7 ms·

Hmmm... You made me break out the calculator. I'm thinking 150 w is probably about right for the effort for a 10 minute mile. 150 wH is roughtly 130 kcal. So

Hmmm... You made me break out the calculator. I'm thinking 150 w is probably about right for the effort for a 10 minute mile. 150 wH is roughtly 130 kcal. So divided by 6 that gives just over 20 kcal. So you are right! It shows you how easy it is to fall into the trap of repeating things you've heard :-P

js2 10y ago
Now wait just a second here. Looking at: http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walki... Which summarizes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446673 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446673 A 156 lb subject burns 112.5 kcal/mile running a 10 minute mile. But that's gross calories. A random BMR calculator (5'8" male, 156 lbs, 45 y/o i.e. myself + 10 lbs) gives ~ 1600 kcal/day, which is 1.1 kcal/minute, or 11 kcal in 10 minutes. So that's a net kcal burn of pretty close to 100 kcal/mile. What am I missing? (Aside, I ran over 3300 miles last year and did not lose weight; I don't doubt the futility of trying to lose weight through exercise alone.)
- mikekchar 10y ago
  I think the difference is the amount of energy that you burn directly from the running and the amount of energy that you burn due to increased metabolism/repairing your body due to the exercise. The first is not going to be that different between people, but the second could possibly be quite variable. I spent a bit of time trying to find primary sources for the justification of these numbers and I couldn't find anything easily. I don't doubt they exist, but I've been burned enough times through sloppy interpretations of scientific papers that it probably makes sense to take a close look before I shoot off my mouth again ;-) I suppose either way, the original point stands -- it's incredibly easy to eat your way out of progress made with exercise.

js2 10y ago

Now wait just a second here. Looking at: http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walki... Which summarizes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446673 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446673 A 156 lb subject burns 112.5 kcal/mile running a 10 minute mile. But that's gross calories. A random BMR calculator (5'8" male, 156 lbs, 45 y/o i.e. myself + 10 lbs) gives ~ 1600 kcal/day, which is 1.1 kcal/minute, or 11 kcal in 10 minutes. So that's a net kcal burn of pretty close to 100 kcal/mile. What am I missing? (Aside, I ran over 3300 miles last year and did not lose weight; I don't doubt the futility of trying to lose weight through exercise alone.)

mikekchar 10y ago
I think the difference is the amount of energy that you burn directly from the running and the amount of energy that you burn due to increased metabolism/repairing your body due to the exercise. The first is not going to be that different between people, but the second could possibly be quite variable. I spent a bit of time trying to find primary sources for the justification of these numbers and I couldn't find anything easily. I don't doubt they exist, but I've been burned enough times through sloppy interpretations of scientific papers that it probably makes sense to take a close look before I shoot off my mouth again ;-) I suppose either way, the original point stands -- it's incredibly easy to eat your way out of progress made with exercise.