Important Update: Calorie Count will be shutting down on March 15th. Please click here to read the announcement. Data export is available.
Whats difference between running on slow pace for a long time, or fast pace for shorter time?
Do you burn same amount calories both ways?
What are the differences?
Which one is better?
Generally, you burn about 100kcal per mile of distance crossed - this is a gross oversimplification but it lets us play around with the numbers some.
First thing you'll notice is that running faster burns more calories per minute - and the second thing is that if you run long enough at a slower pace the total calorie burn is higher for the slower run. Or even a walk, if you walk enough miles.
This doesn't account for the "afterburn" effect or EPOC, which is how long it takes your body to recover from what you just did, meaning that you burn more calories after you exercise. The EPOC effect depends on how anaerobic your workout was, 'cos if you couldn't get enough oxygen during, your body makes up for it afterwards.
Epoc is usually not impressive in the short run - 30-40 calories for most running workouts, total, maybe 50-60 for HIIT, and 60-80 for a proper strength training workout. It's all fat burn though, and anything that increases fat burn helps you reach your goal faster. So the short, intense runs are much, much better for fat loss than the endurance runs.
But it totally depends on your goal - if you want to run a marathon, you can't train at sprint speeds. If you want to win a sprint event, you can't train at a marathon pace. And if you want to lose fat, there's far better ways to do it than any form of running.
Funny you should ask...I worked on figuring this sort of thing out last night.
I recently started walk/jogging an exact 5k (3.1 miles).
Well, Wednesday I did the 5k in 46 minutes, 8 of it jogging (used 5.2mph), 38 of it walking (used 3.5 mph) and burned 285 calories
Thursday, I did the same distance in 42 minutes, 15 of it jogging and 27 walking (same speeds) and burned 307 calories. NOT THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE for basically doubling my jogging time. Only 22 calories! Ticked me off!
So, I was playing around with the numbers, and IF I ever make it to jogging the entire 5k, at that same speed it should take me appx 36 minutes, and I would burn 417 calories.
So, I guess long story short to answer your question, at least at a walk/jog combo, it DOES make a difference, just not a huge one if you go the exact same distance at different speeds.
running/jogging longer is better. the longer you keep your heart rate up , the more calories burned. just work on runing a 5k. try to get up to where you are jogging the whole time. thats what i run. the best time i got was 25 min.
When you run at a slower pace and keep your heart rate in an aerobic zone, your body will use fat as primary fuel, if your heart rate leaves this zone you will burn more glucose and generate lactic acid. so its not only how many calories you burn but what your body is using to fuel itself that counts.
Yes, that's a common misunderstanding people are prone to making, and it's an understandable error.
However, it's also wrong, substrate utilization during exercise has the opposite effect of what you think it does. Your body will burn roughly the same percentage of fat, carbs and protein for fuel over a 24-hour period regardless. Burn more fat during exercise and it will lower your fat utilization outside of it in favor of carbs. Do enough of that and you teach your body to conserve fat and burn carbs outside of exercise.
If you want to increase your total fat burn, do the exercise that lets you burn the most calories at the highest intensity possible - it's why interval training is 9 times more effective (per calorie expended) at burning fat than steady-state cardio is.
So 100cal expended with HITT=900calories expended with jogging in terms of fat burned; because doing HIIT teaches your body to conserve carbs and burn fat - when you're not working out.
Stop trying to trick your body, it's smarter than you.
So yes, substrate utilization does matter, but not the way you think. The harder and more intense your workout, the better for you.
Well, if you've got the time to go out and do 3-4 hours of cardio a day, you can have the same results as you would have with HIIT and strength training, but isn't that like a part-time job?
Ok first of all we are talking about the calories you burn during excersise, and what I stated about the type of substrate used during the diferent itensities is true and well researched, second Im not triyng to trick my body in to doing anything, I train at diferent intensities during the week I'm a triathlete and need high intensity workouts as well as long and lower intensity ones.
Also to be able to do very high intenity workouts you need to condition your body to do that and not everyone is at that level of fitness.
Finally on my weekends I wake up at 5am and do those long bike rides 4-5hrs, and long runs 2-3hrs and get to Keep my regular job as a Veterinarian.
Here is a related link
Melkor's research is very, very up-to-date, mostly because it's a topic that he's passionate about.
HIIT is possible for everybody at every fitness level because it works within the ranges of an individual's capabilities. What might be HIIT for you isn't necessarily HIIT for the next guy. The article you cited is dated in it's thinking only by a year or two.
Endurance triathlons require a certain amount of speed too, which is why you have training days that work the fast-twitch more than the slow. Any time you go to the track to do intervals, or do intervals on the bike, you're doing HIIT.
Anyway, take a look at Chrissie Wellington and tell me again that she hasn't burned fat through training. While we're looking at her, we can also look at any other marathon / distance triathlete and see the same lean body type. Melkor has a point: HIIT gets you there quicker if you're in a gym, but endurance sports will eventually get you there, too, it all depends on what your goals are.
BTW: It's off-season and you might just want to consider some of Melkor's ideas: You won't need to train as much aerobically if you weight train intelligently for fat loss.
And Melkor: I feel like such a suck defending you this way...Stop being right all the time, already. *sheesh* ;)
Hi skinny kitty
I don't think there is any defending to do because I'm not saying he is wrong, I'm just stating the type of fuel used DURING a workout, and also as I mentioned before I also train high intensity workouts for speed and strength. I do strength training and weight lifiting 3 times a week.
It might be off season for you up north (I live in Mexico) but this weekend we had an olympic distance event and we are training for the miami marathon January 25 2009.
We're not disagreeing as such I think, it's both true that different exercise intensities have different percentages of substrate utilization, and that those differences are irrelevant to fat loss since it's only overall alorie balance that really matters ;)