Pages: 1 |
| Weight loss and running... (Read 667 times) |
| view log |
posted: 6/24/2008 at 8:24 PM |
| If you run for weight loss... does it matter how many days per week that you run? Or is total distance per week all that matters? If anybody has come across any research that would help answer this I would love to hear from you. |
|
|
| view log Playmaker / nemesis |
posted: 6/24/2008 at 8:28 PM
modified: 6/24/2008 at 8:43 PM |
| Quote from Chris_So_Cal on 6/24/2008 at 8:24 PM: If you run for weight loss... does it matter how many days per week that you run? Or is total distance per week all that matters? If anybody has come across any research that would help answer this I would love to hear from you.
Total distance is what really matters, as opposed to days per week.
Try this running weight loss calculator. |
20th Century: 800m: 2:04 |1600m: 4:37 |3200m: 10:06 |5k: 16:23 |10k: 35:38 |15k: 54:20 |25k: 1:35:59
21st Century: 5k: 19:42 |10k: 43:00
What are you doing? |
|
|
| view log Funky Monkey |
posted: 6/24/2008 at 8:33 PM |
Right. Or put more simply, calorie expenditure during running is a factor of distance and body weight.
The more you weight, the more calories you burn per mile.
The more miles you run, the more calories you burn.
Pace only comes into play when measuring calories burned per period of time in that when you run faster, you cover more miles in the same period of time. Speed does NOT increase the rate at which you burn calories per mile.
If you weigh 100 lbs, you burn approximately 80 calories per mile.
If you weigh 150 lbs, you burn approximately 125 calories per mile.
If you weigh 200 lbs, you burn approximately 150 calories per mile. |
| It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys attack. |
|
|
| view log Playmaker / nemesis |
posted: 6/24/2008 at 8:43 PM |
| Quote from Trent on 6/24/2008 at 8:33 PM: Right. Or put more simply, calorie expenditure during running is a factor of distance and body weight.
The more you weight, the more calories you burn per mile.
The more miles you run, the more calories you burn.
We are on the same wavelength. Even as you were typing you response, I was simplifying mine.
Sure miss Va. |
20th Century: 800m: 2:04 |1600m: 4:37 |3200m: 10:06 |5k: 16:23 |10k: 35:38 |15k: 54:20 |25k: 1:35:59
21st Century: 5k: 19:42 |10k: 43:00
What are you doing? |
|
|
| view log |
posted: 6/24/2008 at 8:43 PM |
I know the biggest factor is amount of work you do however...
Human beings are complicated critters. For some running may help with appetite control. For this type of person doing 2 long runs a week would not as beneficial as 5 or 6 shorter runs during the week. Also if you do a particularly strenuous workout your body needs to rebuild itself afterwords. I am sure that would add to the calorie total. Also research has shown that short very strenuous workouts lead to more weight loss than longer more moderate work outs. |
|
|
| view log Playmaker / nemesis |
posted: 6/24/2008 at 8:45 PM
modified: 6/24/2008 at 8:52 PM |
| Quote from Chris_So_Cal on 6/24/2008 at 8:43 PM: Human beings are complicated critters. For some running may help with appetite control. For this type of person doing 2 long runs a week would not as beneficial as 5 or 6 shorter runs during the week. Also if you do a particularly strenuous workout your body needs to rebuild itself afterwords. I am sure that would add to the calorie total.
This makes sense. Although you'd burn the same amount of calories running 30 miles per week whether you did it in 3 days or 7, there are residual effects outside of the run itself that would argue for shorter, more frequent runs (not to mention the injury thing). That really depends on you. However, there are no real shortcuts. Miles/week will make the most difference, and is agreater factor than how many days those miles are run in.
Quote from Chris_So_Cal on 6/24/2008 at 8:43 PM:Also research has shown that short very strenuous workouts lead to more weight loss than longer more moderate work outs.
Not true for running. You burn the same amount of calories doing 5 miles slowly versus 5 miles quickly. You just get done faster in the latter case. Calories/mile is not a function of speed.
But if you want to look at it in terms of time -- you'll burn more calories running hard for 40 minutes as opposed to easy for 40 minutes. (You'll cover more distance, and hence burn more calories, in the case of 40 minutes fast). Calories/minute is a function of speed. |
20th Century: 800m: 2:04 |1600m: 4:37 |3200m: 10:06 |5k: 16:23 |10k: 35:38 |15k: 54:20 |25k: 1:35:59
21st Century: 5k: 19:42 |10k: 43:00
What are you doing? |
|
|
| view log Bif! Bam! Pow! |
posted: 6/24/2008 at 8:55 PM |
On the one hand there is some schools of thought that say if you run at a higher intensity you will have an elevated metabolism for a period of time after the workout. Longer than you would at a lower intensity.
On the other hand, go too hard and you wont be able to go as long and therefore total burn will be lower.
Also for some higher intensity workouts cause a suppression of appetite vs. long slow running.
On the other hand some people find that their appetite increases with frequent workouts.
How many other points of weight loss would you like me to argue both sides of in a totally unhelpful manner? 
For me I found running frequently more helpful than running long, pace was mostly irrelevant, what I needed was the near daily endorphin boost to stop my largely emotional hunger. But once my mileage got too high, I found that my body was telling me to eat even when I wasnt really hungry and I struggled again. For me (personally in no way shape or form a recommendation for you) the sweet spot is 20-25 mpw spread out over 5-6 days. However I only stick with running if I am training for something and 20 mpw doesnt get me where I want to be.
|
Beware the Pink Boxing Gloves of DOOM!
"It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds" - Captain Hammer
2008 Goals New PR's in 5K 10K HM, M
Faster than a speeding toddler..... |
|
|
| view log Playmaker / nemesis |
posted: 6/24/2008 at 9:48 PM |
Quote from Ennay on 6/24/2008 at 8:55 PM:How many other points of weight loss would you like me to argue both sides of in a totally unhelpful manner?
Actually, I found it rather entertaining. It was sort of like watching a Donald Rumsfeld press conference. |
20th Century: 800m: 2:04 |1600m: 4:37 |3200m: 10:06 |5k: 16:23 |10k: 35:38 |15k: 54:20 |25k: 1:35:59
21st Century: 5k: 19:42 |10k: 43:00
What are you doing? |
|
|
| view log Bif! Bam! Pow! |
posted: 6/24/2008 at 10:12 PM |
| Quote from jEfFgObLuE on 6/24/2008 at 9:48 PM: Actually, I found it rather entertaining. It was sort of like watching a Donald Rumsfeld press conference.
Great. I have a future in politics. But I didnt inhale. Or snort. |
Beware the Pink Boxing Gloves of DOOM!
"It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds" - Captain Hammer
2008 Goals New PR's in 5K 10K HM, M
Faster than a speeding toddler..... |
|
|
| view log Style Over Substance! |
posted: 6/24/2008 at 11:44 PM |
| Quote from Trent on 6/24/2008 at 8:33 PM:
The more you weight, the more calories you burn per mile.
The more miles you run, the hungrier you get, the more calories you will eat
Repeat
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted: 6/25/2008 at 11:46 AM |
| Agree mostly with the above but if one can mix in some faster (even shorter) strides or intervals, one will generally have a greater afterburn effect after a run. Obviously, beginnnig type runners, this isn't ideal and pick ups should then be shorter or less frequent or done primarily on CV equipment which is safer on body for newbies. For me, even though I am running same miles as last two years (but this year no faster work) - I cannot get my body fat as low as previous years with same eating habits. Higher intensity intervals from 15 sec. to 2 min. are effective if weight loss is your #1 goal. For some of my clients in past, I would have them do a pick up every 2-4 minutes on their runs (if weight loss is #1 goal). They chose how far and fast depending on how they felt but never longer than a min. and generally 30-60 sec and a solid (not sprinting pace). Full easy recovery. It breaks up a run and is fun. |
| Those who try, fail! Those who do what it takes to succeed, succeed!! |
|
|
| view log Blaine Moore |
posted: 6/25/2008 at 1:25 PM |
If all you care about is weight loss, then running is a great place to start but isn't necessarily the best solution. If you are starting from nothing, then short, easy runs are a great way to adapt your body to a higher workload and you can get in really good shape relatively quickly. Once you do adapt, though, then it may not be the best use of your time.
High intensity interval training combined with an effective eating strategy is going to net more calories burned throughout the day even though you burn fewer calories during the workout itself. The biggest problem can be jumping into interval work when you aren't prepared for it. You might also want to look at multi-joint bodyweight or light dumbbell exercises, which can ratchet up your bodies response afterburn really well (squats, deadlifts, pushups, pullups, DB swings & tosses, etc.)
Tabata Intervals are a pretty good way to work up a fast sweat. Just make sure you are warmed up before you start. |
Run to Win
I just started using Twitter - anybody else on there? http://twitter.com/BlaineMoore
"Slow down--if you wanted that time, you should have run faster during the rest of the race!"
I wish I'd been there to hear that as the line started forming in front of the finish line. No idea what I'd have done about it, but I wish I'd heard it in person instead of 3rd party. |
|
|
| view log |
posted: 6/25/2008 at 1:48 PM |
Running more days per week helps me more than the total miles per week. Unfortunately, if I run too many miles, I eat too much, and gain weight. When I go for a 30 to 40 minute daily run, it removes 30 to 40 minutes of time when I may eat.
Changing things up help: For example, popular advice is always eat breakfast. However, three or four times a month I skip breakfast. I think it actually curves my appetite (maybe it is just in my mind?) Running intervals help, especially if I have not done them in a while. If I have been doing weekly intervals, running all easy miles for a week helps. When I write, "help," I mean avoiding getting very, very, very hungry. When that happens, I lose weight.
Everyone is different, good luck finding what works for you! |
Race Reports and Training Summary
"You've got to get to the state in life where going for it is more important than winning or losing" -- Arthur Ashe
|
|
|
| view log |
posted: 7/5/2008 at 1:26 PM |
| I think a good running program 15-20 miles per week in 3-5 mile bouts plus some strength training for upper and lower body is a good way to shape up whatever you've got. The cutting calories issue is huge to make more significant changes. That calculator earlier in the post would have me eating less than 1500 calories at a rate of 17 miles per week in order to lose 1 lb a week. If I could stick to 1500 calories a day (which I cannot) I would think the weight loss would be more significant. |
|
|
| view log |
posted: 7/5/2008 at 11:07 PM |
I have really been struggling with weight loss since I started running. I have only lost about 5 pounds in 12 weeks. I'm fitter, lots fitter but I think that if I were walking instead of running I would have lost more weight.
Buuut, I'm after the fitness too and the other things about running that are awesome but I'm learning that if I run I need to carefully monitor my food intake. I need to count Calories and eat my carbs in the form of veggies since that gives me the bulk I need when I am freaking starving the day after a run. |
The Graduates - a community of post C25K runners!
Started Running 21 April 2008
2008 Running Goals
Finish C25K 22 Jun 2008
-
Run 5K 43:29 29 Jun 2008
- Complete a 10K fun run
|
|
|
Pages: 1 |
|
