Is it true that your body adjusts to the same cardio...
emilysusana
Posts: 416 Member
I've read that your body adjusts to the same cardio routine, for example, if you always run 3 miles, your body eventually does this more efficiently, i.e. by burning fewer calories. My question is, how many fewer calories are we talking about here? I usually estimate my runs at about 100 calories per mile. If I've been running for awhile, should I drop this number down? I do find that I run faster as I do it more, trying to push myself a little harder.
Also, some background info: running is not my only activity. I do strength training 3 days a week, interval sprints on a treadmill for 25 minutes one day a week, one long a week (I'm up to 6.5 miles) and one short run (3 miles). I'm just trying to log my runs with as much accuracy as I can.
Also, some background info: running is not my only activity. I do strength training 3 days a week, interval sprints on a treadmill for 25 minutes one day a week, one long a week (I'm up to 6.5 miles) and one short run (3 miles). I'm just trying to log my runs with as much accuracy as I can.
0
Replies
-
changes in energy expenditure due to becoming more efficient is pretty insignificant. I cycle and lift...been doing it for four years plus...3
-
I have become a little more efficient in my running, but I am a better runner and its not really about burning calories it about building fitness, getting stronger, etc. etc. etc.
This formula is very close to my HRM for calorie burning... (your weight)*(distance)*(0.63)?
2 -
emilysusana wrote: »I've read that your body adjusts to the same cardio routine, for example, if you always run 3 miles, your body eventually does this more efficiently, i.e. by burning fewer calories.
afaik, physics doesn't really care how much you're suffering
pain =/= calories burned.
that's discouraging at first when you sweat and flail for 30 minutes and discover you burned a quarter teaspoon of fat for the whole thing. but it pays off later on, when you can burn ten times as much in the same time and still feel like you're not even trying that hard.3 -
Chasing accuracy to that degree is a bit of a waste of effort IMHO.
You can't verify it so can't prove that you are adjusting closer or further away from "accurate".
Just be consistent and watch the trends over time - make adjustments if/when required.
Your intervals and strength training are going to be more guesses than estimates anyway so fine tuning your steady runs is only one part of the jigsaw.6 -
You can improve running economy a bit, but the upper limit is around 5-6%, and it won't come from just running the same 3-mile workout: research suggests that interval training is the best way to improve economy (IIRC, it's short, intense anaerobic intervals that are best, like sprints).
If you lose weight, though, you'll burn fewer calories because you have less body mass to move around.
And if you use a heart rate monitor (HRM) to estimate calories, it might report that you're burning fewer calories. As you adapt to running, your body gets more efficient at transporting oxygen to your running muscles, including enlarging your heart (especially the left ventricle). As a result, you need fewer heartbeats to run at the same speed. Your HRM might interpret that as burning fewer calories, depending on what equation it uses to estimate calories. Some higher-end models take your fitness level into account, but the cheaper ones just use an equation based on heart rate, weight, gender, and age.3 -
Your body weight * miles * .64 = calories burned.
Extremely accurate.0 -
-
The caloric expenditure for a mile of running does not change significantly unless you've lost a lot of weight, it's mass x distance, the only thing that really changes as you get fitter is that your heart rate will usually drop but that's just one relatively small muscle....0
-
canadianlbs wrote: »
Yes, that is regardless of speed. The relationship between running speed and calorie expenditure is pretty much linear. If you run a mile at 9 mph, you'll burn the same number of calories as if you were running a mile at 6 mph. You'll be burning 1.5 times as many calories per minute, but it will take you only two thirds of the time, so it evens out (3/2 * 2/3 = 1).1 -
neat, thx.0
-
-
NorthCascades wrote: »
If you run up hill 100% add 10% to you run, most people run uphill AND downhill which evens out. Its very accurate and considered the gold standard for many decades in the running world.
If you were to run an hour straight up hill, we are only talking about 50 calorie difference which really isn't anything to throw a red flag up if you didn't add 10%.0 -
-
canadianlbs wrote: »
This is about spot on what my Fenix3 connected to a heart rate monitor tells me for calories burned during a 5 mile run. And that's one with significant hills.
Without the hrm connected it seems to overestimate by around 100cals on the same 5mi run.1 -
TrishSeren wrote: »
I just converted quickly with a calculator, this would get you in same ball park.
Body weight * km * .397 = calorie burned
0 -
Regardless of speed - i guess if i walk there is a different formula? I dont change only the speed in that case but also the gait.0
-
This needs some clarification. That formula is for jogging/running. So yes, it is "regardless of speed" if you are talking about jogging. Walking, the number is .3.1
-
TrishSeren wrote: »
I just converted quickly with a calculator, this would get you in same ball park.
Body weight * km * .397 = calorie burned
I got a different number (.45kg/lb x 1.61 km/mi x .64 = .46)0 -
TrishSeren wrote: »
I just converted quickly with a calculator, this would get you in same ball park.
Body weight * km * .397 = calorie burned
I got a different number (.45kg/lb x 1.61 km/mi x .64 = .46)
That would be wrong. If some mythical person weighed 1 lb and ran 1 mile, then (s)he would burn 0.64 Cals.
If, in Chief's example, BW is still in lb, then his formula is correct. If, however, the person's BW is in kg, then it would be BW * km * 0.87 = Cals.
0 -
Regardless of speed - i guess if i walk there is a different formula? I dont change only the speed in that case but also the gait.
Regardless of speed....yes and no. The formula doesn't work for persons race walking at speeds in excess of 5mph due to the inherent mechanical inefficiency of race walking (surprisingly it actually burns more calories than running)
0 -
TrishSeren wrote: »
I just converted quickly with a calculator, this would get you in same ball park.
Body weight * km * .397 = calorie burned
not even close. the first one gives me 221calories ,and the second one gives me 100 calories.my tom tom runner gives me 250.0 -
-
For me at 143# (65kg) running 3 miles (4.83km)
Pounds and Miles (LBS)*(Miles)*(.63)= Calories Burned...... (143)(3)(.63)=270
Kilos and kilometers (Kg*2.2)*(Km*.62)*(.63)= Calories Burned.............. (65*2.2)(4.83*.62)(.63)=270
Can we Americans just get on the same page as the rest of the world already?2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
If you run up hill 100% add 10% to you run, most people run uphill AND downhill which evens out. Its very accurate and considered the gold standard for many decades in the running world.
If you were to run an hour straight up hill, we are only talking about 50 calorie difference which really isn't anything to throw a red flag up if you didn't add 10%.
Thanks!
Surely it depends on the hill, though, doesn't it? People in Florida have highway overpasses for hills, and we have Mount Rainier. I can't believe that a trail run in the Everglades will burn anything like the same number of calories, even within 10 %, as a trail run to Cascade Pass.
My running economy isn't very good, I'm only an occasional runner. My Garmin says I have too much up and down in my step, I'm wasting too much energy bouncing instead of moving forward. Surely this means I'm burning more calories than a typical or at least a better runner to cover the same distance.
I'm looking forward to there being power meters for running.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »changes in energy expenditure due to becoming more efficient is pretty insignificant.
True. Within all other factors staying the same (age, weight, etc) you might see a 10% change from system efficiency over time. The biggest changes for calorie burn happen over time (age) or with body composition (weight or muscle activation), which can change caloric burn up to 20% or more with large changes.
0 -
TrishSeren wrote: »
I just converted quickly with a calculator, this would get you in same ball park.
Body weight * km * .397 = calorie burned
I got a different number (.45kg/lb x 1.61 km/mi x .64 = .46)
Lol...I would hazard to are correct...I figured bodyweight (lb) * distance (km) *.397= cals burned
Great catch
0 -
If you repeat the same cardio frequently, about 3 or 4 times each week, your body becomes more able to do it. Your heart gets better toned. Your muscles get better toned. You lose a little weight, maybe, and if you do lose a little weight your calorie burn for that same cardio diminishes. However you choose to describe it, you're doing less work as a smaller person than as your larger former self.1
-
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »However you choose to describe it, you're doing less work as a smaller person than as your larger former self.
i think you're doing the same work - in these terms, the same calorie burn. it just feels easier.
0 -
I'd say so just from personal experience. I use a HRM and over time I find I'm not burning as much just because my body has grown accustomed to the distance, and my heart rate doesn't get as high as when I started out. I've also found I get faster over time once my body gets accustomed to running a certain number of miles (hills not included).
It varies with hills and temperature, too. I find it much easier to run in cooler weather than in warm weather going to the same distance and route, probably because I'm breathing easier in cooler temps than in warm/humid temps.0 -
canadianlbs wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »However you choose to describe it, you're doing less work as a smaller person than as your larger former self.
i think you're doing the same work - in these terms, the same calorie burn. it just feels easier.
No, you're not. Work is defined (in this case) as force x distance. With less weight, the force is less. As such, over the same distance, work would decrease proportionately to the difference in weight.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions