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

calories question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 5th 04, 03:07 AM
Rick Johnston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default calories question

If I walk 4 miles in an hour one day and then 4 miles in 2 hours another
day, is the number of calories burned still the same? My *thought* is that
it is, but I thought I would pose the question for those in the know.

Thanks,
RJ



  #2  
Old March 5th 04, 04:24 AM
Denise Howard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default calories question

In article .net,
Rick Johnston wrote:

If I walk 4 miles in an hour one day and then 4 miles in 2 hours another
day, is the number of calories burned still the same?


Yes. You moved the same amount of mass (your body) over the same
distance.

--
Denise denise dot howard at comcast dot net
ACE and AFAA certified fitness instructor
AFAA step and kickboxing certified
  #4  
Old March 6th 04, 09:22 AM
Joe User
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default calories question

Denise Howard wrote:
Rick Johnston wrote:
If I walk 4 miles in an hour one day and then 4 miles in 2 hours
another day, is the number of calories burned still the same?


Yes. You moved the same amount of mass (your body) over the same
distance.


So do you disagree with the "Compendium of Physical Activity" [1]?

Based to the Compendium, a 225-lb person burns 123 Cal/mile
walking 2.5 MPH and 163 Cal/mile at 5 MPH. Same mass; same
distance; 1/3 more Calories at twice the speed.

And doesn't that make some sense, based on experience?
It takes a lot more effort to walk 5 MPH than 2.5 MPH.

I honestly do not know the credibility of the compendium.
It seems to be cited and relied on widely. However, there
seems to be anomalies in the data. For example, a 225-lb
person burns 112 Cal/mile and 111 Cal/mile walking 3 MPH
and 3.5 MPH respectively -- less than walking 2.5 MPH.
And the same person burns 128 Cal/mile walking 2 MPH and
4 MPH -- which seems to support Denise's response.

(As always, the compendium results must be based on the
average of a some sample data -- I hope. YMMV, especially
for more or less muscular people.)


-----
[1] http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/Tools/C...m_tracking.pdf,
updated in 2000. Originally published by B.E. Ainsworth et al,
"Compendium of Physical Activities: Classification of Energy
Costs of Human Physical Activities", Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, Vol. 25, No.1, 1993.
  #5  
Old March 6th 04, 09:51 AM
Denise Howard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default calories question

In article , Joe User
wrote:

Denise Howard wrote:
Rick Johnston wrote:
If I walk 4 miles in an hour one day and then 4 miles in 2 hours
another day, is the number of calories burned still the same?


Yes. You moved the same amount of mass (your body) over the same
distance.


So do you disagree with the "Compendium of Physical Activity" [1]?

Based to the Compendium, a 225-lb person burns 123 Cal/mile
walking 2.5 MPH and 163 Cal/mile at 5 MPH. Same mass; same
distance; 1/3 more Calories at twice the speed.

And doesn't that make some sense, based on experience?
It takes a lot more effort to walk 5 MPH than 2.5 MPH.

I honestly do not know the credibility of the compendium.
It seems to be cited and relied on widely. However, there
seems to be anomalies in the data. For example, a 225-lb
person burns 112 Cal/mile and 111 Cal/mile walking 3 MPH
and 3.5 MPH respectively -- less than walking 2.5 MPH.
And the same person burns 128 Cal/mile walking 2 MPH and
4 MPH -- which seems to support Denise's response.

(As always, the compendium results must be based on the
average of a some sample data -- I hope. YMMV, especially
for more or less muscular people.)


Well, I think you answered your own question, there...the original
poster did ask about the difference between 2 mph and 4 mph. :-) It's
odd that this compendium would list 3 mph as burning more calories
(albeit just one) than 3.5 mph.

It is known that at some speed which differs a bit from person to
person but is usually around 5.5 mph, it's more mechanically difficult
to walk than to run, so running at that speed burns calories at a lower
rate than walking at that same speed.

--
Denise denise dot howard at comcast dot net
ACE and AFAA certified fitness instructor
AFAA step and kickboxing certified
  #6  
Old March 6th 04, 08:50 PM
Joe User
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default calories question

Denise Howard wrote:
Joe User wrote:
You moved the same amount of mass (your body) over the same
distance.


So do you disagree with the "Compendium of Physical Activity" [1]?
Based to the Compendium, a 225-lb person burns 123 Cal/mile
walking 2.5 MPH and 163 Cal/mile at 5 MPH. Same mass; same
distance; 1/3 more Calories at twice the speed.

....
[But] the same person burns 128 Cal/mile walking 2 MPH and
4 MPH -- which seems to support Denise's response.

....
Well, I think you answered your own question, there...the original
poster did ask about the difference between 2 mph and 4 mph. :-)


My point was: you answered with a generality of physics.
Even if the answer (constant caloric expenditure per mile)
is correct, I question whether it is because of the physics.
The body is not a passive mass.

Besides, I question the concept that caloric expenditure is
constant for the same distance and the same person. If you
ever walked 2 MPH, 3 MPH, and 4 MPH, surely you noticed that
those speeds require different amounts of effort. Are you
suggesting that this does not result in caloric expenditure?

Granted: I would not expect the caloric difference to be
great because walking is mostly a pendulum action. Forgive
me for splitting hairs. And believe me: I can be convinced
that I am wrong. But if I am wrong, I would like a more
persuasive or more complete explanation.

It is known that at some speed which differs a bit from
person to person but is usually around 5.5 mph, it's more
mechanically difficult to walk than to run


Well, the Compendium data shows a 14% increase in caloric
expenditure per mile for every 5 MPH increase between 3.5
and 5 MPH -- not a sudden surge at some "knee" in the curve
(no pun intended).

Granted: the Compendium data is anomalous below 3 MPH.
I have not read the study to see if there is explanation.
I wonder if there could be a kinesiological explanation.
For example, even if the effort seems easier, I wonder if
we involve slightly more (small) muscles when walking at
slower speeds, perhaps because of some mechanical differences
(posture). Intuitively, I would think not.

Nevertheless, although you make an interesting point about
walking v. running, it seems off-topic. A question relevant
to walking mechanics might be: as we increase walking speed
-- notably from a loping speed of 2 MPH to a brisk speed of
4 MPH -- does the mechanical "difficulty" increase in some
smooth progression (linear, geometric, exponential, etc)?
Even if so, does the caloric expenditure track the mechanic
"difficulty" curve? And in any case, why or why not?
Perhaps for some physiological or kinesiological reason.

I think the Compendium data suggests a monotonic increase
in caloric expenditure related to walking speed. That also
seems to be common sense (to me). Obviously you disagree;
so do several others. So I might be wrong. But a more
complete explanation would be helpful to me -- perhaps a
kinesiological or physicological one.
  #7  
Old March 7th 04, 07:21 AM
Proctologically Violated©®
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default calories question

I've posted on this many times. Denise has not been taking notes,
apparently.
The compendium is correct, and supports a very interesting
mathematical analysis of walking/running using conic sections--I have this
article buried somewhere. Bottom line is the most efficient form of bipedal
locomotion (cals/mile) is walking at the so-called "self-selected step".
Walking faster (OR slower!!) burns more calories per mile, faster increasing
exponentially.
There are at least 4 "gaits", each having its own characteristic
"burn profile", if you will. None, however, varies their cals/mile with
speed the way walking does, precisely because of the pendulum effect of
walking, a "forced pendulum" to be more specific, where energy varies as the
square of the amplitude. So fast large-strided walking burns exponentially
more calories as the speed increases.
Shifting from cal/mile to cal per minute, walking also burns more
cals/*min* than running, at all speeds above 4 mph, until walking simply
cannot match the absolute speed of running, and then the cal burn of running
overtakes that of walking. This is because at about 4 mph (depending
depending) the "self-selected step" is no longer a walk, but a jog, ie a
more efficient gait. All animals naturally "break into" the more efficient
gait, as speeds increase.
In contrast to walking, running has a fairly constant cals/mile, ie,
independent of speed.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll

"Joe User" wrote in message
om...
Denise Howard wrote:
Joe User wrote:
You moved the same amount of mass (your body) over the same
distance.

So do you disagree with the "Compendium of Physical Activity" [1]?
Based to the Compendium, a 225-lb person burns 123 Cal/mile
walking 2.5 MPH and 163 Cal/mile at 5 MPH. Same mass; same
distance; 1/3 more Calories at twice the speed.

....
[But] the same person burns 128 Cal/mile walking 2 MPH and
4 MPH -- which seems to support Denise's response.

....
Well, I think you answered your own question, there...the original
poster did ask about the difference between 2 mph and 4 mph. :-)


My point was: you answered with a generality of physics.
Even if the answer (constant caloric expenditure per mile)
is correct, I question whether it is because of the physics.
The body is not a passive mass.

Besides, I question the concept that caloric expenditure is
constant for the same distance and the same person. If you
ever walked 2 MPH, 3 MPH, and 4 MPH, surely you noticed that
those speeds require different amounts of effort. Are you
suggesting that this does not result in caloric expenditure?

Granted: I would not expect the caloric difference to be
great because walking is mostly a pendulum action. Forgive
me for splitting hairs. And believe me: I can be convinced
that I am wrong. But if I am wrong, I would like a more
persuasive or more complete explanation.

It is known that at some speed which differs a bit from
person to person but is usually around 5.5 mph, it's more
mechanically difficult to walk than to run


Well, the Compendium data shows a 14% increase in caloric
expenditure per mile for every 5 MPH increase between 3.5
and 5 MPH -- not a sudden surge at some "knee" in the curve
(no pun intended).

Granted: the Compendium data is anomalous below 3 MPH.
I have not read the study to see if there is explanation.
I wonder if there could be a kinesiological explanation.
For example, even if the effort seems easier, I wonder if
we involve slightly more (small) muscles when walking at
slower speeds, perhaps because of some mechanical differences
(posture). Intuitively, I would think not.

Nevertheless, although you make an interesting point about
walking v. running, it seems off-topic. A question relevant
to walking mechanics might be: as we increase walking speed
-- notably from a loping speed of 2 MPH to a brisk speed of
4 MPH -- does the mechanical "difficulty" increase in some
smooth progression (linear, geometric, exponential, etc)?
Even if so, does the caloric expenditure track the mechanic
"difficulty" curve? And in any case, why or why not?
Perhaps for some physiological or kinesiological reason.

I think the Compendium data suggests a monotonic increase
in caloric expenditure related to walking speed. That also
seems to be common sense (to me). Obviously you disagree;
so do several others. So I might be wrong. But a more
complete explanation would be helpful to me -- perhaps a
kinesiological or physicological one.



  #8  
Old March 8th 04, 10:52 AM
Joe User
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default calories question

I wrote:
Besides, I question the concept that caloric expenditure is
constant for the same distance and the same person. If you
ever walked 2 MPH, 3 MPH, and 4 MPH, surely you noticed that
those speeds require different amounts of effort. Are you
suggesting that this does not result in caloric expenditure?


First, of course I meant "does not result in __more__ caloric
expenditure".

Second, I think we all agree that it does result in more caloric
expenditure __per_hour__. I should have asked: Are you (Denise)
suggesting that the increased caloric expenditure is proportional
to the speed increase?

I must admit that I would expect a proportional increase, as
we see in the Compendium for 2 and 4 MPH. And if that were
generally the case, I agree that the caloric expenditure per
mile would be constant.

But the point is: the increased caloric expenditure is __not__
proportional to the speed increase in general, according to the
Compendium. 2 and 4 MPH are the exception, not the rule.

"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote:
So fast large-strided walking burns exponentially
more calories as the speed increases.


That is what I saw in the data, too. But since I am rusty
with exponential curve fitting and because the data did not
closely fit the exponential curve that Excel produces, I
discovered that the data also fits two straight lines with
different slopes, one from 2 to 3.5 MPH, and the other from
3.5 to 5 MPH.

The linear fits are even better when I apply a theory of
round-off error. Since I do not have the original data,
the reported 2 MPH value of 2.5 MET, for example, could
be any value between 2.450 and 2.549 MET.

Walking faster (OR slower!!) burns more calories per mile,
faster increasing exponentially.


While calories/hour increases exponentially, calories/mile
changes linearly. And oddly, calories/mile __decreases__
between 2 and 3.5 MPH, but increases between 3.5 and 5 MPH.

In any case, these slopes are very different from a constant
amount caloric expenditure.

I've posted on this many times. Denise has not been taking notes,
apparently.


I will try to find those earlier discussions. I would be
very interested in Denise's take on all this, as well as
other qualified individuals.

The compendium is correct, and supports a very interesting
mathematical analysis of walking/running using conic sections--
I have this article buried somewhere.


I still have not found the article. I just have the tables.

In any case, I would be very interested in others' knowledge
of the acceptance of the Compendium, in both the academic and
the fitness communities.
  #9  
Old March 10th 04, 09:00 AM
Proctologically Violated©®
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default calories question



--
"Joe User" wrote in message
om...
I wrote:
Besides, I question the concept that caloric expenditure is
constant for the same distance and the same person. If you
ever walked 2 MPH, 3 MPH, and 4 MPH, surely you noticed that
those speeds require different amounts of effort. Are you
suggesting that this does not result in caloric expenditure?


First, of course I meant "does not result in __more__ caloric
expenditure".

Second, I think we all agree that it does result in more caloric
expenditure __per_hour__. I should have asked: Are you (Denise)
suggesting that the increased caloric expenditure is proportional
to the speed increase?

I must admit that I would expect a proportional increase, as
we see in the Compendium for 2 and 4 MPH. And if that were
generally the case, I agree that the caloric expenditure per
mile would be constant.

But the point is: the increased caloric expenditure is __not__
proportional to the speed increase in general, according to the
Compendium. 2 and 4 MPH are the exception, not the rule.

"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote:
So fast large-strided walking burns exponentially
more calories as the speed increases.


That is what I saw in the data, too. But since I am rusty
with exponential curve fitting and because the data did not
closely fit the exponential curve that Excel produces, I
discovered that the data also fits two straight lines with
different slopes, one from 2 to 3.5 MPH, and the other from
3.5 to 5 MPH.

The linear fits are even better when I apply a theory of
round-off error. Since I do not have the original data,
the reported 2 MPH value of 2.5 MET, for example, could
be any value between 2.450 and 2.549 MET.

Walking faster (OR slower!!) burns more calories per mile,
faster increasing exponentially.


While calories/hour increases exponentially, calories/mile
changes linearly. And oddly, calories/mile __decreases__
between 2 and 3.5 MPH, but increases between 3.5 and 5 MPH.


Actually, not odd at all. The reason it incrases from 2 to 3.5 is
that the contribution of BMR to the total increases proportionally with
alloted time. If the test were done at .5 or 1 mph, you'd see the effect
even more. Imagine the caloric expenditure per mile if you took all day to
walk a mile! Uh, 2,500 cal/mile??

Thus, BMR can blur or even swamp the caloric expenditure of the
activity itself.
Try this:
Find the VO2 for, say, sitting or standing (not BMR, but perhaps
more relevant), subtract that from the VO2's for the various activities at
various speeds, and compare *those* numbers. You might get better
fits/results in your analyses.
This subtraction of BMR or rest VO2 from the total VO2 gives a much
better comparison of the mechanical output of activities or speeds.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll


In any case, these slopes are very different from a constant
amount caloric expenditure.


Because two different processes are involved in the increase in
cals/mile, you would expect two different slopes.

I've posted on this many times. Denise has not been taking notes,
apparently.


I will try to find those earlier discussions. I would be
very interested in Denise's take on all this, as well as
other qualified individuals.

The compendium is correct, and supports a very interesting
mathematical analysis of walking/running using conic sections--
I have this article buried somewhere.


I still have not found the article. I just have the tables.

In any case, I would be very interested in others' knowledge
of the acceptance of the Compendium, in both the academic and
the fitness communities.





  #10  
Old March 30th 04, 10:37 PM
Joel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default calories question

For curve fitting try TableCurve 2D at http://www.systat.com/products/TableCurve2D/

-Joel

(Joe User) wrote in message . com...
I wrote:
Besides, I question the concept that caloric expenditure is
constant for the same distance and the same person. If you
ever walked 2 MPH, 3 MPH, and 4 MPH, surely you noticed that
those speeds require different amounts of effort. Are you
suggesting that this does not result in caloric expenditure?


First, of course I meant "does not result in __more__ caloric
expenditure".

Second, I think we all agree that it does result in more caloric
expenditure __per_hour__. I should have asked: Are you (Denise)
suggesting that the increased caloric expenditure is proportional
to the speed increase?

I must admit that I would expect a proportional increase, as
we see in the Compendium for 2 and 4 MPH. And if that were
generally the case, I agree that the caloric expenditure per
mile would be constant.

But the point is: the increased caloric expenditure is __not__
proportional to the speed increase in general, according to the
Compendium. 2 and 4 MPH are the exception, not the rule.

"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote:
So fast large-strided walking burns exponentially
more calories as the speed increases.


That is what I saw in the data, too. But since I am rusty
with exponential curve fitting and because the data did not
closely fit the exponential curve that Excel produces, I
discovered that the data also fits two straight lines with
different slopes, one from 2 to 3.5 MPH, and the other from
3.5 to 5 MPH.

The linear fits are even better when I apply a theory of
round-off error. Since I do not have the original data,
the reported 2 MPH value of 2.5 MET, for example, could
be any value between 2.450 and 2.549 MET.

Walking faster (OR slower!!) burns more calories per mile,
faster increasing exponentially.


While calories/hour increases exponentially, calories/mile
changes linearly. And oddly, calories/mile __decreases__
between 2 and 3.5 MPH, but increases between 3.5 and 5 MPH.

In any case, these slopes are very different from a constant
amount caloric expenditure.

I've posted on this many times. Denise has not been taking notes,
apparently.


I will try to find those earlier discussions. I would be
very interested in Denise's take on all this, as well as
other qualified individuals.

The compendium is correct, and supports a very interesting
mathematical analysis of walking/running using conic sections--
I have this article buried somewhere.


I still have not found the article. I just have the tables.

In any case, I would be very interested in others' knowledge
of the acceptance of the Compendium, in both the academic and
the fitness communities.

 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
calories burned - HRM vs. Web sites?? Bob Aerobic 24 February 3rd 06 08:04 PM
Effectiveness of Recumbant Bikes? Dan Kaminsky Aerobic 4 February 24th 04 08:01 PM
question about calories.... Proctologically Violated©® Aerobic 0 January 15th 04 01:43 AM
Body Fat Control and Calories burned Isiafs5 Aerobic 1 September 28th 03 10:22 PM
Question regarding calorie burning and weight loss Chris House Aerobic 6 July 3rd 03 03:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:11 PM.


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.