Total Energy Expenditure? Speed -vs- Mileage?

Total Energy Expenditure? Speed -vs- Mileage?

I know there are many different types of aerobic exercises that help
you lose fat / weight. Walking, jogging, swimming, boxing-bag workout,
cycling, rowing, etc.
I have read some heart-rate information, and their theory is lower
intensity, longer duration workouts are best suited for losing
weight / fat. (You tend to clock up bigger overall mileages if you go
slower). This is not to say you shouldn't include any harder sessions,
but should concentrate more on going "slower, longer, and further", in
very general terms. I know there are a number of issues involved in
weight / fat loss, but I am trying to get a general overview.
In terms of Total Energy Expenditure, which would consume more Energy
in a given week of training?
- Walking very very briskly, covering approx 25km in a week?
- Jogging very slowly, covering approx 20km in a week?

I am not saying people should stick strictly to one or the other -
rather I am trying to get an idea what is more important - speed or
mileage? I am just picking these 20 and 25km mileages as random
figures. I am also guessing these principles apply to swimming,
cycling, rowing, etc.
One thing I can say for sure, I can cover a much greater distance if I
go at a slower speed, but this does not IMPROVE my speed.
I hope someone can help. Thanks.

On 2007-02-08, wrote:
In terms of Total Energy Expenditure, which would consume more Energy
in a given week of training?
- Walking very very briskly, covering approx 25km in a week?
- Jogging very slowly, covering approx 20km in a week?

I am not saying people should stick strictly to one or the other -
rather I am trying to get an idea what is more important - speed or
mileage?

In general, go for mileage. But let me add that you are greatly complicating
things by choosing two *different* exercises. If it were between jogging very
slowly 25km a week and running a bit faster 20km a week, I'd recommend the slower
workouts.

I am just picking these 20 and 25km mileages as random
figures. I am also guessing these principles apply to swimming,
cycling, rowing, etc.

I'm pretty sure 25km swimming burns more than 25km running.

As a general principle it's fine, but you can't compare different exercises
like that.

One thing I can say for sure, I can cover a much greater distance if I
go at a slower speed, but this does not IMPROVE my speed.

It won't improve your 100m times, but it will improve your distance times (mile
and up). I got down to mid 34s for 10k (about 5:30 a mile), doing most of my
training at about 8 minutes a mile. The key ? I covered a lot of distance. I
was running 80 mile weeks. All of the top distance runners run a lot of "slow"
miles -- they all race quite a bit faster than 5 minutes per mile, and usually
train slower than 6.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

wrote in message
ups.com...
Total Energy Expenditure? Speed -vs- Mileage?

I know there are many different types of aerobic exercises that help
you lose fat / weight. Walking, jogging, swimming, boxing-bag workout,
cycling, rowing, etc.
I have read some heart-rate information, and their theory is lower
intensity, longer duration workouts are best suited for losing
weight / fat. (You tend to clock up bigger overall mileages if you go
slower). This is not to say you shouldn't include any harder sessions,
but should concentrate more on going "slower, longer, and further", in
very general terms. I know there are a number of issues involved in
weight / fat loss, but I am trying to get a general overview.
In terms of Total Energy Expenditure, which would consume more Energy
in a given week of training?
- Walking very very briskly, covering approx 25km in a week?
- Jogging very slowly, covering approx 20km in a week?

I am not saying people should stick strictly to one or the other -
rather I am trying to get an idea what is more important - speed or
mileage? I am just picking these 20 and 25km mileages as random
figures. I am also guessing these principles apply to swimming,
cycling, rowing, etc.
One thing I can say for sure, I can cover a much greater distance if I
go at a slower speed, but this does not IMPROVE my speed.
I hope someone can help. Thanks.

According to my calculations, a 6' tall (183 cm), 180 lb (81.6 kg) male:

Running 20 km, on fairly flat ground, at a modest pace of 6:30/km (9.2 kph),
would burn 1601 total kcalories (80 kcal/km).

Walking 25 km, on fairly flat ground, at a fairly brisk pace of 10:00/km
(6.0 kph), would burn 1469 total kcal (59 kcal/km).

Not a very large difference in total energy expenditure, but the walking
approach would take quite a bit more time - 4:10:00 vs. 2:10:00 for running.

I don't subscribe to the "long and slow" approach for burning calories,
since most of us are limited in terms of the amount of time we can commit to
exercise. That said, early in an exercise program, it's best to not go too
hard to avoid injury (especially if you're running).

But once a certain level of fitness has been achieved, my rule of thumb is
to go as hard as I can, for as long as I have available. Or, to put it
another way, "If you can't go long, go hard".

Gary German
http://www.strideware.com - StrideWare - Software for Runners and Walkers

On 7 Feb 2007 18:56:16 -0800, wrote:

I am not saying people should stick strictly to one or the other -
rather I am trying to get an idea what is more important - speed or
mileage?

Consistency. What do you think you can expect, realistically, to do for
life. Let me help.

Treadmill walking.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 2007-02-08, GaryG wrote:

I don't subscribe to the "long and slow" approach for burning calories,
since most of us are limited in terms of the amount of time we can commit to
exercise. That said, early in an exercise program, it's best to not go too
hard to avoid injury (especially if you're running).

But once a certain level of fitness has been achieved, my rule of thumb is
to go as hard as I can, for as long as I have available. Or, to put it
another way, "If you can't go long, go hard".

That works well for a lot of exercises, but not so well for running. Most beginners
will be going pretty hard in relative terms (% max heart rate) even when running
slowly. Most more advanced runners don't need to lose much weight, and injury risk
is still substantial if one goes all out all the time.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

On Feb 7, 10:49 pm, "GaryG" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





Total Energy Expenditure? Speed -vs- Mileage?

I know there are many different types of aerobic exercises that help
you lose fat / weight. Walking, jogging, swimming, boxing-bag workout,
cycling, rowing, etc.
I have read some heart-rate information, and their theory is lower
intensity, longer duration workouts are best suited for losing
weight / fat. (You tend to clock up bigger overall mileages if you go
slower). This is not to say you shouldn't include any harder sessions,
but should concentrate more on going "slower, longer, and further", in
very general terms. I know there are a number of issues involved in
weight / fat loss, but I am trying to get a general overview.
In terms of Total Energy Expenditure, which would consume more Energy
in a given week of training?
- Walking very very briskly, covering approx 25km in a week?
- Jogging very slowly, covering approx 20km in a week?

I am not saying people should stick strictly to one or the other -
rather I am trying to get an idea what is more important - speed or
mileage? I am just picking these 20 and 25km mileages as random
figures. I am also guessing these principles apply to swimming,
cycling, rowing, etc.
One thing I can say for sure, I can cover a much greater distance if I
go at a slower speed, but this does not IMPROVE my speed.
I hope someone can help. Thanks.

According to my calculations, a 6' tall (183 cm), 180 lb (81.6 kg) male:

Running 20 km, on fairly flat ground, at a modest pace of 6:30/km (9.2 kph),
would burn 1601 total kcalories (80 kcal/km).

Walking 25 km, on fairly flat ground, at a fairly brisk pace of 10:00/km
(6.0 kph), would burn 1469 total kcal (59 kcal/km).

Not a very large difference in total energy expenditure, but the walking
approach would take quite a bit more time - 4:10:00 vs. 2:10:00 for running.

I don't subscribe to the "long and slow" approach for burning calories,
since most of us are limited in terms of the amount of time we can commit to
exercise. That said, early in an exercise program, it's best to not go too
hard to avoid injury (especially if you're running).

But once a certain level of fitness has been achieved, my rule of thumb is
to go as hard as I can, for as long as I have available. Or, to put it
another way, "If you can't go long, go hard".


Doesn't work in running. If you do it that way, you're asking for an
injury. Would-be runners need to start slow and build up a base of
slow running miles first. Then, and only then, should they add in 1
weekly run of speed, usually after at least 3 to 4 months.

Running is really different than most other sports. It has to be done
slowly to get the body used to it. Many reasons why people don't like
it is that it takes a while for the body to adjust.

Patience is also required. If you want to be a good runner, you must
take the time and commit to it.

"SFrunner" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 7, 10:49 pm, "GaryG" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





Total Energy Expenditure? Speed -vs- Mileage?

I know there are many different types of aerobic exercises that help
you lose fat / weight. Walking, jogging, swimming, boxing-bag workout,
cycling, rowing, etc.
I have read some heart-rate information, and their theory is lower
intensity, longer duration workouts are best suited for losing
weight / fat. (You tend to clock up bigger overall mileages if you go
slower). This is not to say you shouldn't include any harder sessions,
but should concentrate more on going "slower, longer, and further", in
very general terms. I know there are a number of issues involved in
weight / fat loss, but I am trying to get a general overview.
In terms of Total Energy Expenditure, which would consume more Energy
in a given week of training?
- Walking very very briskly, covering approx 25km in a week?
- Jogging very slowly, covering approx 20km in a week?

I am not saying people should stick strictly to one or the other -
rather I am trying to get an idea what is more important - speed or
mileage? I am just picking these 20 and 25km mileages as random
figures. I am also guessing these principles apply to swimming,
cycling, rowing, etc.
One thing I can say for sure, I can cover a much greater distance if I
go at a slower speed, but this does not IMPROVE my speed.
I hope someone can help. Thanks.

According to my calculations, a 6' tall (183 cm), 180 lb (81.6 kg) male:

Running 20 km, on fairly flat ground, at a modest pace of 6:30/km (9.2
kph),
would burn 1601 total kcalories (80 kcal/km).

Walking 25 km, on fairly flat ground, at a fairly brisk pace of 10:00/km
(6.0 kph), would burn 1469 total kcal (59 kcal/km).

Not a very large difference in total energy expenditure, but the walking
approach would take quite a bit more time - 4:10:00 vs. 2:10:00 for
running.

I don't subscribe to the "long and slow" approach for burning calories,
since most of us are limited in terms of the amount of time we can
commit to
exercise. That said, early in an exercise program, it's best to not go
too
hard to avoid injury (especially if you're running).

But once a certain level of fitness has been achieved, my rule of thumb
is
to go as hard as I can, for as long as I have available. Or, to put it
another way, "If you can't go long, go hard".


Doesn't work in running. If you do it that way, you're asking for an
injury. Would-be runners need to start slow and build up a base of
slow running miles first. Then, and only then, should they add in 1
weekly run of speed, usually after at least 3 to 4 months.

Running is really different than most other sports. It has to be done
slowly to get the body used to it. Many reasons why people don't like
it is that it takes a while for the body to adjust.

Patience is also required. If you want to be a good runner, you must
take the time and commit to it.

With respect to running, you are both, of course, correct.

I've been a long-time cyclist, and in that sport it's fairly easy to ramp up
intensity and/or distance without much risk of injury. Other low-impact
sports (e.g., walking, swimming) have a similarly low risk.

But, I learned the lesson that running is a "beat you up bad" sport the hard
way. Last year, I decided to take up running, with a goal of competing in
duathlons and triathlons. By trying to do too much, too soon (assuming I was
already pretty fit), I managed to get a stress fracture of my fibula.

I'm just now getting back into running, and plan on taking it very slowly
this time (though I suspect that for many people, running requires too much
in terms of patience and good genetics to be a useful exercise choice,
despite its other benefits).

GG

On Feb 8, 6:31 am, "GaryG" wrote:
"SFrunner" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Feb 7, 10:49 pm, "GaryG" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

Total Energy Expenditure? Speed -vs- Mileage?

I know there are many different types of aerobic exercises that help
you lose fat / weight. Walking, jogging, swimming, boxing-bag workout,
cycling, rowing, etc.
I have read some heart-rate information, and their theory is lower
intensity, longer duration workouts are best suited for losing
weight / fat. (You tend to clock up bigger overall mileages if you go
slower). This is not to say you shouldn't include any harder sessions,
but should concentrate more on going "slower, longer, and further", in
very general terms. I know there are a number of issues involved in
weight / fat loss, but I am trying to get a general overview.
In terms of Total Energy Expenditure, which would consume more Energy
in a given week of training?
- Walking very very briskly, covering approx 25km in a week?
- Jogging very slowly, covering approx 20km in a week?

I am not saying people should stick strictly to one or the other -
rather I am trying to get an idea what is more important - speed or
mileage? I am just picking these 20 and 25km mileages as random
figures. I am also guessing these principles apply to swimming,
cycling, rowing, etc.
One thing I can say for sure, I can cover a much greater distance if I
go at a slower speed, but this does not IMPROVE my speed.
I hope someone can help. Thanks.

According to my calculations, a 6' tall (183 cm), 180 lb (81.6 kg) male:

Running 20 km, on fairly flat ground, at a modest pace of 6:30/km (9.2
kph),
would burn 1601 total kcalories (80 kcal/km).

Walking 25 km, on fairly flat ground, at a fairly brisk pace of 10:00/km
(6.0 kph), would burn 1469 total kcal (59 kcal/km).

Not a very large difference in total energy expenditure, but the walking
approach would take quite a bit more time - 4:10:00 vs. 2:10:00 for
running.

I don't subscribe to the "long and slow" approach for burning calories,
since most of us are limited in terms of the amount of time we can
commit to
exercise. That said, early in an exercise program, it's best to not go
too
hard to avoid injury (especially if you're running).

But once a certain level of fitness has been achieved, my rule of thumb
is
to go as hard as I can, for as long as I have available. Or, to put it
another way, "If you can't go long, go hard".

Doesn't work in running. If you do it that way, you're asking for an
injury. Would-be runners need to start slow and build up a base of
slow running miles first. Then, and only then, should they add in 1
weekly run of speed, usually after at least 3 to 4 months.

Running is really different than most other sports. It has to be done
slowly to get the body used to it. Many reasons why people don't like
it is that it takes a while for the body to adjust.

Patience is also required. If you want to be a good runner, you must
take the time and commit to it.

With respect to running, you are both, of course, correct.

I've been a long-time cyclist, and in that sport it's fairly easy to ramp up
intensity and/or distance without much risk of injury. Other low-impact
sports (e.g., walking, swimming) have a similarly low risk.

But, I learned the lesson that running is a "beat you up bad" sport the hard
way. Last year, I decided to take up running, with a goal of competing in
duathlons and triathlons. By trying to do too much, too soon (assuming I was
already pretty fit), I managed to get a stress fracture of my fibula.

I'm just now getting back into running, and plan on taking it very slowly
this time (though I suspect that for many people, running requires too much
in terms of patience and good genetics to be a useful exercise choice,
despite its other benefits).


It's my form of meditation. Sometimes, mostly during my long or easy
runs, I jsut lose myself in my running and forget I'm even doing it.
The scenery is really nice where I run (I hate hampster wheels) and it
gives me a chance to discover side streets or views I've never seen
before.

Plus, my weight loss is much more steady and faster than it would be
just walking. Swimming is a gret exercise combined with other things,
but because the nature of water and our protective fat layer, it
doesn't help with weight loss. The body wants to retain the fat to
protect the body.

Walking/hiking is nice, but by itself, not enough for me.

SFrunner
184/149/140-130

In message , Mu
writes
Consistency. What do you think you can expect, realistically, to do for
life. Let me help.

Treadmill walking.

You have to be really dedicated to go treadmill walking on a regular
basis.
The boredom is your biggest enemy. You'd be far better off walking at a
decent pace on open ground or even down the street.

--
Bill Grey

Bill Grey wrote:
In message , Mu
writes

Consistency. What do you think you can expect, realistically, to do for
life. Let me help.

Treadmill walking.


You have to be really dedicated to go treadmill walking on a regular basis.
The boredom is your biggest enemy. You'd be far better off walking at a
decent pace on open ground or even down the street.

All I can say to that is, from weather.com at 12:45 (after lunch)

Right Now for
Rochester, MN (55901)

Partly Cloudy
0°F
Feels Like
-20°F
Updated Feb 8 12:25 p.m. CT

UV Index: 2 Low
Wind: From WNW at 15 mph
Humidity: 48%
Pressu 30.50 in.
Dew Point: -13°F
Visibility: 10.0 miles



--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”