Too much cardio... (Read 3039 times)

Yes, this is likely so.

Sorry sister it's called BEING OLD.

This is the GSP so I'll just say...GROOOOOWWWWWWL

Qx though.......Our bodies do get more efficient at burning fat don't they ? (talking about endurance training here) E.g. Requireing less to get the same results.

Yeah, we get more efficient at running which is the whole point of training. Vapid pop-fitness articles and drive-by personal trainers turn this around and say that the more you run, the less calories you burn, which is absolutely true, but they construe it in a way that is ridiculously misleading. Everytime I hear this bullshit, I get ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS However, the flipside is that the more you run, the better you get at running. If you start out running and run 6 miles in an hour easy, and lets say you burn 800 calories in that hour. So you could say you burn about 130 calories per mile. Now lets say you ran real consistently for a few months, and now when you run for an hour easy, you run 8 miles. It's still the same effort, you're just much more efficient at running. As such, you burn the same 800 calories. So, 100 calories per mile. So yes, the more efficient you get at running, the less effort goes into a given arbitrary output-based unit of work, and therefore running burns less calories per output-based unit of work! Does this mean that as we get more efficient at running we get a less effective workout? Absolutely not, that's ridiculous. All it means is that our metric (the mile, or any other output-based metric) is completely bunk in that it doesn't account for differences in running economy. If our metric is intensity over time, rather than distance, then the differences in running economy, weight, and pretty much anything else is built into the system and you can easily see that the entire concept of more efficient runners getting less of a workout is ridiculous. An hour at 75% effort is the same workout whether the person doing it is a 12 minute miler or a 6 minute miler. Thou shalt ignore pop-fitness articles and critically analyze anything that comes out of gym culture.

Now lets say you ran real consistently for a few months, and now when you run for an hour easy, you run 8 miles. It's still the same effort, you're just much more efficient at running. As such, you burn the same 800 calories. So, 100 calories per mile.

I'm not entirely sure about this logic. I sort of viewed the calories burned like a basic physics problem with the calories burned per mile being essentially constant regardless of how fast, slow, or efficient you ran. It obviously is higher for people with higher weight (more overall energy necessary to move more weight over a given distance) and lower for lighter runners. My take was that your muscles develop so that they require relatively less glycogen per mile and burn relatively more fat/protein during exercise, thereby conserving your glycogen for longer distances so that you don't bonk as distances get longer.

I'm not entirely sure about this logic. I sort of viewed the calories burned like a basic physics problem with the calories burned per mile being essentially constant regardless of how fast, slow, or efficient you ran. It obviously is higher for people with higher weight (more overall energy necessary to move more weight over a given distance) and lower for lighter runners. My take was that your muscles develop so that they require relatively less glycogen per mile and burn relatively more fat/protein during exercise, thereby conserving your glycogen for longer distances so that you don't bonk as distances get longer.

There are essentially two parts of running economy: metabolic efficiency (which you're talking about) and stride efficiency (which is more what I was talking about). Both have a direct effect on the amount of effort/energy it takes to move your body a given distance. Imagine if I ran backwards for 1 mile, would it take the same amount of calories as running forwards would? What if I ran in Zig Zags? (Let's leave the ostriches out of this for now.) While this is a gross exaggeration, it is clear that the more efficient your running stride, the less energy will be required to cover a mile.

There are essentially two parts of running economy: metabolic efficiency (which you're talking about) and stride efficiency (which is more what I was talking about). Both have a direct effect on the amount of effort/energy it takes to move your body a given distance.

Yes. But the latter is nearly insignificant in terms of overall calorie expenditure and really has much more to do with calorie source (i.e., fat versus glycogen). And what Mikey said.

Ryun's efficiency was about 30% better than Shorters. I don't know if there is any data available on casual/beginner runners, but the data in the economy chapters in Lore of Running lead me to believe that it's much more significant than you guys think.

Rate of oxygen consumption at a submaximal running speed.