Distance vs intensity
DeannaSofia886
Posts: 77 Member
Is it more beneficial to weight loss to run longer distances at a steady pace or shorter distance at a faster, more intense pace?
0
Replies
-
Doesn't matter what exercise you do.
Weight loss comes from a caloric deficit.0 -
I feel interval running is best for endurance. You'd be able to run longer that way. This isn't really with the focus of weight loss in mind, that will come naturally0
-
if you have to choose its longer the better even if its slow.0
-
Try to look at fitness for the sake of fitness rather than weight loss. Yes, regular exercise can help with weight management in that it increases your calorie requisites...this makes it easier to maintain a healthy weight when in maintenance and helps you more easily maintain a reasonable calorie deficit for weight loss...for example, without exercise I could only eat around 2000 calories to lose about 1 Lb per week...with regular exercise, I can eat upwards of 2,500 calories and lose about 1 Lb per week...
I cycle roughly 80 miles per week...run a 5K or two every week...lift 2-3x per week...walk my dog...do some hiking, etc. I have lost weight, maintained weight, and gained weight doing all of these things...the difference being how much I was eating.
0 -
IsaackGMOON wrote: »Doesn't matter what exercise you do.
Weight loss comes from a caloric deficit.
And how do you create a caloric deficit?
To the OP: I haven't spent a lot of time researching it, but the popular theory now is that higher intensity training sessions offer more fat/calorie burning benefit over steady-state cardio because of the "afterburner" effect. Your metabolism is elevated for longer periods of time after training.0 -
IsaackGMOON wrote: »Doesn't matter what exercise you do.
Weight loss comes from a caloric deficit.
And how do you create a caloric deficit?
To the OP: I haven't spent a lot of time researching it, but the popular theory now is that higher intensity training sessions offer more fat/calorie burning benefit over steady-state cardio because of the "afterburner" effect. Your metabolism is elevated for longer periods of time after training.
Buy doing a master cleanse with herbalife of course..0 -
Depends on your level of fitness however both will make you lose weight as long as your calorie intake and training lead you into a caloric deficit.
As for the question, everyone's bodies respond differently to different types of training therefore I would experiment with both and decide what you feel is aiding you the best.0 -
IsaackGMOON wrote: »Doesn't matter what exercise you do.
Weight loss comes from a caloric deficit.
And how do you create a caloric deficit?
To the OP: I haven't spent a lot of time researching it, but the popular theory now is that higher intensity training sessions offer more fat/calorie burning benefit over steady-state cardio because of the "afterburner" effect. Your metabolism is elevated for longer periods of time after training.
this is most efficiently done through energy consumption...i.e. how much you're eating. it would be very difficult to consistently do enough exercise day in and day out to effectively lose weight. there are loads of people who have their fitness down, but their bodies never change and they never lose weight...because they're still eating too much. you can't out exercise a bad diet.
if exercise was all about creating a calorie deficit and losing weight then nobody in maintenance would exercise now would they? I ride about 80 miles per week in maintenance just like I did when I was losing weight...I just eat more now to maintain...0 -
DeannaSofia886 wrote: »Is it more beneficial to weight loss to run longer distances at a steady pace or shorter distance at a faster, more intense pace?
As long as you're running, not walking, distance determines calorie burn, not intensity or speed. If you run a mile in 7 minutes, or you run a mile in 10 minutes, as long as you're running, the calorie burn is the same. The benefit that intensity has it that it conditions your cardiovascular system and your heart.0 -
IsaackGMOON wrote: »Doesn't matter what exercise you do.
Weight loss comes from a caloric deficit.
What a terrible, vague answer to a specific question...0 -
Is this true? I thought intensity mattered. Otherwise, why wear an HRM for a more accurate calorie burn?DeannaSofia886 wrote: »Is it more beneficial to weight loss to run longer distances at a steady pace or shorter distance at a faster, more intense pace?
As long as you're running, not walking, distance determines calorie burn, not intensity or speed. If you run a mile in 7 minutes, or you run a mile in 10 minutes, as long as you're running, the calorie burn is the same. The benefit that intensity has it that it conditions your cardiovascular system and your heart.
Surprising, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely perplexed.
0 -
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »
Is this true? I thought intensity mattered. Otherwise, why wear an HRM for a more accurate calorie burn?DeannaSofia886 wrote: »Is it more beneficial to weight loss to run longer distances at a steady pace or shorter distance at a faster, more intense pace?
As long as you're running, not walking, distance determines calorie burn, not intensity or speed. If you run a mile in 7 minutes, or you run a mile in 10 minutes, as long as you're running, the calorie burn is the same. The benefit that intensity has it that it conditions your cardiovascular system and your heart.
Surprising, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely perplexed.
Thermodynamics is thermodynamics. If you do the same amount of work, it requires the same amount of energy. The difference between running and walking is that when you run you actually have to lift yourself off the ground as opposed to just transferring your weight from one foot to the next with walking. That's where the added energy cost from running comes from, but as far as running at different speeds, as long as the same amount of work is done, the same amount of energy is required.0 -
I prefer to workout at a more intense pace. That way I can have a shorter workout. Leaves me more time for other things, like eating.
0 -
IsaackGMOON wrote: »Doesn't matter what exercise you do.
Weight loss comes from a caloric deficit.
And of course, burning more calories is one of two ways to create that deficit.
0 -
IsaackGMOON wrote: »Doesn't matter what exercise you do.
Weight loss comes from a caloric deficit.
And how do you create a caloric deficit?
To the OP: I haven't spent a lot of time researching it, but the popular theory now is that higher intensity training sessions offer more fat/calorie burning benefit over steady-state cardio because of the "afterburner" effect. Your metabolism is elevated for longer periods of time after training.
Perhaps you might want to do some more research into epoc.0 -
DeannaSofia886 wrote: »Is it more beneficial to weight loss to run longer distances at a steady pace or shorter distance at a faster, more intense pace?
It depends.
If I ran the same distance and i had a choice then id run it faster because id get, get more benefit to VO2 as well as some extended calorie burn. EPOC effect is often exaggerated.
However if i ran it at a slower pace id burn slightly fewer calories overall with less extended burn, but id be able to recover from it more easily. Recovery is an importnat factor becayse I would be able to do the runs more often or go for further distances, which would burn greater calories.
Noywithstanding being cautious about using exercise for calorie burns as you have to do a lot for it to start being significant. 250-500 cals would be20 mins to an hour.0 -
DeannaSofia886 wrote: »Is it more beneficial to weight loss to run longer distances at a steady pace or shorter distance at a faster, more intense pace?
What specifically are you trying to accomplish, with what plan?0 -
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »
Is this true? I thought intensity mattered. Otherwise, why wear an HRM for a more accurate calorie burn?DeannaSofia886 wrote: »Is it more beneficial to weight loss to run longer distances at a steady pace or shorter distance at a faster, more intense pace?
As long as you're running, not walking, distance determines calorie burn, not intensity or speed. If you run a mile in 7 minutes, or you run a mile in 10 minutes, as long as you're running, the calorie burn is the same. The benefit that intensity has it that it conditions your cardiovascular system and your heart.
HRMs for calorie burns are an invention from the fevered imaginations of marketing departments.
0 -
*shrug*
I've been using a HRM to help me determine calorie burn for 18 months. I eat back all my exercise calories, and I have lost and then maintained at exactly the calories MFP says, which could not happen if the HRM wasn't accurate.0 -
DeannaSofia886 wrote: »Is it more beneficial to weight loss to run longer distances at a steady pace or shorter distance at a faster, more intense pace?
Throw a few faster periods in the mix and try your best to keep the time up
I ride my bike avg 120 miles a week. There is a speed threshold for calorie burns per mile but the big thing for me is to keep it between 90 and 120 minutes at a cardio level with an occasional sprint.
You will get slightly different benefits from long term higher intensity cardio than lower.
My heart rate when I wake is in the high 40's now as a result of few months of riding lots of 19+ mph miles.
If you can vary your workout to an intense fast day, then slower longer day, then and interval day it may be less boring and will burn calories and condition your body
Good luck with it. Lots of options. Try and few and see what you like best.
0 -
*shrug*
I've been using a HRM to help me determine calorie burn for 18 months. I eat back all my exercise calories, and I have lost and then maintained at exactly the calories MFP says, which could not happen if the HRM wasn't accurate.
Sure it can. It's easy to have offsetting mistakes.
Not saying that's what happened - just saying that it does in fact happen.0 -
Thermodynamics is thermodynamics. If you do the same amount of work, it requires the same amount of energy. The difference between running and walking is that when you run you actually have to lift yourself off the ground as opposed to just transferring your weight from one foot to the next with walking. That's where the added energy cost from running comes from, but as far as running at different speeds, as long as the same amount of work is done, the same amount of energy is required.
Except our metabolism is not linear and different pathways are used depending on the fuel used, your efficiency, and availability of oxygen, molecules, and other enzymes. You DO burn more calories for energy production when you work at a higher intensities. Whether that's significant depends on the duration and intensity. That FACT is reflected in MFP and all fitness tracking databases when you select an aerobic exercise where intensity is reflected as speed or some other matrix. It's applicability, accuracy, per your application may not be perfit (results from small sample group, limited conditions, subject not like you, etc) but it DOES NOT change the fact that one DOES burn more calories at higher intensity than at lower intensity per unit of duration.
It's same concept as car fuel economy. Our engine is a lot more complicated.0 -
Mr_Knight, could you explain what you mean by offsetting mistakes?
To clarify, I am super tight with my logging and measuring so I know my calories in are pretty accurate. So calories out is the place where I would be off, but I seem to be spot on. I am also pretty small, so I don't have a lot of wiggle room.0 -
IsaackGMOON wrote: »Doesn't matter what exercise you do.
Weight loss comes from a caloric deficit.
And how do you create a caloric deficit?
To the OP: I haven't spent a lot of time researching it, but the popular theory now is that higher intensity training sessions offer more fat/calorie burning benefit over steady-state cardio because of the "afterburner" effect. Your metabolism is elevated for longer periods of time after training.
^this
I know I'll get jumped on, but this theory is also a part for the new theory that 3,500 calories is no longer a pound lost or gained. I'm fact there are many more factors involved. New research being conducted at Harvard and USC on this subject. Can't wait for more published studies.
This is a short explanation of what RD's and MD's mean if and when they say the 3,500 calorie rule is dead.
http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/111114p36.shtml0 -
Thermodynamics is thermodynamics. If you do the same amount of work, it requires the same amount of energy. The difference between running and walking is that when you run you actually have to lift yourself off the ground as opposed to just transferring your weight from one foot to the next with walking. That's where the added energy cost from running comes from, but as far as running at different speeds, as long as the same amount of work is done, the same amount of energy is required.
Except our metabolism is not linear and different pathways are used depending on the fuel used, your efficiency, and availability of oxygen, molecules, and other enzymes. You DO burn more calories for energy production when you work at a higher intensities. Whether that's significant depends on the duration and intensity. That FACT is reflected in MFP and all fitness tracking databases when you select an aerobic exercise where intensity is reflected as speed or some other matrix. It's applicability, accuracy, per your application may not be perfit (results from small sample group, limited conditions, subject not like you, etc) but it DOES NOT change the fact that one DOES burn more calories at higher intensity than at lower intensity per unit of duration.
It's same concept as car fuel economy. Our engine is a lot more complicated.
It's actually not reflected, at least in MFP. If I plug in running at 5mph for 60 minutes (5 mile run) it spits out 802 calories burned. If I plug in running at 10mph for 30 minutes (5 mile run as well but twice the speed) it again spits out 802 calories burned.0 -
DeannaSofia886 wrote: »Is it more beneficial to weight loss to run longer distances at a steady pace or shorter distance at a faster, more intense pace?
As upthread, it depends on your objectives, but essentially calorie expenditure is a function of mass and distance. Going at higher speeds does make a negligible difference, but as you're asking the question you'll get more from running longer.
There are other types of session hat will deliver other physiological benefits, but without a solid running base you won't get much value from them.0 -
Is this true? I thought intensity mattered. Otherwise, why wear an HRM for a more accurate calorie burn?
Surprising, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely perplexed.
HRMs are notoriously unreliable at estimating caloric expenditure as there is not a linear relationship between heart rate and calories burned......they're useful for measuring heart rate over a given period of time, and tracking changes in heart rate over time can be a good indicator of improving fitness (eg my max HR for most training runs is now lower than my avg used to be) . A combination GPS & HRM is more useful inasmuch as you're factoring in distance covered which is the most important variable.
0 -
I think it's more beneficial for your body and health overall along with calorie loss to start with long slow distance.
(Not too long at first) . Take it slow in building your distance .
Don't worry about distance AND time. If you want to run 30 min. great it doesn't matter how far you go .
If you want to run three miles, great, it doesn't matter how long it takes you.
Slow distance gives you time on the road burning calories and slowly/safely strengthens your body. When you get in shape and leaned down you can always start speed workouts . Unless you are already in shape and a runner, intense short runs are more apt to injure you.
Just my ideas from half a century ago (((; Long slow distance at first.0 -
It's actually not reflected, at least in MFP. If I plug in running at 5mph for 60 minutes (5 mile run) it spits out 802 calories burned. If I plug in running at 10mph for 30 minutes (5 mile run as well but twice the speed) it again spits out 802 calories burned.
That because you're roughly in the same intensity zone with respect to the metabolic pathway utilization. Pick up the pace and there is a difference.0 -
You're body will get used to longer distance, depending on your goal use some HIIT, high intensity intervals, training, it be good to mix it up from time to time, known fact to burn the fat, keep your muscle tone, example- treadmill work- walk 1 min, run 3 mins, walk run keep it up for around 20 to 30, up to you and how you feel0
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
- 175.9K 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
- 96.3K 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