It's all in the work. As in Physics.
Ok -here's the deal.
Originally Posted by Cullion
When you walk, jog, run, etc. one mile, you move your carcass (or it's mass) a mile. That means you've done a set amount of work. On a flat surface, it's actually complicated to calculate, so let's use a flight of stairs and some pretend numbers to make it easy.
If you weigh 200 pounds, and you climb a flight of stairs that puts you 50 feet above where you started, you've done essentially 10,000 foot pounds of work. The work doesn't care how fast or slow you got there. If you look up the conversions, you can do the math to calculate calories. If you run up the stairs, you will burn the calories faster, but they are the same calories when you reach the top of the stairs. Any difference during the exercise will be accounted for by how efficiently you run / walk /skip, etc.
Burning Fat: If you want to burn fat, sleep. Burning fat requires much more oxygen than carbohydrates. So if you are working real hard, you can't bring in enough Oxygen to break down the fat. However, and this is a big however, once you have finished exercising, your metabolism will be still cooking if you worked hard, so as you recover, you will burn calories, including from fat because you will have plenty of oxygen at that point.
We're still going on this? Look: If you really want to compare the calories burned by walking vs. running, you have to examine the biomechanics involved. Walking, in general is a more efficient means of locomotion, and consequently requires less energy (that's calories to you). From increased deceleration and acceleration to elevated internal action, there's a lot more going on at a trot. That being said, it's argued that running does indeed become more efficient at speeds of over 6 km/h, on downhill slopes, etc. Come to think of it, rolling downhill beats the **** out of walking on the efficiency scale, so don't tell me that the energy used is the same just because the distance is.
Why is running at slower speeds considered to be less efficient? For starters, vertical force is absorbed through bent knees (requiring increased muscular contraction for stability, by the way). Beyond that, it's necessary to accelerate more rapidly with each step than it is when walking. Now, I never formally studied physics, so somebody jump in here if I'm wrong, but I believe that doing so is essentially the equivalent of adding more weight to a given body. So going back to Matt's example, you're not moving 200 pounds per step at a run, you're moving significantly more.
According to this table
Originally Posted by Repulsive Monkey
Walking for an hour (at 4 miles an hour pace, for a 190lb man) burns 345 calories. Or 86.25 calories per mile.
Running at 10mph, for one hour burns 1380 calories for a 190lb man. Or 138 calories per mile. So the difference between running for an hour and walking for an hour is much greater than the difference between running for a mile and walking for a mile, although pace does make a difference as noted.
!!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!
!! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!
Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey
I <3 Sirc.
Originally Posted by Samurai Steve
SQUATS AND MILK!
Actually -- I'd just recoomend Squats, Deadlifts, and Sprints. Works well for me. Deadlifts and Squats (and Squat variants like Front Squats, Overhead Squats, etc.) will build strong 'core' strength, strengthen the legs. Deadlifting inserted into a running routines can strengthen the legs without adding bodyweight, which in turn increases run speed as well.
Anyway, the combination of core-intensive work and sprints/rowing has worked well for me. And if you haven't, definitely check out 'Starting Strength' by Mark Rippetoe. You'll learn tons about proper deadlift technique, squats, benching, and other lifts. It's an excellent read (not boring) and highly informative.
Squats and milk!
Runners World has some good articles in this subject.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO