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