Question about caloric consumption vis. running



Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> Work is indeed force x distance, but those quantities are vectors and
> the x is a dot product. When you move against a resistance, you expend
> work. If the vectors are perpendicular (the movement is lateral with
> respect to that force) the dot product is zero. No work is done against
> that force.
>
> If you are running at constant elevation, the only net work you are
> doing is against air resistance and friction.

Actually, running is not purely horizontal. There is a lot of up and
down motion (in some people several inches each stride). This work is
entirely wasted, and it is directly proportion to the mass of the
individual. A quick back of the envelope calculation shows me that for
a 200 lbs runner, on a 5 mile run, a 4 inch bounce can waste 125
calories in purely vertical motion. This is why running mechanics are
so important. Don't bounce - glide :)

This is also why bicyclists prefer light bikes, and jockeys are so
tiny.

> You aren't doing any work
> due to your mass, against gravity. Extra body weight does not add to
> the work of actually moving from point A to point B, because that work
> is zero! The two vectors are perpendicular. Gravity points downward,
> and you are moving horizontally. The dot product is zero.

The force you are working against is mostly friction if there is no
wind. Friction is not perpendicular to the direction of motion, it is
parallel, directed opposite the direction of travel. Friction =
coefficient of friction * mass * g.

Want to prove it to yourself? Push a book across your desk. Note the
effort required. Now have a friend lean his weight on the book. Now
try to push it again. It will require more force to move it.
Similarly with human bodies in contact with the ground.

> In other words, it takes no energy to move a mass at constant speed in
> a straight line, when there is no external force that has any component
> in the direction of motion. It does take work to accelerate that mass
> to its cruising speed, and that work is later wasted when you use
> friction to brake that mass to a halt. Maintaining cruising speed is
> all about friction.

Exactly, and friction provides a force parallel to the direction of
travel. Friction is also directly proportional to mass. Thus the force
required to balance friction is directly proportional to mass.
 
On 10 Aug 2005 13:25:41 -0700, "joshv" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Actually, running is not purely horizontal. There is a lot of up and
>down motion (in some people several inches each stride). This work is
>entirely wasted, and it is directly proportion to the mass of the
>individual. A quick back of the envelope calculation shows me that for
>a 200 lbs runner, on a 5 mile run, a 4 inch bounce can waste 125
>calories in purely vertical motion. This is why running mechanics are
>so important. Don't bounce - glide :)

I'm not sure on your math, but I've said this many times. Years ago
when I started running, I trained myself not to bounce by running with
the sun at my back, and watching my shadow bouncing, and worked on
that. Soon after learning not to bounce, I did my first 2.5 hour run,
and I felt like I hadn't even run that day. Previously an hour wiped
me out.

TBR

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
S**t list: Charlie Bendahoe, TBR imposter
 
If this message is for me then thanks! That's nice to know.

My message does indicate it's a jogging/running calorie counter, Not
walking.

I do wonder how it differs for walking as opposed to running. BUT
before you answer I don't really care, I was just trying to help!!

But hey, visit my website at www.fitnessbegin.com and feel free to give
your invaluable advice on the feedback page!

We love to hear from our readers!

With greatest health,

Simon
www.fitnessbegin.com
 
Well based on my math, the bouncing can consume from 0-25% of your
energy depending on how heavy you are and how much you bounce. Your
experience tends to validate that. In addition to using more energy
overall, the bouncing can target specific muscles with a lot of load,
causing injuries and premature muscle fatigue.

I too have trained myself to be relatively smooth gait. I would be
surprised if my head bobs up and down more than an inch during my
stride.

Running in front of a mirror on a treadmill is also a great way to
train yourself not to bounce. Watch 'recreational' runners on the
running paths to see just how bad the bouncing can get.


The Bill Rodgers wrote:
> I'm not sure on your math, but I've said this many times. Years ago
> when I started running, I trained myself not to bounce by running with
> the sun at my back, and watching my shadow bouncing, and worked on
> that. Soon after learning not to bounce, I did my first 2.5 hour run,
> and I felt like I hadn't even run that day. Previously an hour wiped
> me out.
>
> TBR
>
> "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
> more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
> the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
> White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
> H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
> "Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
> but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
> S**t list: Charlie Bendahoe, TBR imposter
 
On 10 Aug 2005 14:38:42 -0700, "joshv" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Well based on my math, the bouncing can consume from 0-25% of your
>energy depending on how heavy you are and how much you bounce. Your
>experience tends to validate that. In addition to using more energy
>overall, the bouncing can target specific muscles with a lot of load,
>causing injuries and premature muscle fatigue.

25% seems about right to me. It made a HUGE, noticeable difference as
soon as I did this. Especially in how I felt post WO.

TBR

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
S**t list: Charlie Bendahoe, TBR imposter
 
It's funny you guys bring up the issue of injury. I am scheduled to
see my doc this Friday because my ankle has just swollen up and is a
bit painful... I gotta wonder if there's some bounce in my running step
I need to be minimizing, particularly with my (hopefully temporary)
substantial weight.


The Bill Rodgers wrote:
> On 10 Aug 2005 14:38:42 -0700, "joshv" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Well based on my math, the bouncing can consume from 0-25% of your
> >energy depending on how heavy you are and how much you bounce. Your
> >experience tends to validate that. In addition to using more energy
> >overall, the bouncing can target specific muscles with a lot of load,
> >causing injuries and premature muscle fatigue.
>
> 25% seems about right to me. It made a HUGE, noticeable difference as
> soon as I did this. Especially in how I felt post WO.
>
> TBR
>
> "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
> more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
> the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
> White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
> H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
> "Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
> but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
> S**t list: Charlie Bendahoe, TBR imposter
 
Well at this point until you get back to running, we'll just be
wondering LOL

On 10 Aug 2005 14:52:10 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> It's funny you guys bring up the issue of injury. I am scheduled to
>see my doc this Friday because my ankle has just swollen up and is a
>bit painful... I gotta wonder if there's some bounce in my running step
>I need to be minimizing, particularly with my (hopefully temporary)
>substantial weight.


TBR

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
S**t list: Charlie Bendahoe, TBR imposter
 
[email protected] wrote:
> It's funny you guys bring up the issue of injury. I am scheduled to
> see my doc this Friday because my ankle has just swollen up and is a
> bit painful...

Maybe your ankle was bitten!

Next time wear thick boots when you go wading through Usenet.
 
"Kaz Kylheku" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Steve Hansen wrote:
> > The only exercise calorie counter that does not lie is the scale.
>
> Bahaha. A scale completely ignores body composition. (Except for the
> ones that claim to measure body fat, but do it so inaccurately as to be
> completely ridiculous).
>
> > It says you are 235 pounds now. If it says 225 pounds a month or
> > two from now, then you will have expended more calories than you ate
> > during the interim period.
>
> Not necessarily. Muscle contains fewer calories than fat, because it's
> largely water. The commonly cited numbers are: 600 calories in a pound
> of fat, 3500 in a pound of muscle. You could go from 235 to 225 by
> losing muscle while gaining some fat. There could be a net caloric
> intake.

Your numbers are backwards. 1 lb of fat contains ~3500 calories. 1 lb of
muscle contains ~600 calories.

GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Computer-Assisted Weight Management

>
> Assuming that the weight change is purely due to muscle mass and fat
> level changes, you can write this simple equation:
>
> ^F / 3500 + ^M / 600 = -10
>
> ^F means ``delta fat'', or change in the amount of body fat, in
> calories. ^M means change in muscle calories. The two deltas, converted
> to pounds, somehow make up -10, or ten pounds lost.
>
> As you can see, since there are two unknowns and only one equation,
> there are infinitely many solutions, including ones in which ^F is
> positive: fat calories are gained.
>
> The total calories gained or lost is ^F + ^M. This could be positive or
> negative.
>
> Suppose that 5000 calories are gained, so we get a second equation:
>
> ^F + ^M = 5000
>
> or
> ^F = 5000 - ^M
>
> Now we can solve for ^F and ^M. Plug into the first equation and
> reduce:
>
>
> (5000 - ^M) / 3500 + ^M / 600 = -10
>
> The lowest common multiple of 3500 and 600 is 21000, so we multiply
> through by that:
>
> 6 (5000 - ^M) + 35 ^M = -210000
>
> Clean up to get ^M:
>
> 30000 - 6^M + 35 ^M = -210000
>
> 29 ^M = -240000
>
> ^M ~= -8276
>
> In other words, about 8300 of muscle calories were lost in going from
> 235 pounds to 225 pounds, with a net caloric intake of 5000.
>
> Think that is unrealistic? When we divide it by 600 calories per pound
> we get about 14 pounds. There you have it. A 235 person could lose 14
> pounds of muscle and gain 4 pounds of fat to get to 225, with a caloric
> gain of 5000. Of course, other solutions exist. Like going from a soft
> 235 to a ripped 225. Replace the 5000 by a variable and solve the
> equation to get ^M as a function of that variable. Then you can try
> different caloric values to see the other solutions.
>
> Also note that weight can fluctuate wildly in a short term due to water
> gain or loss. I've lost as much as 8 pounds of water in one run. There
> are zero calories in water. I stepped on the same scale immediately
> before the run and then after. I drank water on the run, and did not
> eliminate anything.
>
> These days, I don't even own a scale.
>
> Every morning, I check how ripped my abs look, and measure a few
> circumferences. I look at how well the veins on the bottom of my
> abdomen are showing through, and sometimes take a few skinfold
> measurements.
>
> I know I have more muscle mass because when I can do more reps with
> heavier weights; that estimator is good enough for me.
>
 
I would not recommend running to anyone who is substantially
overweight. Walk. Sure it takes longer, but mile for mile you will
probably burn more fat, and it's much easier on your body. All it
takes is a little more time.

That being said, a 'bouncing' step can definitely lead to injury.
Think about you, with every step you launch yourself up in the air and
then all that weight comes back down, the force has to be dissipated
somehow.

If you keep running, try this. Consciously force yourself to bend your
knees while running, throughout your entire stride. The hips, legs and
ankles should be flexed at all times. One way to accomplish this is,
while you are running, to move your butt back and down a few inches and
lean forward just a tad - as if you are just beginning to sit in a
chair.

What this does is suspend all of your weight on you muscles, the quads
and calves mostly. It will hit these muscles hard, so break this
stride in slowly. The beauty is that muscles are meant to do this, and
even when injured heal much more quickly that joints, tendons and
ligaments. This stride also has the effect of levelling out your gate
and cutting down on the bounce. A good way to tell when you have
minimal vertical movement - you should barely be able to hear your feet
hitting the ground.

Also, unless you can't walk at all, or suspect it's broken, don't see a
Dr. for a swollen ankle. Ice it, stop running in the interim, and it
will soon get better on it's own - take it from a guy whose sprained
one ankle so many times it sometimes feels like it's now on loose
hinges :)

[email protected] wrote:
> It's funny you guys bring up the issue of injury. I am scheduled to
> see my doc this Friday because my ankle has just swollen up and is a
> bit painful... I gotta wonder if there's some bounce in my running step
> I need to be minimizing, particularly with my (hopefully temporary)
> substantial weight.
>
 
joshv wrote:
> I would not recommend running to anyone who is substantially
> overweight. Walk. Sure it takes longer, but mile for mile you will
> probably burn more fat, and it's much easier on your body. All it
> takes is a little more time.

But I like running..... and I've been doing it for years.

I don't know if I'm "substantially overweight." I'm six foot three,
and I weigh (currently) 232. I'm definitely overweight according to my
BMI (which I'm working on), but I think I'm pretty fit at this point.

>
> That being said, a 'bouncing' step can definitely lead to injury.
> Think about you, with every step you launch yourself up in the air and
> then all that weight comes back down, the force has to be dissipated
> somehow.

That's what I figured. The exchanges in this thread about minimizing
"bounce" were intriguing to me. I've been a runner for years, but I
never thought much about the orthopedic consequences of the quality of
the steps I've been taking.

>
> If you keep running, try this. Consciously force yourself to bend your
> knees while running, throughout your entire stride. The hips, legs and
> ankles should be flexed at all times. One way to accomplish this is,
> while you are running, to move your butt back and down a few inches and
> lean forward just a tad - as if you are just beginning to sit in a
> chair.
>
> What this does is suspend all of your weight on you muscles, the quads
> and calves mostly. It will hit these muscles hard, so break this
> stride in slowly. The beauty is that muscles are meant to do this, and
> even when injured heal much more quickly that joints, tendons and
> ligaments. This stride also has the effect of levelling out your gate
> and cutting down on the bounce. A good way to tell when you have
> minimal vertical movement - you should barely be able to hear your feet
> hitting the ground.

I'll try it.

>
> Also, unless you can't walk at all, or suspect it's broken, don't see a
> Dr. for a swollen ankle. Ice it, stop running in the interim, and it
> will soon get better on it's own - take it from a guy whose sprained
> one ankle so many times it sometimes feels like it's now on loose
> hinges :)

Well, what about stationary biking? Should I cut out all exercise in
the interim? I hate that idea... I'm kind of an endorphin junkie.

>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > It's funny you guys bring up the issue of injury. I am scheduled to
> > see my doc this Friday because my ankle has just swollen up and is a
> > bit painful... I gotta wonder if there's some bounce in my running step
> > I need to be minimizing, particularly with my (hopefully temporary)
> > substantial weight.
> >
 
On 2005-08-10, Proctologically Violated©® <[email protected]> wrote:

(1) I don't believe it's correct to say that intensity makes a whole lot of
difference to EPOC. That's not what the pubmed references I could find
said anyway.

(2) I did look in my exercise physiology book, and looked at a few other
sources. Do you have any sources showing that EPOC is substantial ?
All the sources I've seen show relatively small amounts -- always well
under 100 calories, usually under 50 calories.

Basically, I think this emphasis on EPOC is misplaced.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
Costill & Wilmore, Ex. Physio, in discussing energy cost of various
activities. Certainly more for weightlifting than for running, and %-wise,
proly higher for shorter exercise bouts than for very long ones.
Their example cites a 33% post ex. ox. consumption.
Other studies have shown that the fat burning due to weight lifting, and
much lower total calorie expenditures than say marathoning, is much more
"efficient" at this "targeted" fat burning, presumably because of this peoc.
Of course, marathoners are most-often bone-skinny because of the sheer
magnitude of the exertion and caloric expenditure, and the fact that such
exertion is appetite-suppressing.
But not always. Some world-class marathoners, esp. females, have BF% in the
high-teens/low 20's.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2005-08-10, Proctologically Violated©® <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> (1) I don't believe it's correct to say that intensity makes a whole lot
> of
> difference to EPOC. That's not what the pubmed references I could find
> said anyway.
>
> (2) I did look in my exercise physiology book, and looked at a few other
> sources. Do you have any sources showing that EPOC is substantial ?
> All the sources I've seen show relatively small amounts -- always well
> under 100 calories, usually under 50 calories.
>
> Basically, I think this emphasis on EPOC is misplaced.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
[email protected] wrote:
> But I like running..... and I've been doing it for years.
>
> I don't know if I'm "substantially overweight." I'm six foot three,
> and I weigh (currently) 232. I'm definitely overweight according to my
> BMI (which I'm working on), but I think I'm pretty fit at this point.
>

Oh, ok, you said something about your "(hopefully temporary)
substantial weight". 232 at 6'3" is nothing to worry about. Hell I am
5'9" and 215 (I personally think this is about the limit for me and
running).

> That's what I figured. The exchanges in this thread about minimizing
> "bounce" were intriguing to me. I've been a runner for years, but I
> never thought much about the orthopedic consequences of the quality of
> the steps I've been taking.

Yeah, it can make a big difference. But be careful, break in any
changes to your running form very slowly. You'll be using different
muscles and tendons and such, don't want to hurt them on your first few
runs. So take it slow and if it doesn't work for you, go back to what
you know.
 
GaryG wrote:
> Your numbers are backwards. 1 lb of fat contains ~3500 calories. 1 lb of
> muscle contains ~600 calories.

Strange reversal! Did you notice I got it right in the rest of the
article?

> > Assuming that the weight change is purely due to muscle mass and fat
> > level changes, you can write this simple equation:
> > ^F / 3500 + ^M / 600 = -10

See? ^F represents a change in fat calories, which is divided by 3500
to convert to pounds.
 
It seems to me I heard somewhere that [email protected] wrote in
article <[email protected]>:

>(x-posted to rec.running)

>My "Diet and Excercise Assistant" Palm Pilot program calculates caloric
>expenditures from excercise. I just ran 55 minutes at 6 miles an hour
>(actually I went faster than that, but it got rounded down to 6 mph).
>Anyways, the program tells me that at 235 pounds, running for 55
>minutes, at 6 miles per hour, I burned approximately 1100
>calories!!!!??!!! That sounds like a pretty huge amount.

>Does this sound right to people? The treadmill readout listed about 600
>calories burned, but it didn't ask me for my weight in arriving at this
>calculation.

>Opinions please.

Opinion 1: This a fine mess you've gotten us into, Ollie!

Opinion 2: Close enough for government and Internet work, a widely used
rule of thumb is about 100 calories per mile for foot traffic at any
speed.
--
Don Kirkman
 
"Kaz Kylheku" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> GaryG wrote:
> > Your numbers are backwards. 1 lb of fat contains ~3500 calories. 1 lb
of
> > muscle contains ~600 calories.
>
> Strange reversal! Did you notice I got it right in the rest of the
> article?

Didn't read it, just noticed the error (I'm too impatient to wade through a
Usenet "wall o' words").

GG

>
> > > Assuming that the weight change is purely due to muscle mass and fat
> > > level changes, you can write this simple equation:
> > > ^F / 3500 + ^M / 600 = -10
>
> See? ^F represents a change in fat calories, which is divided by 3500
> to convert to pounds.
>
 
"Kaz Kylheku" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Steve Hansen wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > Does this sound right to people?
>>
>> Weight definitely matters. Work = force x distance. Pounds is a
>> unit of force, so (more weight) x (same distance) = (more work).
>> But 1100 calories does seem a little high for 6 miles of running.
>
> Work is indeed force x distance, but those quantities are vectors and
> the x is a dot product. When you move against a resistance, you expend
> work. If the vectors are perpendicular (the movement is lateral with
> respect to that force) the dot product is zero. No work is done against
> that force.
>
> If you are running at constant elevation, the only net work you are
> doing is against air resistance and friction. You aren't doing any work
> due to your mass, against gravity. Extra body weight does not add to
> the work of actually moving from point A to point B, because that work
> is zero! The two vectors are perpendicular. Gravity points downward,
> and you are moving horizontally. The dot product is zero.
>
> In other words, it takes no energy to move a mass at constant speed in
> a straight line, when there is no external force that has any component
> in the direction of motion. It does take work to accelerate that mass
> to its cruising speed, and that work is later wasted when you use
> friction to brake that mass to a halt. Maintaining cruising speed is
> all about friction.

So once I get to 6min/mile pace it takes no energy for me to continue
running? You are ignoring a lot of things here.



>
> (Of course, if you are running uphill, then the work is mgh (mass,
> times the force of gravity g, times height). The work is saved in your
> potential energy which is released when you come back downhill. You
> don't get it all back; you waste it on controlling your speed).
>
> Ignoring elevation changes, energy spent in running at constant speed
> is wasted on frictional losses: on air resistance, friction between the
> shoes and ground, and internal losses within the body, which expends
> energy to compensate for its own motion. That includes jumping into the
> air and recovering with each stride, but there are other losses. Each
> stride puts kinetic energy into your body. That energy has to be
> absorbed by the compensating motion of your arms and upper body. I
> remember reading in a textbook on track and field body mechanics that
> something like 80% of the energy output of a runner is wasted on motion
> compensation.
>
> Excess weight can add to the energy losses of compensating for your own
> motion. A massive left leg driving forward needs a massive left arm
> driving backward, and constantly accelerating that fat only to reverse
> its motion a moment later wastes energy. Leaping into the air so many
> centimeters requires more energy against gravity; all that energy is
> largely wasted, other than whatever can be stored in the elasticity of
> the leg muscles.
>
> Gaining a significant amount of fat will almost certainly make you a
> less efficient runner. It's not so clear with muscle. Some muscle gains
> will give you better form, and make you more efficient.
>
> Experienced distance runners hardly move up and down as they stride.
> This minimizes the contribution of their body mass to the energy
> losses. If your torso moves at an approximately constant height, then
> you are not putting as much energy to raise that mass against gravity,
> and consequently dissipating less energy in stopping that mass when it
> comes down again.
>
> By contrast, most recreational joggers hop up and down like hares. That
> multiplies the energy losses due to their body mass.
>
>> In the end, all of those calorie counters are programmed to tell the
>> customers what they want to hear. And, they are just estimates, at
>> best. So take them with a large grain of salt.
>
> Which is zero calories, great! Just don't go too nuts with the sodium
> intake. :)
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back