YB
BannerBanner

Is this true

Author
TREBOR
Pro-Member
  • Total Posts : 6492
  • Reward points: 3926
  • Joined: 2003/04/03 11:14:02
  • Location: Durham United Kingdom
  • Status: offline
2004/01/24 07:40:08 (permalink)
0

Is this true

I was skimming through Beyond Brawn the other day and Mcrobert made a statement that,Covering a mile burns the same calories wheather you walk jog or run it,the only difference is the speed covering the distance,his second statement was that for every two miles covered you burn approximately 200 calories.Is this true?

I was on the treadmill yesterday and at the two mile mark calories burned were 280,i no cardio equipment only gives a rough idea but surely it carnt be nearly 80 cals out.
#1

17 Replies Related Threads

    Knighty
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 8275
    • Reward points: 7086
    • Joined: 2003/01/01 20:32:15
    • Location: Reading, England
    • Status: offline
    RE: Is this true 2004/01/24 09:40:02 (permalink)
    0
    this has been my theory for a long time - I think it's true.

    It makes perfect sense to me
    #2
    JayavarmanVII
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 1545
    • Reward points: 6529
    • Joined: 2003/03/14 18:51:48
    • Location: between a rock and hard place
    • Status: offline
    RE: Is this true 2004/01/24 10:06:27 (permalink)
    0
    He's absolutely spot on in the sense that the amount of calories burned are the same for a given distance regardless of speed. However the precise amount of calories burned for an individual depends on many factors. 100cal/mile is a rough estimate for the average male, could be more could be less.

    TUFF
    #3
    Robert
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 2464
    • Reward points: 4532
    • Joined: 2002/06/04 16:08:03
    • Location: Chester - England
    • Status: offline
    RE: Is this true 2004/01/24 10:29:46 (permalink)
    0
    doesn't make any sense to me,

    sprint 1500m up hill [or at a 15degree incline on a treadmill] and then walk up it [or walk for 1500m on a treadmill], you'll see the difference. to say that walking and running burn the same amount of kcals is just not true imo. [i sy up hill as it will highlight any innaccuracies in your/his theory better].
    rob
    #4
    dirtyvest
    Moderator
    • Total Posts : 52035
    • Reward points: 14490
    • Joined: 2002/04/11 22:19:49
    • Location: UK
    • Status: online
    RE: Is this true 2004/01/24 12:23:41 (permalink)
    0
    I'm inclined to agree with Rob here.

    Any studies proving one or the other tho?

    Dirty
    #5
    CheekyChappie
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 7009
    • Reward points: 13748
    • Joined: 2002/04/08 10:56:28
    • Location: United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: Is this true 2004/01/24 13:19:41 (permalink)
    0
    Don't think we need studies on this one, it's just basic physics.

    Energy used is a measure of the work done, simply calculated as Mass x Distance travelled. So you will expend the same energy whether you walk it or run it. Running will obviously feel harder as you are asking your body to produce the same energy output in a shorter time, if you ask it to work beyond it's anaerobic threshold then you will experience lactic acid build up and thus discomfort. So it's not that you are burning more energy, just that you are taxing your body more by asking it to produce that energy faster.

    With regards the figure of 100 calories per mile, that is correct for a person of AVERAGE WEIGHT. As the energy required simply depends on mass x distance, someone who weighs 120kg will burn twice as much energy to walk 1 mile as someone who weighs only 60kg. This is why overweight people who say they have low metabolisms often have it totally the wrong way round. The energy required to move their bodies around is A LOT MORE than for normal weight people! If they exercised they could burn off large amounts of calories.

    So any cardio equipment that does not ask you for your weight (like a concept 2 rower) can only be estimating your energy expenditure so the figure is useless. If it does ask for you weight then the figure should be accurate. If you say you burned 280 cals to do 2 miles, that is 140 for 1 mile so I guess you weigh 1.4 times the average person (whatever that is!)
    #6
    JayavarmanVII
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 1545
    • Reward points: 6529
    • Joined: 2003/03/14 18:51:48
    • Location: between a rock and hard place
    • Status: offline
    RE: Is this true 2004/01/24 14:09:08 (permalink)
    0
    Work = Force x Displacement

    Nothing to do with speed. As CheekyChappie says, it's basic physics.

    TUFF
    #7
    Robert
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 2464
    • Reward points: 4532
    • Joined: 2002/06/04 16:08:03
    • Location: Chester - England
    • Status: offline
    RE: Is this true 2004/01/24 14:17:58 (permalink)
    0
    CC,
    #1 overweight peoples have a proportion of their mass as fat, fat don't burn no kcals. but in general i agree with what you said, and can see where you are coming from, except on this: [do we ever agree??]

    there comes a point at which your forula does not apply, and i belive thatpoint in humans is relitivley low interms of intensity, take your car for example: going by the energy used=massxdistance [i.e. not including time/speed] then why does you car have a crap MPG** @ 9000rpm in 5th [say 140mph] than at 2000rpm[say 50mph]?? now i am not for one minute trying to suggest that our bodies work in similar ways to cars, but that analogy disproves your theory that E=MD, or energy = mass x distance in any given situation. [MPG is the distance you can get out of a certain amount of fuel, I.e. energy].

    **in my car @ 50mph i get about 50-60MPG, at 90-110mph i would get around 20-30mpg.

    basically my point is this: there is more to it than a simple forula, although i cannot shed any more light on it than that:(
    rob


    #8
    dirtyvest
    Moderator
    • Total Posts : 52035
    • Reward points: 14490
    • Joined: 2002/04/11 22:19:49
    • Location: UK
    • Status: online
    RE: Is this true 2004/01/24 14:54:13 (permalink)
    0
    There is alo the effect after the exercise to consider. Does higher intensity, particularly in the case of HIIT, not put the body at a higher calorie burning effect for a while post exercise??
    #9
    Knighty
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 8275
    • Reward points: 7086
    • Joined: 2003/01/01 20:32:15
    • Location: Reading, England
    • Status: offline
    RE: Is this true 2004/01/24 15:43:23 (permalink)
    0
    It's a matter of what energy systems you use - for example, if you sprint you're using CP stores to fuel it which are quickly depleted before the body switches over to the lactic acid system - depending how efficient your CP and Lactic acid systems are determines how hard and long you can work for.

    Rob - fat mass does consume kcals, but not as much as muscle.
    #10
    Boxer
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 2333
    • Reward points: 7996
    • Joined: 2003/03/07 03:37:50
    • Location: United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: Is this true 2004/01/24 16:26:53 (permalink)
    0
    quote:
    Originally posted by Knighty



    Rob - fat mass does consume kcals, but not as much as muscle.


    I've never heard that before mate. Do you know how much calories?
    #11
    Knighty
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 8275
    • Reward points: 7086
    • Joined: 2003/01/01 20:32:15
    • Location: Reading, England
    • Status: offline
    RE: Is this true 2004/01/24 18:46:47 (permalink)
    0
    I dont think it's anywhere near as much as muscle tissue, but it's still tissue and contributes to a person's body mass - hence, why obese people can lose sh!t loads of weight very fast
    #12
    Boxer
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 2333
    • Reward points: 7996
    • Joined: 2003/03/07 03:37:50
    • Location: United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: Is this true 2004/01/24 19:33:01 (permalink)
    0
    I was under the impression that fat peoples metabolic rate was slower?
    #13
    CheekyChappie
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 7009
    • Reward points: 13748
    • Joined: 2002/04/08 10:56:28
    • Location: United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: Is this true 2004/01/24 22:45:49 (permalink)
    0
    quote:
    There is alo the effect after the exercise to consider. Does higher intensity, particularly in the case of HIIT, not put the body at a higher calorie burning effect for a while post exercise??


    Yes, the EPOC effect. We are talking here purely about the energy required to move a cetain distance, but when planning a cardio routine you would consider this as a plus point for higher intensity cardio and interval training.

    quote:
    #1 overweight peoples have a proportion of their mass as fat, fat don't burn no kcals. but in general i agree with what you said, and can see where you are coming from, except on this: [do we ever agree??]



    It's nothing to do with the fat burning calories. It's simply the fact that you have to lug that fat weight around everywhere you go. If I gave you a 20kg weight and told you to walk a mile you would burn more calories compared to walking without a weight. In the same way if you gain 20kg of fat you will burn the same number of calories as if you were carrying the weight because you are having to physically move a heavier mass around.

    quote:
    I've never heard that before mate. Do you know how much calories?


    A lb of muscle contributes around 30-50 calories a day to your metabolism. I believe a pound of fat contributes around 2-3.

    quote:
    I was under the impression that fat peoples metabolic rate was slower?


    No that's just how many rationalise being so large. Of course SOME may have a slow metabolism due to years of yo-yo dieting and subsequent muscle loss, but for many fat people it's simply that they eat too much for the activity they do. As I said before because of the weight they carry they will actually burn a lot of calories during exercise. Also many fat people have some good muscle going on under there, they have had to develop this muscle to cope with the extra weight. Imagine if you started wearing a 50kg jacket every waking moment, pretty soon your muscles would all get stronger in order to adapt to the extra weight, the same principle as weight training - Specific Adaptations to Imposed Demands (SAID)


    Robert, I'm just mulling over your car analogy. I thought of that myself earlier and wasn't sure about the answer! However I feel quite certain of what I say so I reckon there will be a good answer, maybe Tuffnutt can help out he seems to know his physics!
    #14
    symzie
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 2981
    • Reward points: 9492
    • Joined: 2002/12/11 13:53:54
    • Location: London
    • Status: offline
    RE: Is this true 2004/01/25 14:21:14 (permalink)
    0
    I agree that it takes a given amount of energy to move a weight over a certain distance but, would the efficiency of your method of moving from A to B also come into play. Walking from a - b would use less calories than say hopping, I know it's a silly example but just to make a point that it's probably not as straight forward as mentioned above.

    Having said that though, walking and running are both using both legs so I reckon that the calories burned between A and B would be similar. You would get fitter by running though, and as a result would be leaner over time because of the way your body gets it's energy from fat at a higher heart rate than it would at a lower fitness level, also you would carry on burning cals after the exercise was over whereas with walking you wouldn't
    #15
    CheekyChappie
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 7009
    • Reward points: 13748
    • Joined: 2002/04/08 10:56:28
    • Location: United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: Is this true 2004/01/25 15:12:30 (permalink)
    0
    quote:
    Walking from a - b would use less calories than say hopping


    Again I think the perceived extra effort is because you are asking your body to use muscles in a way it is not used to. With hopping you are introducing elements such as jumping in the air, balance, jarring affects on the leg. All these things will make it seem harder but it's not necessarily to dowith energy cost.

    Think of walking on your hands. Now you have to admit there is essentially little difference between walking on the hands and legs from a biomechanical point of view. You are using two of the body's long levers to walk your self forward. The energy cost is the same, but it is a lot harder! Why? Because the muscles in our arms are a lot weaker and are not developed to be able to do this.

    Also consider Squatting compared to shoulder pressing a weight. You may squat 150kg but could you shoulder press it as easily? No way. The energy required is the same (assuming the weight travels the same distance) but to shoulder press it is a lot harder because your deltoids are a lot weaker than your legs, glutes etc. whic work in a squat.

    So the point I am making is how hard an activity feels is not directly related to how much energy it requires.
    #16
    RagingBull
    Olympian Member
    • Total Posts : 773
    • Reward points: 10472
    • Joined: 2003/07/02 23:58:10
    • Location: United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: Is this true 2004/01/25 21:36:58 (permalink)
    0
    Excellent topic !
    #17
    Boxer
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 2333
    • Reward points: 7996
    • Joined: 2003/03/07 03:37:50
    • Location: United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: Is this true 2004/01/26 00:55:52 (permalink)
    0
    Cheers CC! I was thinking of the thermic effect of eating. Here's some info if anybodies interested :

    Swaminathan et al (1985) demonstrated that during a normal fasted 90-minute period, both lean and obese subjects burned about 110 calories. When consuming a 400kcal, fat only meal (44g), the lean subjects burned 125kcal (+15kcal) while the obese subjects only burned 110kcal (+0Kcal).
    This indicates that while the lean can up-regulate metabolism when eating fat, the obese may, in fact, have a defect in their thermogenic response mechanisms for fat. When fed a 400kcal mixed meal (P+C+F), the lean subjects burned 130kcal (+20kcal) during the 90-minutes while the obese burned 125kcal (+25kcal) during the 90-minutes.
    These data demonstrate that mixed meals are more thermogenic than fat only meals and that lean people have a better TEF response than the obese.

    Taken from http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/berardi1.htm
    #18
    Jump to:
    ©2018 All content is copyright of MuscleTalk.co.uk and its use elsewhere is prohibited.
    (posting guidelines | privacy | advertise | earnings disclaimer | contact us | supported by)
    © 2018 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.5