Does running add a significant amount of calories?

Options
2»

Replies

  • blues4miles
    blues4miles Posts: 1,481 Member
    Options
    Ohwhynot wrote: »
    Everyone already answered but I WISH. I run 3 miles about 3x a week, and I don't get to eat nearly as much as I feel like I deserve from it. :dizzy:

    Start running more. Add a 4th day. Get in a long run of 4 or 5 miles and start working your way up!

    I feel you though. I am walking 3 miles 5 days a week for that reason in addition to 4 days a week of running ~3 miles. 12 miles a week just isn't enough to really do what I want it to do. So I have to make sure I get all that walking in as well.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    stealthq wrote: »
    3p0l0v3sU wrote: »
    Way I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.

    Sorry, no. Walking a mile burns about half of running per mile*.

    It has to do with gait. Running is a series of one-legged hops with periods of having no foot on the ground. Walking is a smooth transition from one foot to the other, no hops. The hops make all the difference (energy to push to leave the ground, energy to land).

    *Exception for speed-walking. Walking is inefficient at high speeds. It is equal in calorie burn to running for the same distance once you reach 12:30 min/mi and will burn more than running per mile at faster speeds.

    Well - that's not true either - it's not that big a difference per MILE.

    Per time obviously different.

    http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html

    While the often used claim walking burns the same per mile as running is wrong, it's at least closer than your claim in accuracy.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    lorrpb wrote: »
    The last I knew, you had to have an increased activity level for 10 min straight to get extra credit in Fitbit. Since c25k breaks up the intense periods, you won't see the increased cals for awhile. Good work on the running! I'm starting c25k as soon as I ditch this nasty cold!

    Actually - for the step based trackers- it'll change the calorie burn per step if there is enough variance between how you step - it's instant change of calorie burn.

    The HR-based trackers will also use HR-based calorie burn if the HR goes up enough along with steps to indicate exercise is being done - hitting the button to start an activity record also does the per second HR logging and calorie burn estimate. And I'm sure the HR in this case is high enough the whole time to count.

    There is no 10 min requirement to see extra calories.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    BrianSharpe wrote: »
    3p0l0v3sU wrote: »
    Way I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.

    Wrong, walking burns less than half the calories that running does (30 cal per mile per 100lbs of body weight vs 63 cal per mile per 100lbs of body weight) unless you're race walking at more than 5mph.

    See science reference in post above. It's no where near half.
  • WaterBunnie
    WaterBunnie Posts: 1,370 Member
    Options
    Just keep on doing what you're doing regardless. You'll be developing larger muscles which will raise your metabolism even at rest and improving your health generally. FitBit is pretty good at evening out your calories on here. Much better than MFPs calculators I find.
  • ilovesweeties
    ilovesweeties Posts: 84 Member
    Options
    I'm with @heybales (and science). My own experience is that running a mile burns a little more than walking a mile, but not as much as I'd like! I aim for 10k steps day and whether I walk it all or run part of it, my FitBit records my burn for the day as relatively similar. So if I walk 10k steps per day and run a few times a week in addition, I can pretty much eat what I like, as it really boosts my burn. Also second @litsy3 and @ASKyle - I've just moved up from 5k to 10k and the burn and the hunger are huge!
  • markiend
    markiend Posts: 461 Member
    Options
    FWIW I walk a lot , 2-300 miles of exercise walking per month and have done so for a couple of years and come up with ( unscientific) 50 cals per mile and have stuck with that.

    The general consensus is that running will burn more cals but not as many as people think. Running uses more and different muscles ( I'd imagine) and should burn your calories a lot faster. Of course there are a great many more variables , weight , gait , leg length... etc etc

  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,545 Member
    Options
    heybales wrote: »
    Depends on how much mass you are moving, at what pace, and for how long.

    Use the Gross option for total calories during the time for comparison to anything else, use Net option on MFP for logging and eat back as to what you burned above resting calorie burn.
    Compare walking and jogging. For the workout - just average the whole thing and that'll be close enough.

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    What the Fitbit is likely showing you is that when you do the workout, you are taking time away from something that was already decently active - so not a great addition of steps/calories.
    Or you are more sedentary after the workout and totally balance out the calorie burn.

    But exercise is for heart health and body improvements.

    Diet is for weight loss.

    Though the exercise can make you burn more daily, and therefore the diet might be high enough in calories that you'll adhere better, and make those body improvements.

    So how realistic is this calculator? For a 7.5km/h run of 60 minutes at 57kg it gives me 427 net kcal. If I chose Gross the MET number goes up and it gives me 487 kcal. This is in line with my approximate BMI over 60 minutes. But still the net number of calories look rather high. What I mean is: if I do one of my weekly equally slow 2 hour runs then I'd be dropping weight big time, which just isn't the case.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    yirara wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    Depends on how much mass you are moving, at what pace, and for how long.

    Use the Gross option for total calories during the time for comparison to anything else, use Net option on MFP for logging and eat back as to what you burned above resting calorie burn.
    Compare walking and jogging. For the workout - just average the whole thing and that'll be close enough.

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    What the Fitbit is likely showing you is that when you do the workout, you are taking time away from something that was already decently active - so not a great addition of steps/calories.
    Or you are more sedentary after the workout and totally balance out the calorie burn.

    But exercise is for heart health and body improvements.

    Diet is for weight loss.

    Though the exercise can make you burn more daily, and therefore the diet might be high enough in calories that you'll adhere better, and make those body improvements.

    So how realistic is this calculator? For a 7.5km/h run of 60 minutes at 57kg it gives me 427 net kcal. If I chose Gross the MET number goes up and it gives me 487 kcal. This is in line with my approximate BMI over 60 minutes. But still the net number of calories look rather high. What I mean is: if I do one of my weekly equally slow 2 hour runs then I'd be dropping weight big time, which just isn't the case.

    It's more accurate than HRM.

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/774337/how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is/p1

    The difference between Gross and Net is about BMR level burn, not sure what you mean by BMI.

    Realistically, you probably wouldn't be sleeping if not running - so the true Net is between the run calorie burn and whatever you would have been doing - which could have been very active anyway.

    So the number of calories the running is adding to your day above normal activity level, especially a long slow run, could easily be wiped out by being more tired even outside the run, sitting around more later on recovering.

    That effect isn't a great gain of calories to the day - if any.

    And when using MFP and accounting for calories and extra calories - what you were already accounted to burn every minute of the day isn't BMR level burn, but rather your activity level burn.

    Say your average activity level outside exercise is Lightly Active per MFP definition, and that's what you selected.
    So MFP estimates you'll burn 2400 calories daily, and your eating level is based on that, so say 500 deficit makes 1900 eating goal to lose 1 lb weekly.
    2400 calories / 24 hrs = 100 cal an hour.

    Your described run burns 487 in total - but 100 has already been accounted for - so only 387 is truly calorie burn above and beyond what was expected and used in the math.

    That would be the actual correct way to do MFP exercise logging and eat back.

    And considering MFP has all the needed numbers - they could do this so easily when you manually log a workout - besides keeping the database in the original METS format for better accuracy.
    Of course using activity trackers handles this correctly anyway - but still.

    But even with above correction of 387 cal/hr - if you are not Lightly Active for rest of the day like normal because wiped out - now the math is off for that reason too.

    Many reasons why calculated values could be very accurate - but in actual usage could appear to be very wrong.
    Replace your long slow run with a long slow walk and now you see why many think the database is badly exaggerated - because now 100 cal off stated exercise could be upwards of 50% of the value.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,545 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    Yes, of course, that makes sense. However, I'm not big and heavy, hence my TDEE isn't so much higher than my BMR, I'd guess about 1750 per 24 hours. Thus over a 1 hour run it's just 73kcal for existing and sitting on the sofa and watching tv or surfing the net. That's what I mean with the numbers from the calculator looking a bit high.

    Note: BMI = wanted to write BMR. sorry for the confusion.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    heybales wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    3p0l0v3sU wrote: »
    Way I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.

    Sorry, no. Walking a mile burns about half of running per mile*.

    It has to do with gait. Running is a series of one-legged hops with periods of having no foot on the ground. Walking is a smooth transition from one foot to the other, no hops. The hops make all the difference (energy to push to leave the ground, energy to land).

    *Exception for speed-walking. Walking is inefficient at high speeds. It is equal in calorie burn to running for the same distance once you reach 12:30 min/mi and will burn more than running per mile at faster speeds.

    Well - that's not true either - it's not that big a difference per MILE.

    Per time obviously different.

    http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html

    While the often used claim walking burns the same per mile as running is wrong, it's at least closer than your claim in accuracy.

    Actually, it is true - at least as far as can be verified with a limited population of subjects. Too different studies. Very similar results:

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446673
    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150

    From the latest paper,

    TOTAL CALORIES/MILE (WALK)
    .57 x wt in lbs

    TOTAL CALORIES/MILE (RUN)
    .72 x wt in lbs

    From the earlier paper,

    TOTAL CALORIES/MILE (WALK)
    .53 x wt in lbs

    TOTAL CALORIES/MILE (RUN)
    .75 x wt in lbs

    NET CALORIES/MILE (WALK)
    .30 x wt in lbs

    NET CALORIES/MILE (RUN)
    .63 x wt in lbs

    Notice how the equations for total calories burned are almost the same in both studies? Which means net calories burned (which is what you should be using or you would be double counting) should also be very similar although they were not provided as far as I can tell in the later paper.

    0.3 is roughly half of 0.63.

    Now, this does not include afterburn calories which are also greater when running than walking, but afterburn is more of a per run/walk thing, not a per mile or per minute thing so it would not be appropriate to include. It does increase as speed increases.

    ETA: changing tables to lists for readability
  • neutroncore
    neutroncore Posts: 36 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    3p0l0v3sU wrote: »
    Way I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.

    The way I see it. Walking 1 mile is = the muscle work needed to move your body weight in horizonal plane for 1 mile + little muscle work for stability during walking.
    While Running 1 mile is = work needed to move your body weight in horizontal plane for 1 mile (same work as you stated) Plus the work needed to osilate your body weight in the vertical plane for each stride for 1 mile (usually more with more body weight) Plus huge muscle work to stabilize your running gait in the increased momentum.
    So according to the law of physics, running one will definitely burn more calories than walking 1 mile. Your statement can be true if the only variable is the speed of the moving object, running is Not just faster way of moving, it has different physical dynamics.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    stealthq wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    3p0l0v3sU wrote: »
    Way I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.

    Sorry, no. Walking a mile burns about half of running per mile*.

    It has to do with gait. Running is a series of one-legged hops with periods of having no foot on the ground. Walking is a smooth transition from one foot to the other, no hops. The hops make all the difference (energy to push to leave the ground, energy to land).

    *Exception for speed-walking. Walking is inefficient at high speeds. It is equal in calorie burn to running for the same distance once you reach 12:30 min/mi and will burn more than running per mile at faster speeds.

    Well - that's not true either - it's not that big a difference per MILE.

    Per time obviously different.

    http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html

    While the often used claim walking burns the same per mile as running is wrong, it's at least closer than your claim in accuracy.

    Actually, it is true - at least as far as can be verified with a limited population of subjects. Too different studies. Very similar results:

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446673
    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150

    From the latest paper,

    TOTAL CALORIES/MILE (WALK)
    .57 x wt in lbs

    TOTAL CALORIES/MILE (RUN)
    .72 x wt in lbs

    From the earlier paper,

    TOTAL CALORIES/MILE (WALK)
    .53 x wt in lbs

    TOTAL CALORIES/MILE (RUN)
    .75 x wt in lbs

    NET CALORIES/MILE (WALK)
    .30 x wt in lbs

    NET CALORIES/MILE (RUN)
    .63 x wt in lbs

    Notice how the equations for total calories burned are almost the same in both studies? Which means net calories burned (which is what you should be using or you would be double counting) should also be very similar although they were not provided as far as I can tell in the later paper.

    0.3 is roughly half of 0.63.

    Now, this does not include afterburn calories which are also greater when running than walking, but afterburn is more of a per run/walk thing, not a per mile or per minute thing so it would not be appropriate to include. It does increase as speed increases.

    ETA: changing tables to lists for readability

    Yep, those are the studies I linked in other topic about accuracy of the formula compared to measured.

    Which is what the link showing the graph is using, and where the values came from.

    They came up with different values per that graph and table.

    Because even the mere study synopsis values don't show a difference of 2x using the averages found.

Categories