RunningAHEAD - Topic: bpm and calories burned...

bpm and calories burned... (Read 535 times)

shyrunner07	posted: 3/21/2007 at 4:23 AM
	this was posted on the podrunner group today...thought it might be of interest to some... I haven't played with the app myself, as my computer wants to take foooooooorever to load it, however i've seen some happy reviews about it in the group... (apologies if this was already posted elsewhere! ) http://rickosborne.org/blog/?p=134

jEfFgObLuE view log Frustrating Project	posted: 3/21/2007 at 2:40 PM
	This is pretty interesting. I'm a little bothered by this conclusion, though: "Long story short: if you’re running to lose weight, slow down your music but keep the same speed (pace). If you’re running for distance, crank up the BPM." While this is technically true, it's encouraging you to be inefficient (i.e. slow down your stride rate (bpm)) to expend more energy, and I think in the long run (no pun intended), that's a bad idea. Running at a slower bpm may burn more calories, but you also pound more b/c there's more "hang time". Ultimately, you want to be more efficient so you can go faster with less energy expenditure. Better to run at what feels like a natural, efficient cadence rather than try to match the music, IMHO.
	20th Century: 800m: 2:04 \|1600m: 4:37 \|3200m: 10:06 \|5k: 16:23 \|10k: 35:38 \|15k: 54:20 25k: 1:35:59 21st Century: 5k: 19:42 \|10k: 43:00 "Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth." Steve Allen Oswald acted alone.

Rick O

posted: 3/21/2007 at 3:51 PM

Hey there. I'm the guy whose blog is mentioned above.

Quote from jEfFgObLuE on 3/21/2007 at 2:40 PM:

While this is technically true, it's encouraging you to be inefficient (i.e. slow down your stride rate (bpm)) to expend more energy, and I think in the long run (no pun intended), that's a bad idea.

Yeah ... I was thinking the same thing last night as I ran. While I know that the majority of runners aren't going to try to do something as dumb as try to run at 90 BPM just for the extra calories ... the cynic in me knows that someone, somewhere probably will.

Where I was going with that was that if you are training to go distance, you probably want to work up to faster and faster BPMs, but if you are working out to lose weight it would behoove you to stay at lower BPMs for the time being. I definitely do not want people pounding along and destroying their knees and ankles because they think they will lose more weight that way. Really, I just wanted people to stop and think about their pace, as how it relates to work is a bit counter-intuitive.

I've updated that blog entry to point this out more explicitly.

-R

jEfFgObLuE view log Frustrating Project	posted: 3/21/2007 at 3:56 PM
	Rick, Thanks for the information and the update. I like your blog, and that's a nice piece of software, BTW. Cheers, Jeff
	20th Century: 800m: 2:04 \|1600m: 4:37 \|3200m: 10:06 \|5k: 16:23 \|10k: 35:38 \|15k: 54:20 25k: 1:35:59 21st Century: 5k: 19:42 \|10k: 43:00 "Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth." Steve Allen Oswald acted alone.

Berner view log	posted: 3/21/2007 at 3:58 PM modified: 3/21/2007 at 4:00 PM
	This sounds like voodoo and nonsense to me. Unless and until I see a respected physiologist support this conclusion, it strikes me as weight-loss bunk. In fact, I suspect its nothing more than a corollary of the commonly-repeated myth than you "burn more fat" at 60% Max HR than at 80% Max HR. And jeffgoblue is right ... if you want to slow down your running (nothing wrong with that) you are better off shortening your stride length than trying to hit an arbitrarily low stride rate. Caveat emptor on this one, folks.
	How To Run a Marathon: Step 1 - start running. There is no Step 2.

shyrunner07	posted: 3/21/2007 at 4:03 PM
	embarrassed i'm still kinda green to this running thang, so trying to figure out stride length and bpm seems confusing... But it seems like a fun tool to mess around with..../gets into trouble with idle time

Berner view log	posted: 3/21/2007 at 4:25 PM
	No reason to be embarrassed. My opinion is just that ... an opinion. Strongly held, true, but an opinion nonetheless. I think its a good idea for new runners to explore the technical side of the sport. I know I still do. But do approach your research with a certain degree of skepticism, since not everything out there is 100% accurate (including me!).
	How To Run a Marathon: Step 1 - start running. There is no Step 2.

Mile Collector view log Abs of Flabs	posted: 3/21/2007 at 4:29 PM
	Quote from Berner on 3/21/2007 at 3:58 PM: This sounds like voodoo and nonsense to me. Unless and until I see a respected physiologist support this conclusion, it strikes me as weight-loss bunk. In fact, I suspect its nothing more than a corollary of the commonly-repeated myth than you "burn more fat" at 60% Max HR than at 80% Max HR. And jeffgoblue is right ... if you want to slow down your running (nothing wrong with that) you are better off shortening your stride length than trying to hit an arbitrarily low stride rate. Caveat emptor on this one, folks. I'm siding with Berner on this one. Many people start running to lose weight, and I commend them on their efforts. We can safely assume two things: that they are a heavier than they liked and they're new to running. Although running with a reduced stride rate might burn more calories (I don't know if it does or does not), it's probably not a good idea for this group of people. New runners' ankles and knees are weaker than folks that have been doing it for years. Compounded by the extra weight, running with reduced stride rate will put unnecessary strain on the joints. Like everything else, we need to ease into running. Run with a form that is natural and easy to you. Granted you might be burning fewer calories, but you can compensate for that by running farther once your body gets accustomed to the running and becomes stronger. The extra calories burned with a reduced stride rate is not worth the runner's knee or torn ligaments. As Berner said, caveat emptor.
	Beantown Runners \| On the Bench

jEfFgObLuE view log Frustrating Project	posted: 3/21/2007 at 4:35 PM
	Quote from shyrunner07 on 3/21/2007 at 4:03 PM: embarrassed i'm still kinda green to this running thang, so trying to figure out stride length and bpm seems confusing... But it seems like a fun tool to mess around with..../gets into trouble with idle time Nothing to be embarrassed about: you've stimulated an interesting and worthwhile discussion! Like a lot of have said, run at a cadence that feels natural to you. Cheers, Jeff
	20th Century: 800m: 2:04 \|1600m: 4:37 \|3200m: 10:06 \|5k: 16:23 \|10k: 35:38 \|15k: 54:20 25k: 1:35:59 21st Century: 5k: 19:42 \|10k: 43:00 "Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth." Steve Allen Oswald acted alone.

shyrunner07	posted: 3/21/2007 at 4:49 PM
	how do you figure out if your stride is matching the bpm? i'm still trying to master the "one foot in front of the other" technique...lol

jEfFgObLuE view log Frustrating Project	posted: 3/21/2007 at 4:53 PM
	Quote from shyrunner07 on 3/21/2007 at 4:49 PM: how do you figure out if your stride is matching the bpm? i'm still trying to master the "one foot in front of the other" technique...lol Are you talking about stride matching the BPM of your music? If that's the case, then it's matching when your feet are hitting with the beat. Otherwise, you'll notice if your footstrikes are faster or slower than the beat of tune you're jammin' to.
	20th Century: 800m: 2:04 \|1600m: 4:37 \|3200m: 10:06 \|5k: 16:23 \|10k: 35:38 \|15k: 54:20 25k: 1:35:59 21st Century: 5k: 19:42 \|10k: 43:00 "Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth." Steve Allen Oswald acted alone.

shyrunner07	posted: 3/21/2007 at 4:55 PM
	omg, duh...that makes sense! chalk that up as my dumb question du jour!

Rick O

posted: 3/21/2007 at 4:56 PM

Quote from Berner on 3/21/2007 at 3:58 PM:

This sounds like voodoo and nonsense to me. [..] Caveat emptor on this one, folks.

Definitely!

My intent was more to stir thought than to provide fitness advice. I included a wide range of BPMs not to show the drastic ways you can screw with your body, but because I know everyone has their own pace.

As for the voodoo part ... I admit that it's been a while since I took a serious calculus class. I'm sure I'm probably off by a little. But! From a theory point of view ... I think it's sound. Think about how much fuel and energy it takes to launch the space shuttle straight upwards to only ~300 miles. It takes far less energy to move 300 miles horizontally. Your car can do it on a tank of gasoline - no solid rocket booster required.

-R