Today I headed out deliberatively to do a short run just 2 or 3km. With that in mind I thought I would put on a bit of pace .. ha ha .. me pace!!
Well I managed it and was initially very pleased with the result. The pace was great, the heart rate did not go off the chart.
So why the disappointing run you say!!
Well I am still trying to shed a few pounds excess baggage and looking at my estimated calories used up by a run I usually get around 100 per 1k. But with this heavy duty run (albeit short distance and time) it was only 75 per 1k!
Being a mathematician (sort of) I threw my data into a spreadsheet and crunched the numbers .. it seems that the distance is irrelevant and it is the the time that is significant.
So no quick wins running faster to cover longer distances and getting a better calorie burn it is how much time I am exercising for that will win the day!
So .. next time I run .. do I go for a PB .. or slow it down and earn the rewards of extra calories burnt up!! 😉 Another conundrum to add to the options of where will I run, what sort of run do I want!
Written by
Richard7
Graduate10
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Yeah .. I reckoned something similar. Was planning on using my running pocket/belt but just wondering if it will wrap around ok. Hmm will try it out with something else as don't get the jacket until Sunday.
We get ours a week before so I will be making modifications I think. I’ve also ordered red leggings so I can leave the trousers off . UpTheStanley will be wearing then though - might slow him down. 😂
Thanks for the tip. I picked up my duds today, found out that I could. Running belt works a treat over the top, the one you get with it is no good at all. Trousers might have fitted me a year ago but are now baggier than a Madness tribute band! Tucking them into my usual running leggings just about sorts them out! 🎅
Yes we picked ours up today too. I’ve got a dress and cape so will wear leggings too. Stanley’s trousers are big too so I’m going to replace the lace with elastic and take about 4” off the bottom . He’s not wearing the beard either! Apparently the local bin men complained about all the discarded plastic belts last year so they have recommended wearing a proper belt . I’ll just wear the normal flip belt . I’m so excited .
Oh Richard, what a dilemma to have! I don’t particularly need/want to lose weight, but did notice I started to lose weight when I increased my distances (and slowed down so I could achieve the distances!) Had to start eating more carbs in fact so as to have the energy to run for so long and not carry on losing weight! x
Yeah that's also a dilemma, I think I run better after a bit of good nosh but if trying to lose weight...!! I am sure like all things it is just a matter of balance .. no pun intended.
Something isn't right with your calculations. You seem to be saying that 1k slowly burns 100kcals and 1k faster burns 75kcals. That is just wrong i'm afraid. You can't evade the laws of thermodynamics that easily
Running the same distance at a faster rate will burn more energy, the same as driving 1mile at 100mph will burn far more fuel than 1 mile at 50mph.
Note if you had said "you canny change the laws of physics" .. but I Inow what you are saying and I am sure it is not as simple as I have stated above 😃
Purely looking at the figures above would suggest that the calorie burn is closer related to time than distance.
I suspect it is down to efficiencies. If I look at my cadence it was higher today, if I look at my stride length that was also higher. I think I was picking my feet up better which resulted in better stride length and faster pace and less effort.
I would be highly suspicious of your watch an dits calculations. Though maybe you have discovered a way to bend the laws of physics, maybe as your speed increases you will reach total thermal efficiency and at mo farah speeds not consume any calories at all 😅
Ha ha .. now firstly, I will never get to those speeds! Secondly ... but I want to burn the calories!!!
Thirdly, I know the watch is not 100% accurate 😃 - makes me feel good that I am burning calories though even if it is an estimate.
If I am burning the same number of calories over 12 minutes running faster than 15 for the same distance that's great I can go faster and keep losing weight 👍👍 in less time 😉 .. therefore no disappointing run!!
Seriously though I do think a lot has to do with efficiencies. Looking at the stats I calculated the approximate calorie burn per 5 minutes was roughly the same across multiple runs including this one. I regularly see people on Strava who burn significantly less calories than I usually do for the same distance.
The calculations I performed are pretty straightforward, variables used : distance, time, calories. Around 30 sample runs were thrown into a spreadsheet and simple calories/distance and calories/time were extracted.
For the record, I am loving this discussion .. 😃 .. as I mentioned above to pinkaardvark I suspect that there are more factors involved and believe that efficiencies are probably coming into play.
The maths is simple enough as laid out above .. and most likely that is the problem .. the calculations do not reflect efficiencies. Running faster is not just a matter of more effort or power, it is also down to form and efficiency and no doubt the weather, how I am feeling, when I took the asthma inhaler and so on.
The correlation is as I stated, what I didn't include and cannot explain fully is why!!
What you say only makes sense if you can honestly say that running more efficiently felt easier. As surely if the mechanics were more efficient and I guess the only metric your watch can use over time and distance is heartrate and that must have been less when you were going faster then you have hit on the the speed that you should go at all the times. Given it is easier and more efficient you should be able to run further at this speed than at the slower speed I do understand what you mean though, I often find it harder to go slower as different muscles get used, but don't usually experience an increase in heartrate when i go slower.
Not so I think .. just for fun a few calculations ...
If I look at my last two runs just the first 2k of each showing the reported calorie and heart rate for each km in both runs, the pace and elapsed time
#1 2k calories 72+82, HR 145+157 pace 5:50,6:02 elapsed 11:52
#2 8k calories 83+98, HR 136+153 pace 7,7:20 elapsed 14:20
So assuming as must be the case that Garmin derives its vanities calculating by done magical science around heart rate effort must be proportional to ..
#1 154 calories for 1792 beats, beats/km 896 and beats/calorie 11.63
#2 181 calories for 2073 beats, beats/km 1036 and beats/calorie 11.45
So indeed the faster run have higher heart rate and do burn more calories per beat but this is offset because of the shorter run duration. Of course the accuracies of a tiny device on the wrist has to be brought into question and this is only a very small sample size etc etc .. but it gets you thinking!
Richard you are absolutely correct, sitting doing nothing burns approx. 100 calories per hour - time is a large proportion of what you are doing hence c25k is time based training, i have observed exactly the same with cycling i.e. time spent is the biggest factor. The other posts are also nearly correct in that the hourly burn rate is increased for faster running but not at a sufficient rate to offset the longer duration run.
I absolutely love this! I look at the figures and do comparisons...not quite to this extent I'll admit, but I have noticed the calorie burn figures for longer runs vs quicker over same distance don't match. I assumed heart rate / effort level was a factor, as well as stride length etc. Sometimes I'll do a run over same distance and pace, but if the heart rate is different due to varying fitness levels, so is the calorie burn. I'm obviously not well versed in number crunching, just very curious.
Happily for me, I like the longer, slow runs, so I'm loving what I'm reading here. 🙂👍
Funny when I wrote the post I assumed everybody else knew this except me. Finding differences of opinion on the subject has been interesting. Whilst the data initially compared is a simple time v distance clearly there must be other factors .. like you say heart rate, stride length etc. For me I want to burn the calories - I like Oldfloss mash up idea will see how that goes over time, I will probably find I will not achieve similar times as my last run ever again!!
Reading up on it, you can burn up to 10 calories extra per minute per mile by increasing speed. In the scheme of things the longer you run for the more calories you burn and I am a huge advocate of running towards ( or at) the pace that you want to achieve, but more importantly to keep on doing it otherwise you wont be burning any calories at all
Yeah, it's unusual for me to do such a short run! I think that's why it jumped out at me. This week is a bit of a deviation from my current plan - next week back to usual longer slow plodding 😉
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
I did it! 1st 10k run
Does it matter "how" we run???
Pre-work 3k PB, and fast! 🏃
Walk/Run faster than running.
Last nights sky and todays run 
