A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Aerobic
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Question regarding calorie burning and weight loss



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 1st 03, 01:39 AM
Chris House
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question regarding calorie burning and weight loss

Let's say today I walk for an hour and in turn burn off exactly 255
calories. Then let's say tomorrow I RUN for 30 minutes, and end up burning
off the same amount as the previous day - 255 calories. My question is,
are both of these workouts equal to one another, in terms of weight loss?
Or is there something inherently better about a more vigorous workout?
  #2  
Old July 1st 03, 03:24 AM
Peter Webb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question regarding calorie burning and weight loss

Nore vigorous is better, for two reasons:

1. After your 30 minutes of running, you (say) sit and watch TV for another
30 mintues. This burns another (say) 70 Calories. So your total expenditure
of 1 hour running and watching TV is 325 Calories, versus 255 Calories for
walking for 1 hour.

2. More vigorous workouts make you fitter and hence more capable of buring
calories in subsequent workouts (eg you can run or walk faster with the same
perceived level of exertion). So they are better for longer term weight
loss.

Peter Webb


"Chris House" wrote in message
...
Let's say today I walk for an hour and in turn burn off exactly 255
calories. Then let's say tomorrow I RUN for 30 minutes, and end up

burning
off the same amount as the previous day - 255 calories. My question is,
are both of these workouts equal to one another, in terms of weight loss?
Or is there something inherently better about a more vigorous workout?



  #3  
Old July 1st 03, 06:03 AM
Diogenes The Tramp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question regarding calorie burning and weight loss


"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
Nore vigorous is better, for two reasons:

1. After your 30 minutes of running, you (say) sit and watch TV for

another
30 mintues. This burns another (say) 70 Calories. So your total

expenditure
of 1 hour running and watching TV is 325 Calories, versus 255 Calories for
walking for 1 hour.

2. More vigorous workouts make you fitter and hence more capable of buring
calories in subsequent workouts (eg you can run or walk faster with the

same
perceived level of exertion). So they are better for longer term weight
loss.

Peter Webb


Additionally, forget expensive detox plans and formulae (if that's your
thing).......a vigorous workout combined with plenty of water will mean your
blood gets pumped around your system more quickly and, hence, through your
liver and kidneys more times than a gentle workout, the end result being you
give yourself a totally natural detox.

Not at all relevant to the original post but worth a mention :-)


  #4  
Old July 1st 03, 10:50 PM
BillX
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question regarding calorie burning and weight loss


"Petzl" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:39:22 -0000, Chris House
wrote:
If the *distance* is the same the calorie burn would be near the same
(walking a set distance at a good pace 5mph is less efficient than
running and burns slightly more calories)


I think you meant to say that walking is "more" rather than "less" efficient
than running. Consider wind resistance and the added energy required for
the body to rid excess body heat at higher speed.


  #5  
Old July 2nd 03, 12:06 AM
Petzl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question regarding calorie burning and weight loss

On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:50:30 -0400, "BillX" wrote:


"Petzl" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:39:22 -0000, Chris House
wrote:
If the *distance* is the same the calorie burn would be near the same
(walking a set distance at a good pace 5mph is less efficient than
running and burns slightly more calories)


I think you meant to say that walking is "more" rather than "less" efficient
than running. Consider wind resistance and the added energy required for
the body to rid excess body heat at higher speed.


walking at a very brisk pace say 5 mph and above becomes *less*
efficient than running (this is calories burnt for a distance not a
time)

If one walks at very low speed this is very efficient (1 or 2 mph)


Petzl
--

"The price of living in a democracy is that the morons can vote, say
anything they want, and procreate at will" - Dr John Becker
  #6  
Old July 2nd 03, 10:03 PM
BillX
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question regarding calorie burning and weight loss

Do you have a source to back your claim that "walking" at 5mph is less
efficient than running at a faster pace? I understand that walking slower
than 5mph is more efficient but what does that have to do with running?

"Petzl" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:50:30 -0400, "BillX" wrote:


"Petzl" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:39:22 -0000, Chris House
wrote:
If the *distance* is the same the calorie burn would be near the same
(walking a set distance at a good pace 5mph is less efficient than
running and burns slightly more calories)


I think you meant to say that walking is "more" rather than "less"

efficient
than running. Consider wind resistance and the added energy required for
the body to rid excess body heat at higher speed.


walking at a very brisk pace say 5 mph and above becomes *less*
efficient than running (this is calories burnt for a distance not a
time)

If one walks at very low speed this is very efficient (1 or 2 mph)


Petzl
--

"The price of living in a democracy is that the morons can vote, say
anything they want, and procreate at will" - Dr John Becker



  #7  
Old July 3rd 03, 02:12 AM
Petzl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question regarding calorie burning and weight loss

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:03:50 -0400, "BillX" wrote:

Do you have a source to back your claim that "walking" at 5mph is less
efficient than running at a faster pace? I understand that walking slower
than 5mph is more efficient but what does that have to do with running?


Its to do with calorie counting (not running) and as a low impact
exercise there is nothing wrong with a brisk hours walk.
As your pace in walking starts getting above 5 MPH it becomes less
effiecient than running and burns more calories, the idea is when
walking try putting a little effort into it. I do both running and
walking

A google search came up with a reasonable site
http://www.health24.co.za/fitness/Specific_sports/16-476-495,16705.asp
Walking as a fat burner
Running does burn energy more quickly, so if you have minimal time to
exercise and running suits you enjoy it! However, if you have a
little more time, walking can be very effective in fat burning,
bearing in mind the fact that whether you walk or run a given
distance, your body actually burns the same amount of energy.



Petzl

--

scan your computer

On line virus scanners available here

"Trend Micro's free online virus scanner"
http://housecall.trendmicro.com/
or
"Panda ActiveScan"
http://www.pandasoftware.com/activescan/

There are free virus detectors such as this one
"AVG 6.0 Free Edition"
http://www.grisoft.com

Check your computer for "Spy Bots"
freeware available
http://security.kolla.de/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.