So explain how this one fits in your "the heart rate monitor is better for estimating Calories" view. I just finished a nice, easy even paced 8 mile run. My heart rate averaged 115bpm for the first mile and 135bpm for the last mile despite holding exactly the same pace on the same level road. Did I have a different calorie burn for the first and last mile? Does cardiac drift imply I became vastly less efficient?


Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

Paulo may be a bit of a smartass, which I usually enjoy, but he has a ton of useful information he gives out on here. You just have to accept that it might be slightly tinged in sarcasm. I'm surprised he held back and didn't call me an idiot the other day when he pointed out that I had been running my H3D backwards all season. Might have been too easy for him though :-)

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

when you talk about calories.... think more in terms of work done. walking a mile and running a 5 min mile use about the same energy expenditure.... at the end of the day you are lugging your fat ass the same distance. so the energy required is about equal no matter how you do it. there is some efficiency at some point but for the most part its all very similar in terms of energy required.

There are far more variables than distanced traveled. Physiologically , the type of aerobic system used, the required energy for cooling, etc. are going to affect the calories required to produce that work. As well as the physical diferences, wind resistance etc. I think you have gone to far in the simplification. Think of the energy required for a 4000lb focus to travel 1 mile in 2 minutes and a 4000lb Veyron to do the same in 1/4 minute. Different work output, different energy requirements despite weight and distance being the same.

Wow...this was originally a weight loss thread......

To the OP, you cant out exercise your mouth.

Dumbass,

An electric motor is about 100% efficient, a cylinder motor is less and the human body is less that that.... Walk or run is about the same. There is only 1 energy pathway in our body... It's related to ATP

So.....what about RPE?

---

IG: idking90

Do you think the work to travel 1 mile by walking is the same as traveling one mile by running? I take offense to you calling me a dumbass by the way.

I will give it my best shot!
No such thing as over training, just under eating.

Zack C. cant burn 1000kcal per day

---

Call of Duty

It is not exactly the same but it is pretty close.
It is probably more acurate to determine energy expenditure by knowing weight and distance traveled (flat or elevation gain) than knowing HR and time of exercise.

---

Tiago
---------------------
Sponsors: : Blueseventy :

http://www.runnersworld.com/...4-311-8402-0,00.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150


Running vs walking caloric expendature is dependant on many other variables than weight and distance travelled.

Cardiac drift and it's effects on HR are going to throw a monkey wrench into and Cal estimates based on HR as sciguy pointed out. It's not consistent nor is it predictable.

Have you seen any the individual data points in that study? Or in any type of data collection with metabolic cart?

Of course other variables will influence, but those two are the ones that will influence the most.

No. My only exposure to the Met cart was 6 years ago in university physiology classes and I was not interested in walking!

Have you?

In what other direction are you performing "work" during running and walking? Are they equal?

http://w4.ub.uni-konstanz.de/...cle/viewFile/450/390
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/...EA97JApplPhysiol.pdf

Yes I have. I even have published data that looking as a group it would suggest that there are large differences. But when I look at the individuals, the difference is small.

I did not say that they were equal but they are close.

For example, looking at some old data that I have on myself. For me to complete 1 mile at 2, 4, and 6 mph I would spend 121, 116, and 137 kcals.

For sake of argument I will assume that your BMR = 2400Kcal = 100Kcal per hour.

You walked 4mph covering one mile so based on your BMR you would have burned 25Kcal in the 15min it took you to walk the mile (had you just stood there). Leaving you with a caloric expenditure of 91Kcal above Base to travel 1 mile at 4mph walking. (116 - 25 = 91)

To travel 1 mile running at 6mph your BMR was 16Kcal (10 minutes) so your expenditure was 121 Kcal above base. (137 - 16 = 121)

So you burned 121Kcal running above BMR, and 91Kcal walking above BMR, which is only 75% of the calories burned running. This is not an insignificant difference.

(91/121)*100= 75%

It's worse.


So, basically you're pegging your claim to accuracy on an equation that you don't fully understand, that uses vague metrics as a base. Max HR? How are they measuring it? Any equation is basically a guess that has little or no relation to the individual. Basically it's a WAG. (Oh, and if your weight is a measure of work against gravity, does your caloric expenditure go down if you are running downhill?)

As others have said, take an individual runner. Conditions stay absolutely the same, as far as wind, weather, etc., 6 mile run on an absolutely flat course. Pace remains constant at 6:00/mile, the runner starts at 140 bpm for the first mile, and goes up by 5 bpm/mile, so the runner is at 165 bpm for mile 6. Are they really burning more calories at the end? You keep asking Paulo for proof, what's your proof for your statement other than "It feels logical"?

Go with Paulo and Nate, do some more research. You're off base here.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

Let's see how many more funny comments we can read after this:

http://sm4xih.dyndns.org/pred.of.energy.hrm.pdf

I think it does. Do you think it doesn't?

At the end of a run does your technique not get worse, even by the slightest amount? Does your body not operate in a less efficient metabolic regime when lactic/pyruvic acid is thrown into the mix? Does it not seem likely that you'd have to expend more energy to overcome deficiencies like this? Again, the amount of work your body does to physically move itself/do mechanical work is not unrelated to thermo issues like heating of your internals and heat transfer...

---

__________________________

I tweet!

That study supports my side of things!

"Based on these results, we conclude that it is possible to estimate
physical activity energy expenditure from heart rate in a group of individuals with
a great deal of accuracy, after adjusting for age, gender, body mass and fitness."

I've already provided a great deal of evidence in favor of this, but I've moved on to trying to figure out whether HR is better than power for predicting energy expenditure. This I'm not so sure about.

---

__________________________

I tweet!

45 pages? I've got to go to bed in a few hours.

Well this discussion will probably be going on 'till wednesday anyway :(

I knew you were going to entertain us some more... ;-)

If I'm missing something, will you please spell it out, possibly in a PM or on here (I really don't care).

The correlation/r^2 wasn't all that great without the VO2 max data, but it's not hard to imagine that on an individual basis it may have been much better.

---

__________________________

I tweet!