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.)