If new to running .... ?



P

PB

Guest
If running for weight loss first, then for endurance and aerobic fitness
second, is it better to run longer distance for endurance or clock your
1-mile runs for faster and faster times ?

thanks
 
There are 2 main points here IMHO.

1) Fats are used as fuel in slow runs. The longer you run slowly, the
more you fat you burn up. Faster runs increasingly use carbohydrates.
The faster you run the more carbohydrates you use. In fact, in all cases
you use both fats and carbohydrates as fuel. But the faster you run, the
bigger carbohydrate/fat ratio.

2) But, when you make more intensive training your metabolismic rate
increases so that all day you burn more fat compared to slow runs. There
are some studies about this subject, which defies the long standing "fat
loss" range.

All in all, I think you should go for the slow, long runs being a
beginner (you did not write your past experiences, I assume this from
the thread's subject). This way you will both build a base and lose
weight. You should not start faster works before building a base anyway.

This issue may be somewhat controversial. So all I said is only IMHO.

HTH.

Burak
--
please remove Dot NOREPLY Dot to reply
 
Leafing through rec.running, I read PB's message of 14 Dec 2004:

> If running for weight loss first, then for endurance and aerobic fitness
> second, is it better to run longer distance for endurance or clock your
> 1-mile runs for faster and faster times ?

If weight loss is the number one goal, then distance covered will be more
important. Not becauase you'll be in any "fat-burning zone," but because
you will be burning more calories by covering longer distances. As an added
benefit to losing weight, you'll naturally get faster.

Phil M.

--
"What counts in battle is what you do once the pain sets in." -John Short,
South African coach.
 
PB wrote:

> If running for weight loss first, then for endurance and aerobic fitness
> second, is it better to run longer distance for endurance or clock your
> 1-mile runs for faster and faster times ?
>

Distance. Distance. Distance.

Calories burned is proportional to distance.
Weight loss is calories burned....

Endurance and aerobic fitness are developed
by duration. But, duration (at any given speed)
is also proportional to distance.

A one-mile sprint will take less than 10 minutes,
and burn about 100 calories. Burning those calories
in less time does not burn more calories. It only
burns them faster. A several-mile run that takes
30-40 minutes will burn several times more calories.

Having said that.... do NOT try to go out and
run lots of miles right away. Increase your
distance a little bit at a time. If you try
to go too far too soon, you will just injure
yourself and have to start over.


Steve
 
PB wrote in message ...
>If running for weight loss first, then for endurance and aerobic fitness
>second, is it better to run longer distance for endurance or clock your
>1-mile runs for faster and faster times ?
>
>thanks

If you're new to running, exercise consistency will do more than anything to
help you get fit and lose weight. The time I got down to my best running
weight I had very simple exercise routine: I ran or walked the same 4 1/2
mile loop up the local 'mountain' (600 ft vert) every day. When I felt
strong I ran up all the hills, sometimes very hard; when I felt tired I
walked the course slowly.

After about a year of doing this routine almost daily, my weight was down
substantially, I could run the course every day, and I had both power and
speed for running. As a beginning runner, don't be afraid to walk some
days, or bike ride instead, but consistency is your best friend for weight
loss.

-Tony
 
Run for health, the weight loss will come as a bonus. Join a running club in
your area for the social opportunities. You will stick with it longer and
have fun doing something that is good for you.

www.tornadosrunningclub.com
"PB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:qQzvd.7328$%[email protected]...
> If running for weight loss first, then for endurance and aerobic fitness
> second, is it better to run longer distance for endurance or clock your
> 1-mile runs for faster and faster times ?
>
> thanks
 
On 2004-12-14, PB <[email protected]> wrote:
> If running for weight loss first, then for endurance and aerobic fitness
> second, is it better to run longer distance for endurance or clock your
> 1-mile runs for faster and faster times ?

The two goals are not incompatible. Either way, the best way to make progress
is to train consistently and not get injured. Trying to max out on mile runs
is a fast way to injury (and you don't burn many calories in a 1 mile run
anyway, as others have pointed out).

Run slowly. Try to *gradually* build up your distance. More distance means more
calories burned. Take a look at Tony's post -- he achieved success through
going the distance-- even if that meant taking walk breaks.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
PB wrote:
>
> If running for weight loss first, then for endurance and aerobic fitness
> second, is it better to run longer distance for endurance or clock your
> 1-mile runs for faster and faster times ?
>
> thanks

Why worry about splits if you're not racing? And if
you're new to running, go _slow_. Endurance will take
care of itself in time. Trying to improve speed quickly
instead of building yourself up slowly is a sure path to
injury.

My 2 cents.
 
Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> PB wrote:
> >
> > If running for weight loss first, then for endurance and aerobic fitness
> > second, is it better to run longer distance for endurance or clock your
> > 1-mile runs for faster and faster times ?
> >
> > thanks
>
> Why worry about splits if you're not racing? And if
> you're new to running, go _slow_. Endurance will take
> care of itself in time. Trying to improve speed quickly
> instead of building yourself up slowly is a sure path to
> injury.
>
> My 2 cents.


BTW, weight loss is by the miles, not time. So run/walk
will lose just about as much weight per mile. Meaning
if you can't run 5 miles, run what you can and walk the
rest.
 
>Why worry about splits if you're not racing?

Because he's an idiot. unworthy of a response.
 
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:01:35 GMT, Steve Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:


>A one-mile sprint will take less than 10 minutes,
>and burn about 100 calories.

how is this number calculated?

when i use the treadmill and set it for 10 minute mile, 200 pound
weight, incline = 1.5%, it tell me that calories burned > 100 ( ~150
if i recall correctly).

also, is calories burned independant of heart rate?
do you burn more calories if heart rate is higher?
 
>when i use the treadmill and set it for 10 minute mile, 200 pound
>weight, incline = 1.5%, it tell me that calories burned > 100 ( ~150
>if i recall correctly).

You listen to your treadmill on that? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
 
"new runner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:01:35 GMT, Steve Hansen
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>A one-mile sprint will take less than 10 minutes,
>>and burn about 100 calories.
>
> how is this number calculated?

It's +/_ a few Kcal but 100 is nice number and damn close. If you want
oodles of data tune into http://www.pponline.co.uk/ and use the seach
engine.

>
> when i use the treadmill and set it for 10 minute mile, 200 pound
> weight, incline = 1.5%, it tell me that calories burned > 100 ( ~150
> if i recall correctly).

If it suggests 150 it is bogus/fantasy.
>
> also, is calories burned independant of heart rate?
> do you burn more calories if heart rate is higher?

You burn approxiamtely 100 Kcal a mile whether you run a 4 minute mile
or 15 min mile walk.

Think slow and stay uninjuried and enjoy it!

-DougF
 
Doug Freese wrote:
>
> "new runner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:01:35 GMT, Steve Hansen
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>A one-mile sprint will take less than 10 minutes,
> >>and burn about 100 calories.
> >
> > how is this number calculated?
>
> It's +/_ a few Kcal but 100 is nice number and damn close. If you want
> oodles of data tune into http://www.pponline.co.uk/ and use the seach
> engine.
>
> >
> > when i use the treadmill and set it for 10 minute mile, 200 pound
> > weight, incline = 1.5%, it tell me that calories burned > 100 ( ~150
> > if i recall correctly).
>
> If it suggests 150 it is bogus/fantasy.

It's certainly over 100, since the more one
weighs the more calories one will burn. Also
on an incline (hills) you will burn slightly
more calories than on a flat.

My calorie burn rate charts all say avg 120-130
cal/mile for 170lb runner vs. avg 90-100 cal/mile
for walking. Not big diff.

> > also, is calories burned independant of heart rate?
> > do you burn more calories if heart rate is higher?
>
> You burn approxiamtely 100 Kcal a mile whether you run a 4 minute mile
> or 15 min mile walk.

To lose a pound (3500 cal.) the difference is only
a few miles walking vs. running -- maybe day's
activity's worth. Figuring avgerage 100 rather than
some exact burn rate which will vary depending on
factors is good enough..

> Think slow and stay uninjuried and enjoy it!

Don't start by sprinting, certainly ;)
 
Doug Freese wrote:
> You burn approxiamtely 100 Kcal a mile whether you run a 4 minute mile
> or 15 min mile walk.

If you're 150 pounds. I was 225 last summer so my numbers were
closer to 150 kcal/mile. Now that I've put on a few more pounds....
 
>There are 2 main points here IMHO.
>
>1) Fats are used as fuel in slow runs. The longer you run slowly, the
>more you fat you burn up.

This is true. No matter what distance you are running, you will burn more fat
if you do it slowly.


Faster runs increasingly use carbohydrates.
>The faster you run the more carbohydrates you use. In fact, in all cases
>you use both fats and carbohydrates as fuel. But the faster you run, the
>bigger carbohydrate/fat ratio.
>
>2) But, when you make more intensive training your metabolismic rate
>increases so that all day you burn more fat compared to slow runs. There
>are some studies about this subject, which defies the long standing "fat
>loss" range.
>
>All in all, I think you should go for the slow, long runs being a
>beginner (you did not write your past experiences, I assume this from
>the thread's subject). This way you will both build a base and lose
>weight. You should not start faster works before building a base anyway.
>
>This issue may be somewhat controversial. So all I said is only IMHO.
>
>HTH.
>
>Burak
>--
>please remove Dot NOREPLY Dot to reply
>
>
>
>
>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back