The DEBUNKING thread.........myths that need to be trashed
Options
Replies
-
James gave me a much better understanding on the physics of running and had me recant my original post of walking and running burning the same amount of calories when the distance was the same.James - to me you are the highlight of this thread! You are articulating everything that I wanted to say in such a fantastic manner
I'm A physics nerd and my partners a physicist so completely love the voice of reason!
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I'm always open to correction as long as the information provided has good scientific study.This is true on a very superficial level, but it's misleading. Yes, the total amount of *work* required to walk a mile is identical to running that same mile (although *power* output is greater). BUT because you are stretching the length of the workout over a longer period of time by walking, you are actually burning fewer net calories, after subtracting the amount you would have burned anyway from sitting on your *kitten* for that 20 minutes. Is that making sense?
Example:
Say your BMR is roughly 60 cal/hr, or 1 cal/min.
You run a mile in 8 minutes and burn 100 calories. But you would have burned 8 calories anyway (due to BMR) if you just sat on your *kitten* for that 8 minutes. So 100-8= 92 net calories burned.
Or
You walk that same mile in 20 minutes and burn 100 calories. But you would have burned 20 calories anyway if you just sat on your *kitten* for that 20 minutes.
So 100-20= 80 net calories burned.
So technically, even though they require the same amount of work to complete the task, the higher power output activity will result in a larger net burn once BMR is accounted for.
If you want my two cents, however, I think trying to create a calorie deficit through exercise is a waste of time anyway. A proper deficit should be created with diet, and a training program should just be aimed at maintaining lean mass while on that calorie deficit (i.e. pick up heavy things a few times per week), so that the majority of the weight lost is fat mass.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Another reason why running 1 mile uses more energy than walking one mile is that when running you are lifting your body off the ground vertically as well as moving it horizontally. I read some research on this somewhere on the internet and interestingly walking at 2 mph actually uses more energy than walking at 3 mph as at 2 mph you are constantly breaking and having to overcome the inertia with each step while at 3 mph the body can get into a rhythym with one step providing momentum for the next. The energy levels then increase again above 4mph.0
-
The "calories of run vs walk" is not a hypothetical issue, open to discussion and speculation. The research on this has been done for decades.
There is a qualitative difference in the energy cost of running vs walking. For any given distance, up to walking speeds of say 4.2-4.5 miles per hour, you burn more calories running that distance than walking that distance.
Walking the distance at different speeds will burn the same amount of calories.
Running the distance at different speeds will burn the same amount of calories.
Running vs walking = not equivalent.
The exception to this is competitive racewalking--once you start getting into the 6+ mph range, walking becomes so mechanically inefficient that the energy cost of walking becomes greater than running at the same speed. But that has little practical application.0 -
Really? So why do cars get better mileage on the freeway than in the city? You obviously are going much slower in the city. Going faster creates greater forces of resistance against the moving object.Speed does play a factor in how many calories are burned. Think of a car. If moving the same amount of weight the same distance at any speed resulted in the same energy expended then you wouldn't get better gas mileage at different speeds. 60 or 120 mph and you'd burn exactly the same amount of gas in 100 miles? no, no you won't.
*ET erase my missing 6 min mile for 6 mph
You can't really compare cars and people. Cars get better gas mileage on the freeway because they don't have to stop and start moving, inertia gets in the way, and it takes more energy to get a vehicle moving from a stand still than it does to keep it moving at an even speed. If you drive 55 mph, depending on the car, you will get better mpg than at 75, the wind drag plays into it then.0 -
bump0
-
bump0
-
I know firsthand that the part of walking and running the same distance burns the same amount of calories. I can walk for 30 minutes and burn 163 calories and then on days when I do the c25k program (on week 2 now - which includes 9 minutes of jogging/running) I burn 163 calories in that 30 minutes.0
-
If you are going to commit to a weight loss program you have to understand it won't be comfortable if it is you are doing it wrong.
LOVE this!! 0 -
I'm always open to correction as long as the information provided has good scientific study.This is true on a very superficial level, but it's misleading. Yes, the total amount of *work* required to walk a mile is identical to running that same mile (although *power* output is greater). BUT because you are stretching the length of the workout over a longer period of time by walking, you are actually burning fewer net calories, after subtracting the amount you would have burned anyway from sitting on your *kitten* for that 20 minutes. Is that making sense?
Example:
Say your BMR is roughly 60 cal/hr, or 1 cal/min.
You run a mile in 8 minutes and burn 100 calories. But you would have burned 8 calories anyway (due to BMR) if you just sat on your *kitten* for that 8 minutes. So 100-8= 92 net calories burned.
Or
You walk that same mile in 20 minutes and burn 100 calories. But you would have burned 20 calories anyway if you just sat on your *kitten* for that 20 minutes.
So 100-20= 80 net calories burned.
So technically, even though they require the same amount of work to complete the task, the higher power output activity will result in a larger net burn once BMR is accounted for.
If you want my two cents, however, I think trying to create a calorie deficit through exercise is a waste of time anyway. A proper deficit should be created with diet, and a training program should just be aimed at maintaining lean mass while on that calorie deficit (i.e. pick up heavy things a few times per week), so that the majority of the weight lost is fat mass.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is basic physics.0 -
To point out, my original statement was that running a mile and walking a mile burned the same amount of calories based on the distance. I had to recant when James showed by formula that it wasn't true. I'm not an egotist. If I'm wrong I'll admit it and learn from it.
This is basic physics.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
As a trainer I hear so much advice and opinions that aren't usually based on science and study and are usually anecdotal. I feel that it's important to ensure that actual information that have facts and peer viewed studies to back them up be the information that should be shared with the members. So here goes............
Unless you're in the rare category of being obese, starting an exercise program and have never done one before with consistency, or being a athlete returning to exercise, IT IS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to gain muscle on a calorie deficit program.
4. "YOU CAN'T LOSE WEIGHT UNLESS YOU EXERCISE WITH AN ELEVATED HEART RATE"- Many that tout "high intensity" and "elevated heart rate" exercise is the only way to effectively lose weight don't seem to understand that calories are burned just through activity regardless of heart rate. Whether you run an 8 min mile or walk a 20 minute mile, the calories expended at the end are the SAME. The difference is in the duration and intensity. Now while it's true that higher intensity raises resting metabolic rate, many people who are in poor health to begin with can't do this type of workout.
To make it clear, if a person walked 2 miles one day and ran 1 mile the next, they would have burned more calories on the walk than the run.
You do want to try to work on your cardiovascular endurance and fitness, but you definitely DO NOT have to have an elevated heart rate to make an exercise effective.
I'll add more (and hopefully others in-the-know will too) as this thread continues.
So, the piece of your #1 point I quoted above-does this mean that if you ARE starting out obese, you can build muscle with a calorie deficit? Because that seems to be exactly what is happening to me, with cardio 6 days a week (on the elliptical to protect my knees, as hard as I can go for 60 minutes), and 2-3 days of lifting heavy weights. My calorie deficit is only about 600 calories a day, and I eat back a lot of my exercise calories. I don't buy your claim that you don't build muscle, when I have moved from lifting 5 lb weights to 15-20 lb weights in less than two weeks and I can SEE the increased muscle in my arms and legs.
On number 4: I don't exercise strenuously ONLY to lose weight, but to strengthen my heart and cardiovascular system. Many, many of the people here were/are obese to begin with, and NEED strenuous exercise to strengthen their hearts, especially if, like me, they have been sedentary for many years and have a family history of heart disease and such. I think it is so irresponsible to come here and tell people they don't need to exercise hard.
Other benefits of strenuous exercise, in my own personal experience: HIGH decrease in anxiety/depression, better sleep, higher sex drive, increased confidence about the abilities of my body to work hard. I DON'T get all that from walking my dog around the neighborhood. Sorry.
A very large component of building strength, and a component that most people completely ignore, is training the central nervous system. You can gain large amounts of strength without adding any muscle mass just by training your central nervous system to control your muscle more efficiently. This is why people on deficits Can see significant strength gains, even without building muscle. I'm a lot stronger than I was 6 months ago, and I can see a lot more definition in my biceps, yet according to my measuring tape, my arms are 1" smaller than they were 6 months ago. My arms aren't stronger due to muscle gain, they're stronger due to my central nervous system utilizing the muscle more efficiently.0 -
So, the piece of your #1 point I quoted above-does this mean that if you ARE starting out obese, you can build muscle with a calorie deficit? Because that seems to be exactly what is happening to me, with cardio 6 days a week (on the elliptical to protect my knees, as hard as I can go for 60 minutes), and 2-3 days of lifting heavy weights. My calorie deficit is only about 600 calories a day, and I eat back a lot of my exercise calories. I don't buy your claim that you don't build muscle, when I have moved from lifting 5 lb weights to 15-20 lb weights in less than two weeks and I can SEE the increased muscle in my arms and legs.
On number 4: I don't exercise strenuously ONLY to lose weight, but to strengthen my heart and cardiovascular system. Many, many of the people here were/are obese to begin with, and NEED strenuous exercise to strengthen their hearts, especially if, like me, they have been sedentary for many years and have a family history of heart disease and such. I think it is so irresponsible to come here and tell people they don't need to exercise hard.
Other benefits of strenuous exercise, in my own personal experience: HIGH decrease in anxiety/depression, better sleep, higher sex drive, increased confidence about the abilities of my body to work hard. I DON'T get all that from walking my dog around the neighborhood. Sorry.
A very large component of building strength, and a component that most people completely ignore, is training the central nervous system. You can gain large amounts of strength without adding any muscle mass just by training your central nervous system to control your muscle more efficiently. This is why people on deficits Can see significant strength gains, even without building muscle. I'm a lot stronger than I was 6 months ago, and I can see a lot more definition in my biceps, yet according to my measuring tape, my arms are 1" smaller than they were 6 months ago. My arms aren't stronger due to muscle gain, they're stronger due to my central nervous system utilizing the muscle more efficiently.
[/quote]Always have people in the gym who lose weight thinking that they gained "lots" of muscle after losing weight.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Hi all
This post was an interesting read and made me think about a few points.
The OP made some good points:0 -
Bump, great conversation here!0
-
A very large component of building strength, and a component that most people completely ignore, is training the central nervous system. You can gain large amounts of strength without adding any muscle mass just by training your central nervous system to control your muscle more efficiently. This is why people on deficits Can see significant strength gains, even without building muscle. I'm a lot stronger than I was 6 months ago, and I can see a lot more definition in my biceps, yet according to my measuring tape, my arms are 1" smaller than they were 6 months ago. My arms aren't stronger due to muscle gain, they're stronger due to my central nervous system utilizing the muscle more efficiently.
^ This. The bolded portion here is all Lyle McDonald, bodyrecomposition.com:
A Quick Tangent into Some Neurophysiology
When you look at strength production, the body has essentially two methods to increase force output which are
Muscle fiber recruitment
Rate coding
Muscle fiber recruitment is exactly what it sounds like, how many of the fibers within a muscle are actually being recruited. Contrary to the exceptional silliness which is endlessly repeated in books and on the internet, most people can actually get pretty close to 100% fiber recruitment (it’s a little bit lower in the lower body but, in the triceps for example, people can get near 100% recruitment).
Rate coding referes to how quickly the body is sending electrical signals to that muscle. As rate coding goes up, the muscle fires harder.
Now, in the muscles we’re interested in from a sports or bodybuilding standpoint, the body will generally use recruitment to increase force production up to about 80-85% of maximum force output (in the lab, this is measured with Maximal Voluntary Isometric Contraction or MVIC, which is effectively 1 rep maximum weight). Beyond 80-85% of maximum, it uses rate coding.
I’d note for completenes that this isn’t true for some muscles in the body, notably stuff like the eye muscles and finger muscles. In those muscles, recruitment is used up to about 50% of MVIC and rate coding handles the rest. Which is a lot of why studies looking at the thumb muscles aren’t really relevant to most training applications. But I digress.
Anyhow, now we have the next part of the picture, the body will recruit more fibers up to about 80-85% of maximum; above that point, there is no further recruitment and force output is improved via rate coding.
I should note that even at lower intensities, as the individual goes to fatigue, eventually all muscle fibers will end up being recruited. But they won’t have been recruited until fairly late in the set (e.g. the last few repetitions).0 -
Thanks for this Sidesteal.A very large component of building strength, and a component that most people completely ignore, is training the central nervous system. You can gain large amounts of strength without adding any muscle mass just by training your central nervous system to control your muscle more efficiently. This is why people on deficits Can see significant strength gains, even without building muscle. I'm a lot stronger than I was 6 months ago, and I can see a lot more definition in my biceps, yet according to my measuring tape, my arms are 1" smaller than they were 6 months ago. My arms aren't stronger due to muscle gain, they're stronger due to my central nervous system utilizing the muscle more efficiently.
^ This. The bolded portion here is all Lyle McDonald, bodyrecomposition.com:
A Quick Tangent into Some Neurophysiology
When you look at strength production, the body has essentially two methods to increase force output which are
Muscle fiber recruitment
Rate coding
Muscle fiber recruitment is exactly what it sounds like, how many of the fibers within a muscle are actually being recruited. Contrary to the exceptional silliness which is endlessly repeated in books and on the internet, most people can actually get pretty close to 100% fiber recruitment (it’s a little bit lower in the lower body but, in the triceps for example, people can get near 100% recruitment).
Rate coding referes to how quickly the body is sending electrical signals to that muscle. As rate coding goes up, the muscle fires harder.
Now, in the muscles we’re interested in from a sports or bodybuilding standpoint, the body will generally use recruitment to increase force production up to about 80-85% of maximum force output (in the lab, this is measured with Maximal Voluntary Isometric Contraction or MVIC, which is effectively 1 rep maximum weight). Beyond 80-85% of maximum, it uses rate coding.
I’d note for completenes that this isn’t true for some muscles in the body, notably stuff like the eye muscles and finger muscles. In those muscles, recruitment is used up to about 50% of MVIC and rate coding handles the rest. Which is a lot of why studies looking at the thumb muscles aren’t really relevant to most training applications. But I digress.
Anyhow, now we have the next part of the picture, the body will recruit more fibers up to about 80-85% of maximum; above that point, there is no further recruitment and force output is improved via rate coding.
I should note that even at lower intensities, as the individual goes to fatigue, eventually all muscle fibers will end up being recruited. But they won’t have been recruited until fairly late in the set (e.g. the last few repetitions).
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions