Do you burn less calories doing the same exact workout as cardio improves?

Options
mathoma94
mathoma94 Posts: 13 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
For example, I run 5.5 miles a day in 45 minutes Monday-Friday. I do this exact workout every time without any changes but I notice it's gotten much easier as my cardio has improved and I assume my peak/active heart rate is quite a bit lower as well. I'm not breathing as heavy or feel like I'm "pushing myself" as much doing this workout now versus when I first started out. I'm maintaining my weight so that hasn't changed, I'm doing the same length/distance, the same duration, and even the same exact speed/gradient (treadmill guided). Am I burning less calories now than I did when I started out a month ago because my body has adapted and doesn't need to work as hard to run the 5.5 miles?
I hope this question doesn't sound too stupid but thanks for any advice!
«1

Replies

  • SingingSingleTracker
    SingingSingleTracker Posts: 1,866 Member
    Options
    Mikeytom94 wrote: »
    For example, I run 5.5 miles a day in 45 minutes Monday-Friday. I do this exact workout every time without any changes but I notice it's gotten much easier as my cardio has improved and I assume my peak/active heart rate is quite a bit lower as well. I'm not breathing as heavy or feel like I'm "pushing myself" as much doing this workout now versus when I first started out. I'm maintaining my weight so that hasn't changed, I'm doing the same length/distance, the same duration, and even the same exact speed/gradient (treadmill guided). Am I burning less calories now than I did when I started out a month ago because my body has adapted and doesn't need to work as hard to run the 5.5 miles?
    I hope this question doesn't sound too stupid but thanks for any advice!

    If you weigh less, and your heart rate is lower for the same 5.5 miles now that you have adapted from when you started doing the same 45 minute run - you "may" or "may not" be burning a few less calories depending on how much weight you have lost and the difference in your heart rates. I doubt that in one month's time you have seen a huge drop off in heart rate to show that you are burning a measurable less amount. It's more to do with the training effect, load, and stress which has led to the adaptation.

    Time for some intervals, additional duration, or a combination of both to continue with the training effect which will put the next load/stress on your body to adapt.
  • d_thomas02
    d_thomas02 Posts: 9,048 Member
    Options
    You say you're maintaining, so you are moving the same weight the same distance in the same amount of time. Theoretically you are also burning the same number of calories.

    What has changed is the ability of your body to move oxygen to those working muscles (VO2max is the technical term). As your VO2max rises, your hear rate drops as does your perceived effort.

    Congrats!

    I also agree with @SingingSingleTracker. Time to add sprints to your routine.
  • saphin
    saphin Posts: 246 Member
    Options
    If you become more efficient in your running (eg weighing less or reduced arm movement), there may be a small decrease in calories burned but it is always good to mix things up a bit. If you always run the same distance at the same speed, you will only become very efficient at running that distance and speed. Why not try adding in an interval or two (sprinting from pedestrian crossings for example) or playing with different times and distances.
  • Trump2016
    Trump2016 Posts: 80 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    Edit: I started writing before other folks replied and lots of my input overlaps with theirs. Good that we're on the same page anyway.

    I'm just about certain it has to be fewer calories burned. I'm seriously into endurance and I was wondering this too at some point.

    Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but you burn more the higher your heart rate is (and you consequently require more oxygen). Improving endurance while staying the same weight means your resting heart rate will decrease and your VO2 max will increase - you're taking less effort to do the same thing at the same weight.

    When I began noticing I was taking distinctly longer to produce sweat and didn't feel as tired by the end of the workout, I stopped governing my cardio by time. Instead, I consciously cranked up the intensity and focused on getting the heart rate up-up-up and getting into a zone where I'd be taking really, really hard breaths.

    Try to get past 90% of your max heart rate several times throughout the cardio and maintain it for a couple minutes each time (if you have the conditioning for it).

    Remember the feeling next time you finish an endurance workout that you know took all your effort and use it as a measuring stick for your subsequent ones. If I don't feel like collapsing, I know I got lazy.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    Calorie burn is about physics, not feeling easier or lower heart rate through fitness improvements, not sweating.....

    Net Running calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.63) x (Distance in miles)

    So if you get lighter yes you will burn less calories for the same distance.

    There's a really insignificant difference in running efficiency compared to other activities.

    VO2 improvements show you have increased capacity it doesn't mean less energy to move mass over distance.

    Want to burn more calories? Run faster for same duration or run further at same pace.


  • KrystinaMTL
    KrystinaMTL Posts: 1,338 Member
    Options
    Trump2016 wrote: »
    Edit: I started writing before other folks replied and lots of my input overlaps with theirs. Good that we're on the same page anyway.

    I'm just about certain it has to be fewer calories burned. I'm seriously into endurance and I was wondering this too at some point.

    Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but you burn more the higher your heart rate is (and you consequently require more oxygen). Improving endurance while staying the same weight means your resting heart rate will decrease and your VO2 max will increase - you're taking less effort to do the same thing at the same weight.

    When I began noticing I was taking distinctly longer to produce sweat and didn't feel as tired by the end of the workout, I stopped governing my cardio by time. Instead, I consciously cranked up the intensity and focused on getting the heart rate up-up-up and getting into a zone where I'd be taking really, really hard breaths.

    Try to get past 90% of your max heart rate several times throughout the cardio and maintain it for a couple minutes each time (if you have the conditioning for it).

    Remember the feeling next time you finish an endurance workout that you know took all your effort and use it as a measuring stick for your subsequent ones. If I don't feel like collapsing, I know I got lazy.

    Totally agree with all that.
    You are improving and that is the whole point.
    Be proud :smile:
    And.... also agree with SingingSingle.. Time for some intervals !
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,618 Member
    Options
    If weight and distance stay the same, then it's not significant enough to mention.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • CassidyScaglione
    CassidyScaglione Posts: 673 Member
    Options
    Of course.
    I walk a route with my dog nightly that is 1.6 kms. About 1km of that is uphill. When I first started on that route it took me 20 minutes to walk it and I would be puffed at the top of the hill. Now it takes me 12-14 minutes and I am not puffed at all. Now I have a cold, so yesterday I took 20 minutes again, and it didn't even change my breathing to go up the hill that slow.

    You have to turn up the intensity or change the type of exercise you do as your condition improves because A)you are carrying less weight and B) your body grows more efficient in completing familiar exercises (the muscle to complete them is in place, and accustomed to that degree of use).
  • fyoung1111
    fyoung1111 Posts: 109 Member
    Options
    Nothing complicated about this. Of course you are burning less calories. http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html
  • Trump2016
    Trump2016 Posts: 80 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    If weight and distance stay the same, then it's not significant enough to mention.

    I don't know brother - wouldn't the significance just depend on how significant the improvement in endurance is? Using myself as an example, I went from a resting heart rate of 75 to 42 (both measured professionally and accurately) and I've remained the same weight. My old workouts would be a joke compared to now; I wouldn't be anywhere near as tired doing them for the same amount of time. Being cognizant of intensity, breathing effort and heart rate and doing my best to heighten all of that in the same allotted time for the same workout is the only way I actually feel tired by the end of it.

    I know this is just a personal anecdote but I just have to be curious about how significant. If I change the context to nutrition, changing the temperature of the water and drinking green tea would be what I consider insignificant contributors to metabolic changes that aren't worth considering (for the sake of those changes - in and of themselves they're great of course). When you think insignificant, would the magnitude be comparable to the nutrition example I gave or quite a bit more if there were a significant improvement in endurance?
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    Calorie burn is about physics, not feeling easier or lower heart rate through fitness improvements, not sweating.....

    Net Running calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.63) x (Distance in miles)

    So if you get lighter yes you will burn less calories for the same distance.

    There's a really insignificant difference in running efficiency compared to other activities.

    VO2 improvements show you have increased capacity it doesn't mean less energy to move mass over distance.

    Want to burn more calories? Run faster for same duration or run further at same pace.


    Yay, physics!

    There'll always be an absolute minimum that must be burned just for the physical movement (law of physics, perpetual motion does not exist, every action needs an energy input), plus some small amount for whatever inefficiencies your body has.
  • Trump2016
    Trump2016 Posts: 80 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    every action needs an energy input

    That's the thing though - depending on how much someone has improved, it takes significantly less energy. It takes a lot more to get tired/higher intensity to get the heart rate up in the same amount of time.

    See:
    fyoung1111 wrote: »
    Nothing complicated about this. Of course you are burning less calories. http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html

    (Thanks for that.)

  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    Trump2016 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    every action needs an energy input

    That's the thing though - depending on how much someone has improved, it takes significantly less energy. It takes a lot more to get tired/higher intensity to get the heart rate up in the same amount of time.

    See:
    fyoung1111 wrote: »
    Nothing complicated about this. Of course you are burning less calories. http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html

    (Thanks for that.)

    The energy required to move your legs forward has nothing to do with heart rate or how tired you get.
  • Trump2016
    Trump2016 Posts: 80 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    The energy required to move your legs forward has nothing to do with heart rate or how tired you get.

    Some of you folks are saying it's fewer burnt but it's by an insignificant amount; you're saying it's not even by an insignificant amount, but it remains the exact same, no matter what?

    If someone were running for 90 minutes, how could the tiredness developing over time have nothing to do with how much overall oxygen you need? How could the the tiredness developing over time have nothing to do with, well, "how tired you get" as you phrased it?

    Wouldn't endurance related improvements that let you do an activity that involves heart rate going up for a long period of time (which is what cardio is) mean the exhaustion that builds overtime would take more effort if the duration were the same as pre-improvement duration?

    In here, for example http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html it calculated an additional 258 cals burnt for the same time with a 10% higher heart rate -- which is absolutely significant.
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,488 Member
    Options
    I am a runner and did the exact same workout today as I did last week and the week before, I am indeed burning less calories, I got more efficient doing this exact workout.

    I use HRM every time I run and have data to review so variables are to be considered, such as your sleep, diet the day before, hydration, mood, etc..

    Lot' of variables involved but I will say yes if all the variables are the same condition as the first time you did the workout.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    HRMs do not and cannot measure calories! Energy cannot be measured in heart beats.

    Imagine you had a 200 watt electric motor that could only just move a 200lb weight. It is at its limit and will use X amount of energy.

    Now you swap it for a 250 watt electric motor that can easily move the same 200lb weight well within its capabilities. It still just uses X amount of energy.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    Trump2016 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    The energy required to move your legs forward has nothing to do with heart rate or how tired you get.

    Some of you folks are saying it's fewer burnt but it's by an insignificant amount; you're saying it's not even by an insignificant amount, but it remains the exact same, no matter what?

    If someone were running for 90 minutes, how could the tiredness developing over time have nothing to do with how much overall oxygen you need? How could the the tiredness developing over time have nothing to do with, well, "how tired you get" as you phrased it?

    Wouldn't endurance related improvements that let you do an activity that involves heart rate going up for a long period of time (which is what cardio is) mean the exhaustion that builds overtime would take more effort if the duration were the same as pre-improvement duration?

    In here, for example http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html it calculated an additional 258 cals burnt for the same time with a 10% higher heart rate -- which is absolutely significant.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)#Work_and_energy

    To move your mass you need a certain force F. You do that for x meters you get an amount of energy that is minimally required just by the mechanical work necessary. Any extra required energy is from inefficiencies.
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,488 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    I guess I will ditch the HRM for my running..

    OP, maybe you find these useful links..


    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/hrms-cannot-count-calories-during-strength-training-17698
  • Trump2016
    Trump2016 Posts: 80 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)#Work_and_energy

    To move your mass you need a certain force F. You do that for x meters you get an amount of energy that is minimally required just by the mechanical work necessary. Any extra required energy is from inefficiencies.

    I don't mind if I sound like a putz - but could you reconcile that with what I was asking just so I could intuitively understand? Is the heart rate-calorie calculator we were referring to have no science to back it up? (I understand that there could be inaccuracies, but the fundamental concept of burning more while having an indisputably higher heart rate.) Is someone who requires a lot more oxygen/energy and who is categorically at a higher % of their max heart rate not burning more than someone who's their weight and age who needs less of all that?

    I'm totally open to changing my mind but I'm having trouble imagining how someone who's at the point of panting and puffing and sweating a pool could not have burned more/expended more energy than someone who's coolly going about without a shred of real difficulty. If you can work in your point to this example (or the one from the previous paragraph), that would explain it to me more than adequately.
  • blues4miles
    blues4miles Posts: 1,481 Member
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    Calorie burn is about physics, not feeling easier or lower heart rate through fitness improvements, not sweating.....

    Net Running calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.63) x (Distance in miles)

    So if you get lighter yes you will burn less calories for the same distance.

    There's a really insignificant difference in running efficiency compared to other activities.

    VO2 improvements show you have increased capacity it doesn't mean less energy to move mass over distance.

    Want to burn more calories? Run faster for same duration or run further at same pace.


    This. Running/walking is pretty predictable by formulas.

    I'd actually say you are looking at this backwards...I think if you are an untrained beginner and cover x miles you might burn more calories than the calculators suggest. But as you get efficient, you are going to hone in on what a lot of running calculators say. So take a 180 lb person running 5.5 miles per the above calculation = ~624 calories. It's possible this person was burning closer to 650-700 when this activity was new and challenging for them. But they shouldn't drop much below the 624 even if it feels a lot easier for them over time.

    It's also actually a good thing that most of your runs are at an 'easy' pace. That said, always re-evaluate and don't be surprised if your easy pace next year is faster than your easy pace was this year. The standard calculation for calories / mile is ~100 calories per mile. Whether you walk, run, whatever (maybe crawling burns more I don't know...) So covering miles in any fashion is still going to be in the ballpark of that calculation. If you aren't trying to improve as a runner, I don't think there's any need for you to push yourself more often than you want to. If you are running just for calorie burn, I see nothing wrong with doing the same thing over and over.

Categories