View Full Version : This is bloody nagging me!
If a person was to jog 5 miles, or walk 5 miles, would the energy expended be the same, or just the proportion of the kcals burnt coming from fat/carbs differ?
Obviously walking would take much longer, but would it take less energy to get from A to B compared to running?
Hmmmmm........
Running would require more energy.
PikeKing
07-03-2005, 15:47
yeah i'd agree with that
veganlifter
07-03-2005, 16:33
(devils advocate)
why? Same mass, same distance? Why would it burn more energy? dont confuse the feeling you get from running 5 miles to it being more energy intensive. In fact, i would say walking 5 miles will consume more energy because it will take longer thus burning more baseline calories + moving the mass the same distance ;)
(devils advocate)
why? Same mass, same distance? Why would it burn more energy? dont confuse the feeling you get from running 5 miles to it being more energy intensive. In fact, i would say walking 5 miles will consume more energy because it will take longer thus burning more baseline calories + moving the mass the same distance ;)
My theory exactly!
Ok...walking 4 miles at 4mph would take 1 hour, Jogging for 4 miles at 8mph would take 30 minutes...the jogging would be a more immediate effort, so more glycogen would be called into play, making the effort seem as though it is burning more energy.
I can't see how it would burn more energy, but just a different ratio of type of energy
I think no ones knws for sure,I found the same question here:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050121.html
Not sure if the guy is right tho.
Surely more energy would be used for running, since the distance is completed more quickly.
For example, a 100 metre sprint would require more energy than a 100 metre stroll... ?
BengDogg
07-03-2005, 16:53
i have seen simlar thories and i think there is some weight in it, but i doubt it is exactly the same
Surely more energy would be used for running, since the distance is completed more quickly.
For example, a 100 metre sprint would require more energy than a 100 metre stroll... ?
The higher effort sustained for a longer period of time, yes...but at 1/2 of the time?
It doesnt make sense to me!
Also, sprinting and walking use completely different energy systems so that debate is a bit like comparing the energy expenditure of weight training and jogging
the block
08-03-2005, 04:34
its sort of like driving a car fast. if you rag it then it'll kill your petrol quicker. there's my theory.
:040:
if you take the distance out of the equation then its obviously running. but with the distance then i think its ... :039:
It would be vastly different.
Several things will have minor effects that will add up.
1. Drag.
Drive your car 20miles at 10mph, and 20 miles at 130mph and see the difference in fuel consumption.
2. Power.
A 100kg man sprinting 100m in 10 seconds uses 1000W.
A 100kg man walking 100m in 100 seconds uses 100W.
3. Energy transfer systems.
Aerobic systems are much mroe efficient than anerobic ones in terms of net ATP produced.
Do the math Vegan, sprinting is more energy consuming. If it were not, why do sprinters loose pace after 10 seconds and are not able to do 20 miles....
The slower you go, the longer you can go for becuase its more energy efficient.
Jogging doesn't use the same energy system as sprinting though as other wise it wouldn't be able to be sustained for 5 miles
ATP = explosive burst (Shot put throw)
ATP + CP = Sustained anaerobic efforts (Weight training, 100-200m sprint)
ATP + CP + Lactate = After ATP and CP stores become momentarily depleted, lactate system kicks in to sustain the effort and uses muscle glycogen(mid-latter stages of 400m race)
Aerobic + Anaerobic = 2-4 minutes - uses predominantly glycogen and lactic acid (800 - 1500m race)
Aerobic = 3 + minutes and uses fatty acids and glycogen for energy at slow pace (walking, slow paced jogging, breathing, etc.)
The above is all entirely from past understanding and memory (so please feel free to correct where appropriate)
How much of each energy fuel is burnt at rest is entirely based upon their metabolism and level of conditioning, but I cannot see how a 5 mile jog would consume more total calories than a 5 mile walk, other than the fact that it may consume more muscle glycogen:fat whereas the walk would use predominantly fat as an energy source?
Remember, this is not taking into account metabollic activity after the run/jog, purely during the event itself
veganlifter
08-03-2005, 16:51
my answer was a bit of a devils advocate answer anyway, i have duly swapped sides and am now solidly on the running camp because:
running is an inefficient way of transport due to lost energy in lifting legs higher and losing energy upon impact. Thats ripped off the page linked on the first page of this thread.
dirtyvest
08-03-2005, 17:20
It will require the same calorific energy to move your mass over the same distance regardless of speed. The sources you use for the energy may differ, and the effects post exercise may differ tho.....
vegan lifter may have a point, there may be finer details that effect total calories used a little but essentially it is a mass and distance factor, not speed. I don't think these factors, for the most of us anyway, are THAT much of a factor and are they not slightly off from the more simple aspect of the question asked.
which reminds me, when cutting starts to plataue, that would be because you are lighter therefore transporting less mass over your given distance, so to kick things up you need to artificially increase your mass or lengthen the distance covered to achieve the same overall calorie expenditure..... or run like Phoebe in Friends LOL
It will require the same calorific energy to move your mass over the same distance regardless of speed. The sources you use for the energy may differ, and the effects post exercise may differ tho.....
Wrong. See my first post.
dirtyvest
08-03-2005, 20:00
Maybe I need to get of the 'treadmill' mindset to consider those factors LOL.... it's a fair, and on reflection, true point, I wonder how much of a difference it would make. I guess I'm looking too smply at the mass x distance thing.... (I'm very streamlined now I've dieted down tho)
dirtyvest
08-03-2005, 20:24
Thinking aloud.... at a greater speed you are exposed to a greater drag but for a shorter time period, so how great would the difference be. (I may just be being thick here science was never a strong point)
Alas the car analogy doesn't work in that sense as the mechanical workings of the engine are not really comparable to that of the human body are they? Just cos the car uses more fuel to create the energy/power doesn't necessarily mean the overall energy output is different..... you would get similar fuel difference on a rolling road with zero air drag (more power than drag related).
Oh I dunno now..... I am interested tho.
I get the increase in power leaading to a reduced efficiency of energy tho.
RE: Drag: Were that so, then your car would be as economical at 125mph as it is at say 10, or 30, or even 90mph.
you would get similar fuel difference on a rolling road with zero air drag (more power than drag related).
No you wouldn't. Think about it. At higher speeds the engine turns over faster. For example in my car to do 100mph the engine needs to be doing around the 5500rpm mark, in fifth.
5500rpm burns more fuel over the same TIME period as running at say 2000rpm, but it doesn't on a rolling road over the same DISTANCE where the TIME would be shorter for the former.
Also, the car is actually a conservative analogy on my part, as the car has gears to make it more efficient at higher speeds, unlike your body; more efficient at lower speeds (rate of ATP produced:consumed during different systems).
Like hell your noddy car'll do 100 :043:
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.