over time, meaning the more you do, the more it "averages out" to right around .63. The same is true for the .3 multiplier for walking.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited March 2015
    Amplifiedx11 wrote: »
    Yup, my mistake. The .3 multiplier is for walking, not running. Running, they say, is .63 per mile per pound of body weight.

    Good catch, Brian, my mistake.

    Again, it's a rough estimate, but in my experience it's fairly accurate over time, meaning the more you do, the more it "averages out" to right around .63. The same is true for the .3 multiplier for walking.

    I use .35 for walking and .65 for running and concur they are good estimates that match actual long term logged results.

    And the nice thing is once you have a good estimate for running, it allows you to get pretty good estimates for most other physical activities.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories