Distance vs intensity
Options
Replies
-
*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
-
they both have their benefits! steady state cardio is good for burning a large amount of calories due to the length of the workout and you can do it more frequently since it's not as demanding on your nervous system. HIIT training is more efficient and it boosts your metabolism, but it's best to limit it to 2-3 non consecutive days per week
so it would be ideal to include both in your workout routine 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.
Intensity mostly matters as far as calories burned per unit of time. There's a minor difference with significant change in intensity as far as calories burned per unit of distance.
To answer the OP, though, you can go much farther at lower intensity so you have the potential for burning a lot more calories if you can spend the time to do it. If you're talking a fixed time, best to do as intensely as you can manage and still be able to recover properly.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.
And I used MFP's estimates and lost as expected.0 -
Might want to consult Compendium of Physical Activity, https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/running and supporting references (scientific studies).0
-
Might want to consult Compendium of Physical Activity, https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/running and supporting references (scientific studies).
From your link...
1 mile @ 6mph -> 10 minutes @ 9.8 METs -> 141 calories @ 190lbs
1 mile @ 7mph -> 8.5 minutes @ 11.0 METs -> 135 calories @ 190lbs
The difference is a roundoff error. And it favours the slower speed.
Same distance -> same calories, to a far greater level of accuracy than you'll get from a food label.
0 -
First it was the same for 5mph vs 10mph now picking a more narrow range... how convenient. Point is there's a difference whether you like it or not.0
-
Mr. Knight was right to compare two different running intensities. Walking is not like running much as playing water polo is not like table tennis. Sure both walking and running activities make use of feet and legs but the bio-mechanics are not the same.
The mechanics of running don't vary that much for a slightly faster pace. The mechanics between walking fast but comfortably, and running, differ greatly.
Walking 5mph is pretty tough. Most can't or won't, certainly not for 10km. Let's use something more reasonable like 3.5mph.
Running 6mph (1 hour 10km) is within the realm of possibilities for many people, yet most can't. But let's use that anyway because a 1 hour 10km run is reasonable for many.MET * weight (86 kg) * time (hours) = kcals MET 17200 4.3 walking, 3.5 mph (10km/ 1.7 hours), level, brisk, firm surface, walking for exercise
4.3 * 86 * 1.7 = 628 calories or 105 calories per mile or 369 calories per hour.
vs running @ 6 mphMET 12050 9.8 running, 6 mph (10km/60 minutes)
9.8 * 86 * 1 = 843 calories or 140 calories per mile or 843 calories per hour.
There's a bigger difference because running vs walking at a comfortable but fast pace requires more of the body - a higher intensity if you will. You can negate much of that difference by cattle-prodding the walker into moving at a difficult pace like 5mph:17231 8.3 walking, 5.0 mph, level, firm surface
8.3 * 86 * 1.2 = 856 calories or 142 calories per mile or 713 calories per hour.
Notice how big a jump the MET value is from 3.5mph (4.3 MET), far out of proportion with the pace increase. This is because it becomes more difficult in a non-linear fashion to walk (two feet on the ground) as pace increases.
None of this data gazing is really helping the OP with their question though except perhaps to underscore that for runners / other steady state cardio fans looking to hit 90 minutes plus and reduce chance of injury that it's quite ok to slow down their running as they'll still get most of the same calorie burn and the benefits of the longer workout session.
They won't get nearly the same cardio benefit from a 90 minute walk and that's a fact Jack. (Is there a Jack in the house?)
The other takeaway is that running burns more calories per hour than most person's exercise walk pace and time is often the most important factor for many exercisers. If time *and* cardio improvement are your hot buttons running delivers where walking simply can't.0 -
The assertion was there is no difference in calorie expenditure for running at differing intensity. No one was talking about walking vs running. Stop twisting the analysis to make it fit.
Whether the OP has the fitness to made a big difference is another matter altogether, but stop give out bad information.0 -
It would be really helpful if you actually read the links you use as a reference.
Once again, from your link...and this time using your completely arbitrary speeds of 5mph vs 10mph...
1 mile @ 5mph -> 12 minutes @ 8.3 METs -> 143 calories @ 190lbs
1 mile @ 10mph -> 6 minutes @ 14.5 METs -> 125 calories @ 190lbs
Once again, the difference is not meaningful. And, once again, it is the *slower* speed that has a higher burn number.
Back out the RMR for the two different durations, and the numbers get even closer (125 vs 116).
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 977 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions