Forums >Running 101>Too much cardio...
Good Bad & The Monkey
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
A Saucy Wench
Sorry sister it's called BEING OLD.
I have become Death, the destroyer of electronic gadgets
"When I got too tired to run anymore I just pretended I wasnt tired and kept running anyway" - dd, age 7
This is the GSP so I'll just say...GROOOOOWWWWWWL
"Good-looking people have no spine. Their art never lasts. They get the girls, but we're smarter." - Lester Bangs
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.
The metaphor is this: Our body is a campfire, exercise is air and food is wood. If we decrease the wood and increase the air (i.e., as wind), the fire will get blown out.
------------------------------------- 5K - 18:25 - 3/19/11 10K - 39:38 - 12/13/09 1/2 - 1:29:38 - 5/30/10 Full - 3:45:40 - 5/27/07
Dave
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 ran a mile and I liked it, liked it, liked it. dgb2n@yahoo.com
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.
Runners run
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.
Ryun's economy was about 30% better than Shorters.