calorie count vs sprinting, jogging, walking

Discussion in 'Fitness & Nutrition' started by hitzchicky, Apr 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hitzchicky

    hitzchicky New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CT
    So is it all same? Will I really only burn roughly a 100 calories regardless of how fast im going?
     
  2. Stilgar

    Stilgar New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,941
    Likes Received:
    0
    What?

    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2009
  3. Helios

    Helios New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    40,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nyc <> Amsterdam <> Paris
    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.
     
  4. Zaffir

    Zaffir OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    Messages:
    38,275
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle
    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.
     
  5. hootpie

    hootpie New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    35,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Northern California
    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.
     
  6. TracerBullet

    TracerBullet Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    155,094
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Scene of the Noodle Incident.
    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.
     
  7. TracerBullet

    TracerBullet Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    155,094
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Scene of the Noodle Incident.
    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.
     
  8. daballer2005

    daballer2005 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    9,525
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    816 up in this bitch
    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
     
  9. entropy138

    entropy138 OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,445
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NW Washington
    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.
     
  10. TracerBullet

    TracerBullet Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    155,094
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Scene of the Noodle Incident.
    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.
     
  11. daballer2005

    daballer2005 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    9,525
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    816 up in this bitch
    err what? why do you think people take EC? shit jacks your heart rate through the rooofff
     
  12. entropy138

    entropy138 OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,445
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NW Washington
    You apparently haven't had any friends pick up a coke habit :mamoru:
     
  13. Zaffir

    Zaffir OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    Messages:
    38,275
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle
    You finished the thought I didn't have time to :o 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.
     
  14. hitzchicky

    hitzchicky New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CT

    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.
     
  15. Stilgar

    Stilgar New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,941
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  16. TracerBullet

    TracerBullet Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    155,094
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Scene of the Noodle Incident.
    it also raises your metabolism. That's the part that affects weight loss.
     
  17. Stilgar

    Stilgar New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,941
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've read it's more the appetite suppressing qualities than anything else which promotes weight loss.
     
  18. tucknut

    tucknut Dear Mr. President, There are too many states nowa

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,869
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Costa Mesa/Missoula, MT
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page