[nash1]

I was running today, and some skinny runt ran past me at double speed  .
The only reason I run is to try and keep me weight down, and that means burning calories. So I was thinking, if I followed this bloke, would I burn more calories?
From school physics, I seem to remember energy is mass x distance. So if I walk, jog or sprint let's say 5km, I still carry my weight for 5km, i.e. same amount of energy (and therefore calories). Is this right?

I realise it would be better to run if you were doing a fixed time, but for a fixed distance does it matter how fast you go? It doesn't seem right?

[Houdini]

Y´know Nash, by opening skinnyfuck threads such as this you are seriously damaging what slim chances you ever had of joining Gout Club...

[nash1]

I already got me a membership...

[webbo]

I was running today, and some skinny runt ran past me at double speed  .
The only reason I run is to try and keep me weight down, and that means burning calories. So I was thinking, if I followed this bloke, would I burn more calories?
From school physics, I seem to remember energy is mass x distance. So if I walk, jog or sprint let's say 5km, I still carry my weight for 5km, i.e. same amount of energy (and therefore calories). Is this right?

I realise it would be better to run if you were doing a fixed time, but for a fixed distance does it matter how fast you go? It doesn't seem right?

your heart will be going faster if you run therefore increasing your metabolism both during the run and for some time after.

[Timatron]

Calories are a measure of energy - 1 calorie is enough energy to raise the temperature of 1 litre of water by 1 degree centigrade (or 1 pint of water by 1 degree farenheight).  It takes more energy to move bigger objects than smaller objects, more energy is also used the further an object is moved, and more energy is used the faster you move an object.  Pretty obvious really.

Therefore, you will burn more calories by running further, faster and while wearing a weight belt.  Or by doing heavy chin-ups, squats, clean and jerks etc. etc.

Also, every lb of muscle you gain burns about an extra 50 calories over a 24 hour period just by existing.  But that extra muscle will also mean you can move more weight further, faster.  So, the more muscle you get, the easier it is to get rid of the fat.

The point of all this is that cardio exercise is not always the best way to lose fat.  For example, I haven't done any cardio exercise for years, but strength train all the time and have a body fat % below 5%.

[Paul B]

The point of all this is that cardio exercise is not always the best way to lose fat.  For example, I haven't done any cardio exercise for years, but strength train all the time and have a body fat % below 5%.

Nice on Bruce, and that was reliably measured using?

[Timatron]

Either calipers or electrodes.  Obviously not going to be 100% accurate as no measure truly is.  But it's certainly consistent and you wouldn't say I'd eaten all the pies if you saw me.

[Stubbs]

So do you carefully control your calorie intake to keep this ridiculously low fat %age?

[Paul B]

you find it to be consitent? I find that those damn things vary depending on whether or not you've had anything to drink etc.

[a dense loner]

would just like to point out that the only people who have bodyfat below 5% are being eaten by worms

[Timatron]

What's ridiculous about having a body fat % around the 5% mark?  I've met many people in my time working in gyms and studying sport science at uni who have had similar body fat %.  Looking at the guys at my local climbing wall I'd say many of them also had similar %.  Like I said, calipers and electrodes are never going to be 100% accurate (and I mean consistent when you keep the variables the same, such as not drinking a lot of water before testing etc.), so maybe these % would be higher if you cut all these people up and measure all their constituent parts.  Who knows?  You've got to go on the best measure you've got.  Obviously, water immersion is more accurate, but I hear the kit's a bit expensive.  It's definitely possible to have a body composition like this and not be "worm food".  Just check out the stats on a lot of top olympic athletes. Top body builders wouldn't be happy until they were below 3%.  I personally don't find I have to monitor my calorific intake, but I feel that I've got a good "feel" for how much I eat, and my diet is mostly made up of foods that people would regard as healthy.  The most important part of my lifestyle is that I train hard, regularly.

[webbo]

you ain't shani from cockfax by any chance.

[Stubbs]

What's ridiculous is that essential body fat is around 2-5% for men, so 5% puts you at the extremely low end of the healthy limit.  May I ask what grade you climb with this low fat level? 

Checking the stats of olympic athletes is a useless comparison - bodybuilders especially will only reduce their fat %age before competitions, so for most of the year they are at a healthy level - you are talking about being at a very low %age the whole time.

[Timatron]

No i'm not Shani.  Why is looking at the bodyfat % of other athlete's useless?  It's an example of how people can have low body fat, but are perfectly healthy.  I've maintained this level for many years and have suffered no ill effect.  Your comments regarding low body fat and ill health are well founded, but I suspect that genetics play a big part in what is healthy for one person compared to others.  In regards to what grade I climb, I don't see how that's relevant as anyone could have very low body fat, but if they've got weak fingers they aren't going to get up anything.

[Paul B]

I believe you to be ill informed on this matter, 5% is ludicrously low its as simple as that, many people (myself included) might read 5% from one of those machines down the gym but its utter crap. Bodybuilders dip below the essential level periodically but not often and I think if you ACTUALLY go and read schwarzenegger's bible (2nd edition) you'll find an anecdote about some guy who thought his bodyfat was 3% or lower using these stupid machines, he thought he'd win but it was clear to the others that his fat percentage was much higher, the mirror never lies.

[Jaspersharpe]

  May I ask what grade you climb with this low fat level? 

At a guess I'd say he was trying to break into 8a (font)........

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,7901.0.html

[n_man]

Work done is a measure of energy (and can easily be converted into calories, as now seen on new style packaging on food produce).
We calculate this by work done = force x distance.

It does not matter how fast you go carrying the same weight the same distance equals the same energy.
However, power measures how quickly work is done (how quickly energy is used).

Calculated by power = work done / time.

So running faster will be the same energy use but a higher power use (you will feel more tired faster as you are using energy faster).

Classic Physics type catch 'em out at a higher level type question.

Going further and running with more weight will use more energy, so you will burn more calories. Ironically enough it may use less power if you go slowly though - although this has no realtion to calories).

[Johnny B Badd]

I haven't done any cardio exercise for years, but strength train all the time and have a body fat % below 5%.

You can actually buy the 'Timatron' doll:

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/51093232.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1939847EC77F5F8D1CE1D356BC907FEF8CBA40A659CEC4C8CB6

 

JBB.

[a dense loner]

don't like to be seen agreeing with paul cos of our clique status but he's right, only because he's agreeing with me otherwse he would be wrong, i digress. all this 5% bodyfat is a myth perpetuated by old measuring techniques which have been found to have no correlation with reality. you as a trained individual probably do have 5% if you use this approach, however it is not correct.
saltbeef join us, let the clique become whole again

[account_inactive]

Dense has the same body fat % as a pork pie 

[webbo]

i thought he'd be more a steak and kidney pudding man.

[Nibile]

running is a powerful tool, that you can customize for many needs.
running for long long distances at the right heart rate (roughly the double of your resting rate) should burn the excess fat (after the first 30 mins more or less). at higher heart rates, it becomes more a cardio training: you'll burn more, of course, but you'll start also to lose lean muscle in other parts of the body. you can see it just by watching how muscles decrease from sprinters to long distance runners.

i really don't understand, and i know it's a limit, this emphasis on running. i train alot just by doing fingerboars sessions, campusboard sessions and indoor sessions. i couldn't go for a run neither after any session, neither in a rest day. and now i'm fitter, stronger, and more beautiful than when i used to run 1000+ kms a year.

ps i have my 5% body fat in my cheecks alone!

[webbo]

i'm not surprised you don't understand  running if you think running at double your resting heart rate will burn fat.when i was cycle racing at the age of 40+ my resting h/r was 36. twice this 72 is about equivalent to breaking wind.

[slackline]

....i'm fitter, stronger, and more beautiful...

...and modest 

ps i have my 5% body fat in my cheecks alone!

lol 

[Nibile]

i'm not surprised you don't understand  running if you think running at double your resting heart rate will burn fat.when i was cycle racing at the age of 40+ my resting h/r was 36. twice this 72 is about equivalent to breaking wind.

it's not an opinion. and it's not a matter of numbers. to each his own rate.