The energy cost of transport - that is, how much energy (note: not the *rate* of energy expenditure) must be expended to transport a given amount of body mass a given distance - is largely independent of running speed, but can and does vary between individuals (+/- 10-15%, maybe), and clearly tends to be lower in runners than in non-runners (e.g., cyclists) or untrained individuals.

IOW, by simply knowing body mass, speed (and grade), and duration, it is possible to come up with a *ballpark* estimate of your total energy expenditure. Such numbers, though, are less reliable than for cycling, but much more trustworthy than for, say, swimming.

Thanks Andrew, so my race pace mile could be about 150 calories per mile on the high end, even though my jogging pace is 136 per mile or so. Or it could be the same..Still doesn't seem right if I run a 5 minute mile and a 9 minute one, they burn basically the same calories. I would expect some penalty for running the engine a lot hotter..

SO why is swimming so much more +/- than cycling and running??

Skill/innate hydrodynamics.

This one is pretty accurate http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1350959101

I plugged in todays workout and that site has me burning about 10 to 15 calories lesser mile than the other one, or the treadmill. Do they back out the daily BMI burn, I guess that could account for the difference??

It's actually mostly true that for caloric running expenditure, it's remarkably similar for.given distance despite huge speed differences.

Not a physio expert myself.but have used enough calcs that all come up with such a result.

So yes, the 15 min 5k won't burn a ton more than the Walker 5k.

Does the calorie burn from a faster run not continue for longer after the actual workout than an easy run/ride? Thus, you burn more calories from the faster pace throughout the day, but from a kilojoules standpoint the total work done during the workout is the same?

I may be way off in my understanding, so definitely correct if I'm wrong.

So yes, the 15 min 5k won't burn a ton more than the Walker 5k. //

Actually read a couple papers on running vs walking, and unless you are race walking, running burns about twice as many calories per mile than walking does. Something about leaving the ground in the push off in running..

I don't think it's 2x, or even close to that. Running does burn more, but def not 2x walking. Ok, though, I can def be wrong about this - others pipe up!

One (of many possible) websites:


http://livehealthy.chron.com/amount-calories-burnt-running-vs-walking-4593.html


"Average numbers provide an overview, but they don't help you unless you happen to be average. Therefore, it's helpful to know your personal calorie burn rate. Determine your calories burned per mile when walking by multiplying your weight by 0.57. For instance, if you weigh 200 pounds, you would burn 115 calories per mile. To determine your calories burned per mile while running, multiply your weight by 0.72. The same 200-pound person would burn 140 calories running a mile. These formulas are based on the California State University-San Bernardino study as reported by "Runner's World." Other formulas exist that differ slightly. For instance, a 2004 study published in "Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise" used the formula or 0.53 times your weight in pounds to determine your calories burned per mile of walking and 0.75 per pound for your calories burned per mile of running."

The short answer?

These 'calorie burn gadgets' are totally worthless except for, at best, entertainment value.

I wouldn't waste your time with them ...

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

I wouldn't waste your time with them ... //

Like I said, it is not the gadget I'm interested in, just the actual numbers in a theoretical sense. And I was a bit discombobulated by the lack of difference in fast vs slow miles in mile burn rates. Really thought there would be a bigger difference.


So thanks everyone for the feedback, perhaps it was common knowledge and I just never got the memo...

Understood.

If it helps, your logic is good, but the numbers generated by these gadgets are, for all practical purposes, totally useless. And, for the majority of users, they are also GROSSLY inaccurate.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

My 2 cents:

Running distance X is faster (less time) than walking distance X
Economy of walking to running has an inflection point for everyone (Ex. single limb stance has cost)
Economy of running is more subjective and has a larger scale versus that of walking (running is a continuum after loss of double stance ex: >4 mph)
Lots of other stuff:)

So...in general running versus walking same distance will generate more relative heat to time spent. The difference will be highly dependent on economy of running versus walking. The metabolic recovery/response following running versus walking could also be factored into overall caloric expenditure.

Take home: I wouldn't go quite 2X on running versus walking over same distance, but it is significantly greater and factor in post-exercise it is greater still.

Extra tidbit, unlike the fitness benefit being skewed to running, cardiovascular or health benefit between the 2 have not been found (both are beneficial). Disclaimer: My information may be dated:)

Cheers!

Don't be fooled by the post-exercise "glow" (or the "building bigger muscles burns more calories") claims. The vast majority of energy is expended during the exercise itself, so that is what one should focus on.

Yes! I hate how Orange Theory tells people they burned 900 calories because of afterburn, then the members never lose weight cause they overeat as a reward.

I do not buy into the calorie expenditure of walking vs running. The reason is the way you burn calories and the way the body metabolizes fat/glucose.

A fast 5k is going to burn a higher % of glucose versus fat. An easy 5k effort might burn equal calories, but will burn a higher % fat. In fact, the fast 5K might burn LESS calories than the easy 5K. On my 5k races, my Garmin have always given me less calories than my easy 5k.

As for walking, this is where you get into how the calories are burned. I don't believe walking is anywhere in equivalence to running because the calorie burn is more of heat transfer versus kinetic energy.

I don't feel like explaining it but this article is a great primer to get you ready to read deeper into the subject of kinetic calorie burn. http://www.differencebetween.com/...ories-and-vs-energy/

You want to burn kinetic calories and your efficiency at doing so ultimately determines your calorie burn.

For me, I most efficient at burning calories at the low end of zone 3 with a heart rate of 133. In fact when I run, my watch face stays on HR and increase/decrease pace to get to maintain that HR throughout the run. As a side affect of HR training, my pace to maintain a 133 HR has dropped from 9:30/mi to 8:15/mile.

Energy is energy. There is no such thing as "kinetic calorie burn" vs. "calorie burn."

Your pace at a particular heart rate improved as a result of training, period. The same thing would have happened if you had just run at a steady speed and ignored heart rate.

(Sorry to be blunt. Typing on a phone.)

The pace was just an aside. I do not subscribe to a calorie is a calorie theory. There are too many physiological processes in place, and too many complexities from person to person and from exertion level to exertion level.

As for the original issue. I ran on a treadmill for the 1st time a couple months ago (but been running for 10 years) cause it was too cold. It told me I burned about 60% more than what I know to be normal. In reality, I burn around 75 calories per mile at a 133 HR. At 141 HR, I burn around 80 calories per mile, but I burn less fat and more glycogen. So if I want to lose fat, it is more beneficial to run at the slower 133 HR and burn less calories.

My sense has always been pace doesn't matter in terms of energy used per distance (calories/mile) with two major exceptions.

If it is really cold you will use up a lot of energy just trying to stay warm and so the slower you go the more energy you will use to travel a given distance. This is why I have always felt 'Hot Yoga' and other similar activities are really counter-productive. You may lose weight because you sweat but if you want to burn more calories you should be doing the same activities in a freezing cold room.

The next exception is when you switch from aerobic to anaerobic energy usage (although I don't think its really a exception). The human body is pretty inefficient at supplying energy in a sub-oxic manner so while you still need to maintain the same energy output to travel a given distance you have to use a lot more fuel to get there. Basically you're body is producing the same number of calories but you end up with a lot of wasted fuel in the form of lactic acid. This waste fuel does have a caloric value, even if you can't use it, so it can be counted as burned calories.

I would guess your PB 5K effort did require you to dip below your oxic-threshold so you used more energy that you would for a 29 min 5K. But if one compares a 20 min 5K and 29 min 5K I think the assumptions of the calculators are valid.

EDIT: It would be remiss of me not to add a final exception which it the biggest one on a day to day basis: WIND. Wind works like you think it would add energy for a head wind subtract it for a tail wind. As a side note it is this big effect of wind that me feel running 'power meters' are BS. Until they start directly measuring wind they will be pretty useless outside irrespective of how many people claim they are perfectly calibrated on treadmills.

A long time ago I saw a thing that said at my 155lb I burn 104 calories per mile. I rounded down to 100 ad have always used that for all my running. When I need to get down to race weight and track my nutrition it has always seemed accurate enough for me.

If I used the treadmill number for a 4 mile run it always ends up north of 500. If I use my Garmin 935 it tells me 250.

Unless you are actively shivering, exercising in the cold has very little impact on the energy cost of exercise.

Similarly, in general ground-level winds are rarely strong enough to change the energy cost of running by more than +/- 5%.

How do you these numbers to be true? Has this been measured in a lab environment of sorts? The reason I saying this is because they look awfully low.

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

Not only that, but his/her conclusion that they need to burn fat while exercising to lose fat is incorrect.

In fact, while exercise training alone (i.e., in the absence of caloric restriction) rarely leads to significant weight loss, the latter is more likely to occur in programs that entail significant amounts of high intensity, i.e, carbohydrate-fueled, exercise.

Where does running economy come into play? My lay person, un-researched, un-scientific understanding of this leads me to think that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a mass a certain distance, but not all of the energy expended during running is converted to moving that mass over the distance. For example, if I have the exact same mass as Mo Farah and we both go out and run an 18min 5k, am I going to burn more calories because Mo runs with much better running economy than I?

Hey Monty -

I did a metabolic test a couple of years ago at CU Boulder. Here are the major results.

You can see that running at 8:34 pace I was burning 899 kcal/hr. At that pace I was burning a little more fat than carbs. At 6:18 pace I was burning 1461 kcal/hr , almost entirely carbs.


That's a pretty big increase in metabolic rate as pace increases - about 62%. But that is kcal/hour, not kcal/mile. When I convert to kcal/mile at the different paces, I get 128 for 8:34 pace, 153 for 6:18 pace - a 19.5% increase. So it's a much smaller increase, but I would not call it insignificant - especially when you are considering pacing/fueling strategies for long distance races where stored glycogen is insufficient to get you to the finish line.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

That's the +/- 10-15% I mentioned previously.

Hey Ed-

I built additional pages into that template that documented running economy in ml/kg/km, which would have negated the need for you to calculate that on your own.

At first glance on your results, your oxygen cost appears to be a bit high. This can be due to a few factors.
1. Your biomechanics, muscle architecture and fiber type (do you have large calves?) etc.
2. Effect of altitude (increased cost of ventilation, etc.)
3. Testing equipment

I'm going to make the assumption that it is not equipment as the testing is done on Parvo Metabolic carts and that they were probably properly calibrated.

Additionally, the upward sloping lactate baselines are congruent with someone whom had a lower running economy. (You and I, we're in the same boat!)

Considering those factors, it would be within normal limits to see a decrease in running economy with increasing speeds. This could be biomechnical / running form related factors. However, without being the individual who conducted your tests, I'm unable to truly know this particular situation.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

Except I used to be fat. I was one of those people who would gain then lose then regain weight. Then, I dedicated to studying the science behind food, energy, and exercise.

Fast forward 8 years and I lost 95 pounds of fat, kept it off and am now underweight and have maintained 5% body fat for two years w/o any huge fluctuations in that %. (Not doing that on purpose. Just got too good at the keeping fat off thing.) Also, no diets. Just eating according to macros and expenditure.

Yes, my calorie expenditure is from lab testing.

I find those calorie numbers very suspect.

(Quote) "I did a metabolic test a couple of years ago at CU Boulder. Here are the major results. You can see that running at 8:34 pace I was burning 899 kcal/hr. At that pace I was burning a little more fat than carbs. At 6:18 pace I was burning 1461 kcal/hr , almost entirely carbs. That's a pretty big increase in metabolic rate as pace increases - about 62%. But that is kcal/hour, not kcal/mile. When I convert to kcal/mile at the different paces, I get 128 for 8:34 pace, 153 for 6:18 pace - a 19.5% increase. So it's a much smaller increase, but I would not call it insignificant - especially when you are considering pacing/fueling strategies for long distance races where stored glycogen is insufficient to get you to the finish line.

Ed - JOOC, what did you weigh at the time of this test??? Also, did you do a resting metabolic rate (RMR) test??? I've never done the treadmill test but did do the RMR and came out at about 14.2 cal/lb, or about 2580 cal at 182 lb and 6'2".

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I find those calorie numbers very suspect.//

The numbers, or how they were come by in the test? And an explanation of why would be nice to hear too..

Why do you find them suspect?

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Is this true for cycling also, e.g. can we say energy cost is X kcal/mile for a given mass regardless of speed??? Or to put it more generally in metric units, kcal/kg/km???

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Thanks, Rob.

I do have large calves. I'm a mesomorph. I weighed around 158 at 5'9.5 during that test. My weight stays pretty consistent. Never under 156, never over 160.

My running has improved since then. My sprint tri pace that season was probably 6:28, now more like 6:18. I did my first IM that year and ran 4:0x. In October I ran 3:36 in lmlou. Since I've aged from 38 to 41 now, I wonder how much of that is running economy and morphology changes and how much is fitness. thanks

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

I weighed 158 @5'9.5. never done rmr.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Given drag increases with the cube of speed I would say we cannot say that.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

The numbers. See my explanation below.

We're basically the same weight. I only have the experience of 60,000 miles of running for myself, and a few other pretty high level runners that I've been around.

Your results said you burned 900 calories at 7 miles for an hour. That's incredible. That's almost 130 calories per mile. Just doesn't pass the sniff test. 1400 calories for 9 miles an hour? Again, sniff test. Just no way. I wish it was that high.

Call me anti-science, but I just can't believe that. If those types of calorie burns were correct, I'd have lost all my weight over the past 15 years.

So..... Do you have any hard numbers to compare these to that make you believe they don't pass the smell test? Are you saying that you don't believe the numbers because you think if they were right then you would be losing weight? That's not a convincing argument.

These numbers are direct measurements from accurate machines.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

I am saying that from real world experience I know them to not be true.

I don't care what some algorithm says.

There's no algorithm. This is measurement, not estimation.

What in your experience let's you know how many calories you are burning at certain paces.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

900 calories burned running in a hour, or 130 cal/mile is eminently realistic for avg-bodied runners. Nothing wacky about it.

1400 calories burned at 9miles an hour is also eminently believable, just takes you longer to burn the calories than if you were running faster (but not like 2x longer.)

Ah, good point, I've read that before, not sure why i didn't think about that.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Now, I did not perform this test, but I did create the template and implemented the calculations, so I can lend some insight.

Equipment.

• 1 of 2 ParvoMedics Metabolic Carts. If I recall correctly, Pat had visited recently, so everything should have been dialed.
• Lactate plus lactate monitor. (I lamented the loss of my YSI, but it was a red-tape nightmare when both the University and the hospital had jurisdiction over the lab)
• Treadmill: Woodway 4Front

The Ed.

• Based on morphology, Ed is set up to be a less economical runner
• Boulder altitude can increase the energetic cost of running
• Upward-sloping baseline lactate, plus threshold pace indicate a moderate training status

The numbers

• Because Ed added his weight into this thread, I back calculated VO2 and RER for each stage as well as Running Economy (RE) in mk/kg/km.
• The relative VO2 measures (ml/kg/min) are at the high end (see above), but within ACSM RE measurements for the given running speeds
• Therefore, ml/kg/km are high, but normal (Ed's range 226-245 ml/kg/km for the given speeds)(ACSM for moderately trained ~215-225ml/kg/km for the given speeds)
• If I remember correctly, Caloric expenditure was calculated from Peronnet & Massicotte (1991) (Been a few years!)
• This equation tends to be higher than other equations, including the Jeukendrup & Wallis (2004) equations that I used prior to CU at Boulder Center for Sports Medicine. If I remember correctly, the Peronnet equations were a request from Inigo.
• When recalculated with the Jeukendrup equations, there is a Caloric savings of ~40kcals/hr at low intensities and ~120kcal/hr at high intensities (the equations primarily differ in calculation of CHO grams/min).

If there is any other insight that I can lend, please do not hesitate to ask.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

How was threshold pace determined? I was probably an 18:50 5k runner at the time. The threshold on the chart seems slow to me. I never really took those zones as being definitive but as a byproduct of the pace I was told to run for the test.

Does the lactate curve determine it?

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Ed-
Yes, the lactate curve is the primary driver of "threshold" determination. However, other factors can "nudge" that up or down.

I can see why that particular threshold was chosen (it corresponds to an inflection point / non-linear rise / a rise of 1mmol followed by 1.5 or greater on the subsequent stage. (Edited to remove incorrect labeling of "Coyle Method").

My arm wouldn't have to be twisted very hard to nudge it up. Personally, I always used the modified Dmax method. I've found it works well, but is a bit difficult to understand. Additionally, It's likely that I would have had you do another stage, but again, I can understand why you were stopped where you were as we typically looked for lactates >8.0mmol/L prior to ending the test and 7.9 is very close.

To play devil's advocate on the prior posting: IF the oxygen sensor were reading high, that would explain the increased Caloric expenditure, but would also have lowered the RER and I do not see that being the case. Thus the CO2 sensor would have to be a bit off as well and I really do not see both of them being off.

Therefore, I feel the raw data that you received is accurate. There will always be slight variation in interpretation between individuals. However, in this case, the end results are equivocal.

Case in point: I tend to define the upper end of my threshold zone (4) with the threshold pace, whereas this tester tends to increase threshold zone above the threshold pace. At the end of the day, both my interpretation of Zone 4 and theirs are essentially the same number and therefore the practical take away is the same. But, my "Threshold" pace would have made you feel better ;). I'd also say the same about Zone 2 as well. Frankly those are the two most important values to take away from a test like that. Anything over threshold, frankly, ought to just be $%#@ hard!

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

Just an FYI: unless Ed (Coyle) has changed his approach over the years, that's not how he pucks LT.

(Agree with you that interpreting lactate data can sometimes be like reading tea leaves, especially when you factor in normal biological and technological variability.)

Technically, it is estimation. That is why it is called INdirect calorimetry.

The assumptions involved have been well-validated, however, so it generally as being just as (if not more) accurate as direct calorimetry, at least when applied to the study of exercise.

When reading Rob's post I realized my mistake!

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

You would know better than me!

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

As Andrew noted, same number of calories per mile. Here is how I explain it to people. The total calories is the calories expended to exercise PLUS the basal metabolic rate calories. When you run, you might burn twice the number of calories PER MINUTE, but you finish the mile faster, so you have expended fewer basal metabolic calories in that time period. Walking burns fewer calories per minute, but it takes longer to walk that mile, so more basal calories are burned. The net result is about the same number of calories PER MILE. Calories per minute, however, are vastly different.

Hope this helps.
Sharon

---

Festina Lente

Thanks Sharon, I get how the math works on the timing of each. My main point was that it just seemed logically to me that if you burn at the higher paces, that the overall expenditures should be more, how much was my question here. And it seems if running and walking burns are not comparable, at least not the same. Something about running that trumps the efficiency of walking slowly, and thus a higher mile calorie burn.

Lots of great info here, I think I have my head wrapped around it a lot better now. Seems like most of the gadgets would be pretty close for most people too, at least for running. Especially if they factor in age, weight, height (maybe sex?). I'm sure each variable has a small % associated with its inclusion..

Yes, I probably should have used two different running speeds vs. running/walking in my example. And while you can factor in age, weight, etc., I think running economy plays a large role in individual variations of caloric expenditure. Think of Bernard Legat running vs. The Minister of Silly Walks trying to run!

Sharon

---

Festina Lente

Re: Coyle's method.

When I was with a coaching company here Austin, circa 2007-8, one of the head coaches had worked at the UT lab. We did LT tests using the method outlined of an inflection point of 1.5+ to determine LT if memory serves correctly. I don't know if it was based on Coyle's method or not. Just a data point, so I don't know if he had changed the method, and that was already 10 years ago!!

---

Brandon Marsh - Website | @BrandonMarshTX | RokaSports | 1stEndurance | ATC Bikeshop |

Unfortunately Dr. Coggan has co-authored papers with Dr. Coyle...

I went back and re-looked at some research that they co-authored and they used the traditional threshold definition of an increase of 1mmol over baseline. There is a significant amount of semantics regarding various interpretations of the lactate curve, however, it does appear that I incorrectly linked a change 1 followed by >1.5 to Dr. Coyle.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

Re. Penalty for running the engine a lot hotter.

A few factors are at play here.

Oxidation of CHO requires less oxygen than that of FAT. So, there's that.

More importantly, however, is the change in running mechanics across speeds. If your mechanics stay solid, you can have a fairly flat RE across speeds.

Some exhibit additional caloric burn / inefficiency at low running speeds (e.g. increased vertical oscillation). They can improve as speeds increase. Or Vice-versa.

RowToTri-
Re. 5k pace. Remember that this is analogous to determining FTP through a 20 minute test. Those with an increase anaerobic vs. aerobic ability will outperform at shorter distances and will have a comparatively low FTP.

Because of that and the differences in Treadmill vs. Overground running per individual, it is my opinion that laboratory tests ought to always be validated with outdoor performance testing (for both cycling and running).

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

Some good information in this thread.

- Energetic cost of locomotion is the amount of oxygen used to cover a particular distance. You can calculate calories from oxygen used (and really ... CO2 expired should be considered too). This is the total calories used per distance.
- Rate of calories used would be analogous to VO2 (e.g., ml/kg/min) ... and there should be a 'dot' over the 'V' to represent 'rate' ... but I'm too lazy to figure out how to do that here.

Here's some fun math: To calculate energetic cost of locomotion for different speeds, you calculate the slope of the VO2 vs. speed plot.

For example:

Plot VO2 (in L/min) on the y-axis and speed (km/min) on the x-axis. The slope of this will be (L/km) ... or, in words, Liters of Oxygen used per distance ... which can be used to calculate calories.

So ... if VO2 is considered to increase linearly vs. speed, then the energetic cost of locomotion is constant - that is, the total calories used per distance is the same regardless of speed.

Most calorie calculators will consider VO2 vs. speed to be linear - which is why the total calories per distance is the same. That works in general (and mostly during subamax speeds) ... but in reality, the VO2 vs. speed is probably not linear for each individual ... so you can have fun in the lab trying to figure out the best pace to yield the least amount of calories to cover a distance.

Walking is different ... VO2 vs. speed is not linear ... so energetic cost of locomotion is not constant. In essence, there is a walking speed that will be the minimum number of calories used to cover a distance. Go too slow, that costs more ... walk too fast, that costs more too.

I hope this adds to the threads.

John

Walking is different ... VO2 vs. speed is not linear ... so energetic cost of locomotion is not constant. In essence, there is a walking speed that will be the minimum number of calories used to cover a distance. Go too slow, that costs more ... walk too fast, that costs more too. //


Thanks for the contribution to the thread. I remember but forget where, but when I was reading a bunch of stuff when this got into my head, somewhere it was said that at some speed in walking, it became more calorie consuming than running. I guess when you see speed walkers doing 3 hour marathons, it must be that type of walking they are talking about..

Someone did. Jack Daniels running method uses a Vdot O2 score to determine your true Fitness level.

I have read the book and bought a plan and it is great. By far my favorite run training. The book is a GREAT read.

That is correct ... the energetic cost of walking vs. speed is a 'U' shape curve. Which means there is a speed that results in the least amount of calories to cover a specific distance.

If you keep trying to walk faster, energetic cost keeps going up (until you simply cannot walk any faster and have to run). Interestingly, there is a range of speeds where it is less costly to run vs. walk. Likewise, there are speeds (slow speeds) where it is more costly to run vs. walk.

A neat area of research is to understand when we decide to transition from walking to running - and we typically don't transition from walk to run at the speed where it is less costly to run. Funny thing is, the walk-to-run transition speed is different than run-to-walk speed. Typically, these speeds are around 3-4ish mph.

So this is all just describing observations - I think you're question is more about 'why' the energetic cost of locomotion is constant (well ... on average for a group of people) and where 'running economy' come in to play.

Running economy is typically defined as the VO2 (ml/kg/min) for a given speed - and it makes sense that a more economical runner would require less calories per distance. The math behind this is to compare the slopes of the VO2 vs. speed plot between an economical and less-economical runner ... the economical runner would have a lower slope - meaning VO2 would not increase as much as the less-economical runner across speeds.

There's lots that goes into what determines running economy - muscle coordination, magnitude of force applied to the ground as well as the direction of the force, upper extremity and lower extremity movements, equipment, surface, ability to convert chemical energy to mechanical (i.e., energy systems), anatomy, etc. ... even what a runner thinks about can influence running economy.

Best,

John

Thanks - my laziness was about literally putting a 'dot' over the 'V'.

In physics, the 'dot' indicates that the parameter is a rate (e.g., first derivative ... 2nd derivative would be two dots over the parameter).

We would literally say 'Vdot' to emphasize that the parameter is a rate when there is a dot placed over the V ... in this case, the units would therefore be ml/kg/min (or, also common to use L/min).

The 'dot' helps differentiate when we are talking about rate of oxygen used vs. amount of oxygen used per distance.

Best,

John

Thank you very much for the interesting graphs and tables. I will add a couple thoughts.

1) even though you burn 900cal per hour at 8:30 pace, for the purposes of calorie counting you can’t use that number. The reason being is that you’re not going from 0 to 900. If you didn’t run and just laid around on the sofa, you are burning your BMR, which is about 80-100 calories, to keep you alive and warm. So that is why for the other poster, who doesn’t believe your numbers, the numbers look high.

2) For the purposes of racing, knowing when your fat burning goes south may be a valuable information. But in training, it doesn’t matter whether you use fat or glycogen to do your workouts. If you did a high intensity workout, and burned all glycogen, the moment you stop your workout, your body gets busy replacing that glycogen and uses predominantly fat to do that.

Mostly I agree with you. Paces at which fat metabolism goes south can be useful in training - though I believe the topic is somewhat controversial.

There are some studies that say you CAN train your body to metabolize fat more efficiently, raising the percentage of energy you can get from fat at particular paces. This is important for long distance athletes like Ironman triathletes where sustainable pace can be dictated by what you can fuel. So if you can train that system, and get a little faster while keeping the CHO needs the same, you will improve your performance.

Some coaches are having people do this by occasional "fasted" runs. I cannot cite the specific study, but there is at least one that shows if you restrict carb intake for dinner (I am NOT talking about a generally low-carb diet. Just one meal...) then run first thing the next morning at an easy fat-burning pace before eating anything, your body will burn even more fat than usual at that pace, and it may over time improve fat burning even during non-fasted runs.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Meh. Fitness is king. People who win races (eg top 10 Kona) are just more fit. We get nutrition on the course so that none of us have to race fasted. Metabolic efficiency though is very important. But that comes with years of doing the sports we love.

Interesting, I always had a different feeling.

A: When I run 10k in 50 minutes it is just shuffling and not really challenging. After it my legs would feel better than before and the next day I am ready for a workout. So I guess my body just needs the energy to cover the ground.

B: I race to a new 10k pb. Afterwards I am completely spent. My legs are heavy and the effort is felt the next day(s). When the body explores new boundaries I think it has to adapt and get better. So I need the calories, like above, to cover the ground. But I also need some calories to get repair the dammage, adapt and get better.

I mean you often get injured or your performance suffers when you don't eat enough. So there must be more to the equation than only the energy to cover the ground.

That would also go with my feeling after races. The night after a race I am often starving and really hungry. Much more than on a regular training day where I might log much more miles.
Or that it is easier to lose weight when doing more intensity training.

But you are the expert here. I just basing it on my feel/experience and have no clue.

---

10k - 30:48 / half - 1:06:40

I think the fitter you are (in this context meaning probably threshold power or pace), the more you are limited by your ability to fuel. These charts are for me (based on my 2 year old metabolic test) hypothetically racing an ironman. Swim and bike are identical, but in the first I am running an 8:00 mile pace. I'm able to finish just before bonking. In the second I run a 7:30 pace and bonk a few miles from the finish and walk/hobble it in losing like 25 minutes. A big part of being "fitter" in the context of Ironman performance is improving running economy and metabolic efficiency so that you can go faster on the same amount of fuel. Both of those things happen through training more/better. For me, if I could prevent my running economy from getting worse as my pace picks up (shown by my 19% higher caloric needs/mile at 6:18 pace vs. 8:30 pace), then perhaps I could achieve that 7:30 pace!







Note: I was surprised that I seem to be able to consume as many CHO calories as I use on the bike.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Same situation here. Ran a PR 10k yesterday at 43:30. I have been so freaking hungry since then, and although I was sore, I did a hard trainer ride this morning. I am now so sore that I will be taking a day or two off.

The reason I note the hunger is because I run a MINIMUM of 10k every day. I run that distance as a normal with a zone 2-3 heart rate and never need a recovery day or feel hungry. But, I run those daily runs at a 8:15-9:05/mile pace. So although the distance is nothing, the intensity floored me.

IOW, the whole "1-hr window for getting carbs in for fastest recovery" thing is kind of a myth foisted on us by the exercise nutrition industry, which kinda sorta what i've thought for many years. Just eat enough in your next meal(s) to cover what you've burned.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Why do large calf muscles impact economy? I ask because I have big calf's but am otherwise slender and have always been a decent runner. I've attributed the oversized calf muscles to a high-arched stiff foot that basically acts as a fairly long moment arm and requires a powerful drive mechanism.

A few different reasons.

1. Mass located closer to the body requires less force to accelerate. The difference is obvious when you think about heavy vs. light shoes.
2. Muscle tissue is poor at storing and returning energy. The active contraction requires oxygen which lowers economy. It seems as though the most economical runners have long achilles tendons which can store energy as the ankle is flexed and release it more efficiently into toe-off.

Calf size can be influenced by multiple factors, Genetics, Training, Physiology, walking kinematics etc.

Interestingly, decreased flexibility is associated with increased economy.
Additionally, strength training and plyometrics can both increase the musculotendinous stiffness, which improves the passive storage and release of energy leading to improved economy.

Lucia 2006

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

I agree. By 24 hours, glycogen stores are the same whether you have a recovery drink or not. My feeling says that if you check by 6-8 hours, it will be the same.
The way I’ve gotten around to that is that my lunch is usually after my workouts. So it’s my meal and my recovery whatever.

I base my theory on this "window" being bogus on the fact that, back when i was a "pure swimmer" going 5000-6000 yd/day, 7 workouts/wk, i almost never ate or drank anything within an hour of finishing my workout. And when i did ingest some calories maybe 2 hr later it was just a 12-oz Coke of 150 cal, then finally had my main supper about 10 pm, or about 4 hr after finishing workout at around 6 pm. And in those days, i've was killing it in the pool, swimming fast almost every day, so i feel confident my glycogen stores were pretty good. That last 3 yrs as "just" a swimmer were prob the best years i've ever had as an athlete, just based on how good i felt in the water and my times relative to the competition.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

This is incorrect. It is impossible to synthesize carbohydrate out of fat. Your muscle glycogen stores will therefore remain low until you consume sufficient carbohydrate to replete them.

No, it is what the data actually show: early refeeding with carbohydrate results in more rapid resynthesis of glycogen. This may be important for individuals who train or compete multiple times per day (depending, of course, on the extent to which said performance relies on glycogen).

Since low muscle glycogen is itself a stimulus for glycogen synthesis, even if feeding is delayed glycogen levels may (or may not) "catch up" by 24 h. In the interim, however, muscle protein may be catabolized at a higher rate, delaying recovery in other ways.

OTOH, low muscle glycogen also appears to contribute to signaling processes that lead to adaptations that contribute to improved performance.

Regardless of the latter, how quickly you consume carbohydrates post-exercise does have measurable effects, and is not "
kind of a myth foisted on us by the exercise nutrition industry.”

More than "some"... metabolically speaking, this is the single most important adaptation to endurance exercise training.

It is important to note, however, that 1) you don't have to do anything special to induce it (other than just train), and 2) carbohydrate is still king during high intensity exercise, such that the ability to go faster after training will mean that you still need adequate carbohydrate intake.

(Cue all the "keto adapted" anecdotes and myths.)

Actually, you’re wrong.
Fats become ketoacids, which go through gluconeogenesis to become glucose, which become glycogen. Your body has the stores to recover you if you rest.

I suggest that you retake your biochemisty course(s). There can be no significant net carbohydrate synthesis from triglycerides (note: glycerol is a carbohydrate). Following depletion of muscle glycogen stores during moderate intensity exercise*, muscle glycogen will remain low until you eat sufficient carbohydrate.

*Obviously if you haven't oxidized the pyruvate that is formed but instead have converted it to lactate, some muscle glycogen resynthesis may occur (especially if you are a rat and not a human).

By some I was trying to refer to studies that indicate you can alter energy systems used to some extent by controlling the amount of fuel available - even to the extent of just altering a single meal before a workout. What do you think about that?

I am definitely not buying into any keto diets for athletes!!

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Substrate metabolism during exercise depends on numerous factors, but availability of substrates and the hormonal milleu clearly have a significant impact.

IOW, yes, what you have eaten recently (and also not-so-recently) has a large effect on what you oxidize.

You can’t (or can) argue with everybody on Slowtwitch. You’re at the disadvantage that we all know who you are but you want to pick arguments with people even though you don’t know who the other person.
I don’t need to brush up on anything. I will write the book however, if I had the ambition.

I'm not buying the predominantly from fat part and would love to see links to information that backs this up. My direct experience is that hitting the carbs hard in the afternoon/evening after a sustained hard workout is essential to being able to ride hard the next day.

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

My bad. Let me say that if you didn’t eat anything afterwards, that’s what would happen and any deficit you have.
Definitely, glucose absorbed through the GI system is primary.

Good luck with that. Phinney, Cordain, and others have been pushing similar ideas for decades, but have still failed to change scientific understanding, simply because of the way the data shakes out.

If you run faster and "burn less fat and more glycogen", how do you think your body replenishes the glycogen?

If you drink a sugary drink and eat a bunch of calories, it is from your blood stream but if you don't, your body oxidizes fat and replenishes your glycogen stores. You will lose fat if you run fast or slow (as long as you don't pig out as a reward for your workout).

I don't have enough time in my life to parse out whether I am burning fat or glycogen. I train at multiple different paces and let my body work out the balance.

---

----------------------------
Jason
None of the secrets of success will work unless you do.

Glycogen, broken down fat (ketones) both have their final state for usage called "ATP" . There is no excess, just enough for the energy demands. Thus the ATP derived from fat, will not convert back to glycogen to replenish stores in muscle. It would be great if more keto studies focused off pure carnivore based animals, instead of omnivores

1. How do you know you burn those calories per mile?
2. It is highly unlikely that fat is metabolized for glycogen replenishment. As Andy said above, gluconeogenesis can occur with lactate and amino acids. Current research supporting the claim that Fatty Acids can be converted to glucose is not strong and typically centers around feasibility of such a process existing.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

I believe you since i know you have great knowledge in this area. But let me ask a more specific question: if a person is only training once per day, from say 4 to 6 pm, then has a good dinner around 9 pm, and eats sufficiently during next day up until 4 pm, do you think that would sufficient to restore glycogen to the extent practicable??? Obviously, the answer to my Q depends on how hard the person is going but IME, I recover as well with the the above eating schedule as i did when i drank a liquid meal of 400 cal right after my workouts. IOW, I found no gains from using the liquid meals which are a little expensive relative to just regular food. Now granted i don't have any lab data to support my assertion but this has been my experience.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

If it works for you do it. When I am intermittent fasting and workout three hours before I can eat, I just wait 3 hours. If I am not IF and training hard, I will just have a piece of toast with/ a teaspoon of peanut butter or a cup of chocolate milk even if I am not hungry.

Why not have a piece of whole grain toast with/ half serving of peanut butter after your workouts and see what it does/how it affects you.