Discussion in 'Fitness & Nutrition' started by hitzchicky, Apr 9, 2009.
So is it all same? Will I really only burn roughly a 100 calories regardless of how fast im going?
1. You use calories (energy) when recruiting your muscles.
2. The amount of energy used by your muscles depends on how long and how hard you recruit them for.
3. Common sense???
Walking for 60 min may burn 60 calories - you don't recruit many muscles, for long nor intensely.
Jogging for 60 min may burn 160 calories - you recruit more muscles, for longer and with more intensity.
Sprinting for 60 min... well good luck, but you'll burn a shit load more for obvious reasons.
Only if you stop your fucking walking / jogging / sprinting / fucking the duck after you burn 100 calories.
No it's not all the same, and I have no idea where that myth came from. The more intense the exercise, the more calories you burn.
Note: burning calories and burning fat are not the same thing.
Tough to say. Theoretically, it takes the same amount of energy to move a mass a specific distance no matter the speed. However, your body has to extract energy from storage and move it around in order to utilize it. An increased rate of usage may decrease the efficiency of the calorie utilization.
The general thought behind it is if you run a mile you burn as many calories as if you walk a mile–it is dependent on you stopping after a certain distance.
The theory is that if you walk, your heart rate is lower, but it takes a lot longer to travel the mile. If you run, your heart rate is higher, but you hit the mile mark much quicker.
I don't know which is correct, but I'm sure the difference is negligible.
Running will use more over the same distance, but just because running is a movement that utilizes more muscle in general so it needs more energy total to cover the same distance.
I think when people say walking and running a mile are the same they just mean it on a very gross level.
Like running a 5 minute mile, walking a very very slow mile in 20 minutes, is probably not HUGELY different in terms of calorie usage over all, definitely not 400% different.
I think they just mean to imply that energy used and the distance covered with any form of locomotion is more correlated than the time.
its all about heart rate bro, if you can keep your heartrate at 180 while browsing OT, then why run?
but thats not possible. HIIT on a bike for 30min=win
We aren't in a frictionless environment and we have to deal with gravity. It takes more energy to propel your body at 8mph then it does at 2mph.
Just like driving - the best fuel economy is achieved at 55mph [for most vehicles]. You drive 90 mph for the same distance and you'll burn more fuel thus proof that it requires more energy to move the mass the same distance.
Not if you're running specifically to get faster or better at running or for weightloss.
If heart rate was the only thing that mattered you could just do coke and drink energy drinks all day.
err what? why do you think people take EC? shit jacks your heart rate through the rooofff
You apparently haven't had any friends pick up a coke habit
You finished the thought I didn't have time to Whoever is claiming that walking burns as many calories as running is looking at it only on the most basic, high school physics level.
With running in particular we have to look at the fact that we propel our bodies into the air somewhat; that doesn't really happen when we walk. Wind resistance is another factor.
After stopping intense physical activity your heartrate and metabolism stay elevated for a period of time. You don't get that by walking.
Some car engines run more efficiently at certain RPMs. I don't know enough about metabolic processes to say for sure that the body is less efficient at certain heart rates, but that could certainly be the case.
everytime i've read something about running, i've read that you burn 100 calories per mile whether im running or walking. so that's my question.
Simply ask yourself, what makes you more tired? Running a mile or walking a mile.
There you have your answer as far as calorie expenditure goes.
it also raises your metabolism. That's the part that affects weight loss.
I've read it's more the appetite suppressing qualities than anything else which promotes weight loss.
i was always taught that at higher exertion levels your body cant metabolize fat because the reaction is slower so in order to give you the energy you need it burns whatever glucose you have laying around in your body. consistent HR of like 125-135 will burn the most fat.