1. ## Science question about fat burning

Theoretically if you sprinted a mile, jogged a mile and walked a mile wouldnt it require the exact same amount of newtons of force to get the object from a to b regardless of how fast you did it? Or would momentum or things alike come into play?

And how does this translate to calorie burning? surely they would all consume the same amount even though the joules of energy are being recruited from different sources at different speeds ( atp/carbs for sprinting? i think thats right? and energy from fats at slower paces?

i guess what im asking is:

is the first statement true?

and a dumber question - is there a relationship between newtons and joules?

thanks.

2. Originally Posted by anabolictonic
Theoretically if you sprinted a mile, jogged a mile and walked a mile wouldnt it require the exact same amount of newtons of force to get the object from a to b regardless of how fast you did it? Or would momentum or things alike come into play?
running a mile in 4 minutes and walking a mile in 20min requires the same amount of energy
And how does this translate to calorie burning? surely they would all consume the same amount even though the joules of energy are being recruited from different sources at different speeds ( atp/carbs for sprinting? i think thats right? and energy from fats at slower paces?
read up on glycolysis, fermentation and cellular respiration, that is what you are looking for
i guess what im asking is:

is the first statement true?

and a dumber question - is there a relationship between newtons and joules?
One joule is the amount of work done when an applied force of 1 newton moves through a distance of 1 metre in the direction of the force
thanks.
bold

3. Thanks phate

4. AR-Hall of Famer
Join Date
Oct 2006
Location
ShredVille
Posts
11,617
Blog Entries
6
Your correct that you burn about the same amount of energy walking a mile or running a mile. The million dollar question that is a hot research topic right now is how many calories does one burn after the exercise. The amount of work is about the same its just the time it takes you to get to the end of that mile.

This is the steady state vs HIIT debate that is going on right now in the scientific community.

5. Junior Member
Join Date
Sep 2005
Location
USA/Italy
Posts
143
I believe that running, jogging, and walking 1 mile will burn the same amount of calories. I do believe that cardio should never be done with a distance for a goal, but rather a time.

walking + 1 hour = calories burned
jogging + 1 hour = moderate amount of calories burned
running + 1 hour = great amount of calories burned
sprinting + 1 hour = maximum amount of calories burned

The faster you move the more distance you cover in a specific amount of time, the more calories you can burn in that specific amount of time.

I just noticed that

walking
jogging
running
all line up.....hehe

6. I seriously doubt it is the same amount of calories. For the same reason that riding a bike for 10 miles will burn fewer calories than walking it would. When you ride all of the work you do goes into lateral momentum and only air resistance and the resistance intrinsic to the bike mechanism. When you walk the mechanism makes you expend more energy for a given distance because your work is not as efficiently translated into horizontal motion. When you run you are using quite a lot of energy bouncing up and down moving your center of gravity vertically. The return fall is cushioned and absorbed by your legs but not well transferred into horizontal motion. The issue here is that differing movement mechanisms have differing efficiencies.

7. AR-Hall of Famer
Join Date
Oct 2006
Location
ShredVille
Posts
11,617
Blog Entries
6
Originally Posted by BrokenBricks
I seriously doubt it is the same amount of calories. For the same reason that riding a bike for 10 miles will burn fewer calories than walking it would. When you ride all of the work you do goes into lateral momentum and only air resistance and the resistance intrinsic to the bike mechanism. When you walk the mechanism makes you expend more energy for a given distance because your work is not as efficiently translated into horizontal motion. When you run you are using quite a lot of energy bouncing up and down moving your center of gravity vertically. The return fall is cushioned and absorbed by your legs but not well transferred into horizontal motion. The issue here is that differing movement mechanisms have differing efficiencies.

No no it is, you can put a person on a treadmill and hook them up to a respirometer and count the carbons that a person blows off. It gives you a very accurate picture of how much energy a person is using.

8. If you are strictly talking about the calories burned then they are the same... but the benefit of running vs. walking on your heart and physics... the running/jogging is much better... if you are only looking to burn calories then i guess you could walk 4 miles vs run 4 miles...I would rather capitalize on the other benefits though...

9. Originally Posted by MuscleScience
No no it is, you can put a person on a treadmill and hook them up to a respirometer and count the carbons that a person blows off. It gives you a very accurate picture of how much energy a person is using.

10. The point that seems to be overlooked here is bodybuilders doing cardio are not worried how many calories they are burning they are worried about how much fat they are burning. Conventional wisdom suggests a lower intensity, longer duration cardio session burns a higher RATIO of fat calories of total calories burned.

11. Originally Posted by BrokenBricks
he probably performed the study, it's what he does for a living, and you can't compare someone walking to someone biking, you are leaving out mechanical advantage completely in that analogy or the tour de france would not be possible

12. AR-Hall of Famer
Join Date
Oct 2006
Location
ShredVille
Posts
11,617
Blog Entries
6
Originally Posted by Phate
he probably performed the study, it's what he does for a living, and you can't compare someone walking to someone biking, you are leaving out mechanical advantage completely in that analogy or the tour de france would not be possible
Thanks Phate,

Actually Doctor Cooper of the Famed Copper Institute did most of the ground work in aerobic metabolism. A lot of what exercise physiologist do in the lab regarding things like VO2max testing is based off Dr. Cooper's body of work along with others.

13. Originally Posted by Phate
he probably performed the study, it's what he does for a living, and you can't compare someone walking to someone biking, you are leaving out mechanical advantage completely in that analogy or the tour de france would not be possible
That is the *point*. I'm not comparing them I am drawing a distinction between them. I am also drawing a distinction between running and walking. The mechanisms are different. That said, if anyone is willing to present a paper from a reputable journal showing treadmill testing of subjects with respirometry I would certainly concede. Without data my intuition is that there is a difference between the two.

VO2 max has nothing to do with this question.

14. AR-Hall of Famer
Join Date
Oct 2006
Location
ShredVille
Posts
11,617
Blog Entries
6
Originally Posted by BrokenBricks
That is the *point*. I'm not comparing them I am drawing a distinction between them. I am also drawing a distinction between running and walking. The mechanisms are different. That said, if anyone is willing to present a paper from a reputable journal showing treadmill testing of subjects with respirometry I would certainly concede. Without data my intuition is that there is a difference between the two.

VO2 max has nothing to do with this question.
I dont know what else to say, you learn this relationship between work and energy expenditure in year one of any exercise science/kinesiology degree.

15. Originally Posted by MuscleScience
I dont know what else to say, you learn this relationship between work and energy expenditure in year one of any exercise science/kinesiology degree.
What is important to realize is that distance is not a measure of work. I was going to try and explain conceptually how in principle I was on solid ground. It is easier to just find a study showing the facts. If you would like a physical explanation of how this is true I can give my thoughts.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150

Energy expenditure of walking and running: comparison with prediction equations.

PURPOSE: This study established the published prediction equations for the energy expenditure of walking and running compared with the measured values. To make this comparison we first determined whether differences exist in energy expenditure for 1600 m of walking versus running, and whether energy expenditure differences occur due to being on the track or treadmill. METHODS: Energy was measured via indirect calorimetry in 24 subjects while walking (1.41 m.s(-1)) and running (2.82 m.s(-1)) 1600 m on the treadmill. A subgroup also performed the 1600-m run/walk on the track. The measured energy expenditures were compared with published prediction equations. RESULTS: Running required more energy (P < 0.01) for 1600 m than walking (treadmill: running 481 +/- 20.0 kJ, walking 340 +/- 14 kJ; track: running 480 +/- 23 kJ, walking 334 +/- 14 kJ) on both the track and treadmill. Predictions using the ACSM or Leger equations for running, and the Pandolf equation for walking, were similar to the actual energy expenditures for running and walking (total error: ACSM: -20 and 14.4 kJ, respectively; Legers walking: -10.1 kJ; Pandolf walking: -10.0 kJ). An overestimation (P < 0.01) for 1600 m was found with the McArdle's table for walking and running energy expenditure and with van der Walt's prediction for walking energy expenditure, whereas the Epstein equation underestimated running energy expenditure (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Running has a greater energy cost than walking on both the track and treadmill. For running, the Leger equation and ACSM prediction model appear to be the most suitable for the prediction of running energy expenditure. The ACSM and Pandolf prediction equation also closely predict walking energy expenditure, whereas the McArdle's table or the equations by Epstein and van der Walt were not as strong predictors of energy expenditure.

16. AR-Hall of Famer
Join Date
Oct 2006
Location
ShredVille
Posts
11,617
Blog Entries
6
Originally Posted by BrokenBricks
What is important to realize is that distance is not a measure of work. I was going to try and explain conceptually how in principle I was on solid ground. It is easier to just find a study showing the facts. If you would like a physical explanation of how this is true I can give my thoughts.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150

Energy expenditure of walking and running: comparison with prediction equations.

PURPOSE: This study established the published prediction equations for the energy expenditure of walking and running compared with the measured values. To make this comparison we first determined whether differences exist in energy expenditure for 1600 m of walking versus running, and whether energy expenditure differences occur due to being on the track or treadmill. METHODS: Energy was measured via indirect calorimetry in 24 subjects while walking (1.41 m.s(-1)) and running (2.82 m.s(-1)) 1600 m on the treadmill. A subgroup also performed the 1600-m run/walk on the track. The measured energy expenditures were compared with published prediction equations. RESULTS: Running required more energy (P < 0.01) for 1600 m than walking (treadmill: running 481 +/- 20.0 kJ, walking 340 +/- 14 kJ; track: running 480 +/- 23 kJ, walking 334 +/- 14 kJ) on both the track and treadmill. Predictions using the ACSM or Leger equations for running, and the Pandolf equation for walking, were similar to the actual energy expenditures for running and walking (total error: ACSM: -20 and 14.4 kJ, respectively; Legers walking: -10.1 kJ; Pandolf walking: -10.0 kJ). An overestimation (P < 0.01) for 1600 m was found with the McArdle's table for walking and running energy expenditure and with van der Walt's prediction for walking energy expenditure, whereas the Epstein equation underestimated running energy expenditure (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Running has a greater energy cost than walking on both the track and treadmill. For running, the Leger equation and ACSM prediction model appear to be the most suitable for the prediction of running energy expenditure. The ACSM and Pandolf prediction equation also closely predict walking energy expenditure, whereas the McArdle's table or the equations by Epstein and van der Walt were not as strong predictors of energy expenditure.

Nice find!!

Were there any review articles to link to?

I am interested in what the body of current evidence says. I have read contradictory reports on this subject, and was classically taught even in grad school that there was no significant difference between the two.

17. Originally Posted by MuscleScience
Nice find!!

Were there any review articles to link to?

I am interested in what the body of current evidence says. I have read contradictory reports on this subject, and was classically taught even in grad school that there was no significant difference between the two.
how is indirect calorimetry measured?

18. Originally Posted by Phate
how is indirect calorimetry measured?
Sample exhaled gases and count up the CO2 molecules. This number has a strict relationship to the amount of calories expended. The relationship lags a bit and if you generate a large amount of lactic acid that represents energy expended which does not generate CO2 immediately. But as the lactic acid is metabolized the CO2 debt is paid and can be accounted for. This is why it takes a while to catch your breath after stopping strenuous exercise.

19. Originally Posted by BrokenBricks
Sample exhaled gases and count up the CO2 molecules. This number has a strict relationship to the amount of calories expended. The relationship lags a bit and if you generate a large amount of lactic acid that represents energy expended which does not generate CO2 immediately. But as the lactic acid is metabolized the CO2 debt is paid and can be accounted for. This is why it takes a while to catch your breath after stopping strenuous exercise.
so i'm figuring direct calorimetry would be constant measuring of exhaled gases?

20. AR-Hall of Famer
Join Date
Oct 2006
Location
ShredVille
Posts
11,617
Blog Entries
6
Originally Posted by Phate
how is indirect calorimetry measured?
Basically anything that predicts heat output outside of a direct calorimetry or bomb calorimetry.

In this study most likely a metabolic cart. Without the full version of the article i wouldnt be able to tell exactly, usually they state what machine and model is being used.

Direct is very accurate for resting values. Where as indirect is better for accessing exercising values. Simple because its hard to account for the heat that is produce from exercise equipment in a bomb calorimetry. I myself have never done direct calorimetry on humans, rats is another story.

21. AR-Hall of Famer
Join Date
Oct 2006
Location
ShredVille
Posts
11,617
Blog Entries
6
Originally Posted by BrokenBricks
Sample exhaled gases and count up the CO2 molecules. This number has a strict relationship to the amount of calories expended. The relationship lags a bit and if you generate a large amount of lactic acid that represents energy expended which does not generate CO2 immediately. But as the lactic acid is metabolized the CO2 debt is paid and can be accounted for. This is why it takes a while to catch your breath after stopping strenuous exercise.
RER accounts for that. unless you have a drip going and are sampling periodically, which is of course more accurate.

22. Originally Posted by MuscleScience
Basically anything that predicts heat output outside of a direct calorimetry or bomb calorimetry.

In this study most likely a metabolic cart. Without the full version of the article i wouldnt be able to tell exactly, usually they state what machine and model is being used.

Direct is very accurate for resting values. Where as indirect is better for accessing exercising values. Simple because its hard to account for the heat that is produce from exercise equipment in a bomb calorimetry. I myself have never done direct calorimetry on humans, rats is another story.
okay, so my above inference is obviously false

23. AR-Hall of Famer
Join Date
Oct 2006
Location
ShredVille
Posts
11,617
Blog Entries
6
Originally Posted by Phate
so i'm figuring direct calorimetry would be constant measuring of exhaled gases?
It depends direct measure heat production.

indirect predicts how much heat is produced based on Carbon counting.

24. Originally Posted by MuscleScience
It depends direct measure heat production.

indirect predicts how much heat is produced based on Carbon counting.
gotcha, thanks for the lesson MuscleScience and BrokenBrick, guess i'll stop the highjack now, lol

25. AR-Hall of Famer
Join Date
Oct 2006
Location
ShredVille
Posts
11,617
Blog Entries
6
Originally Posted by Phate
gotcha, thanks for the lesson MuscleScience and BrokenBrick, guess i'll stop the highjack now, lol
Sorry i didnt explain it very well at first.

26. Originally Posted by Phate
so i'm figuring direct calorimetry would be constant measuring of exhaled gases?
No, direct calorimetry is when you directly measure the production of heat while accounting for any actual work done. Burning a gram of sugar in a closed vessel and seeing how hot the contraption got would be direct calorimetry. Doesn't work so well with people as you would imagine.

Indirect implies using either O2 or CO2 as proxies for energy expenditure. This is possible because all human energy production relies on consumption of O2 and production of CO2 in fixed ratios. (Anaerobic metabolism does not, but a consequence of homeostasis is that your body will dispose of the products of anaerobic metabolism by aerobic means, just at a delay, so all expenditure is still accounted for with O2 or CO2).

To understand why you can use O2 or CO2 all you really need to do is look at the chemical equation for glucose catabolism.

C6H12O6 (glucose) + 6O2 = 6CO2 + 6H20

This reaction does not take place in the body, but it is the sum of the reactions. You can see that there are 6 O2 consumed and 6 CO2 produced for each glucose molecule. If you know either the amount of O2 consumed *or* CO2 produced you know how much glucose you consumed.

Oh, I didn't answer the question fully. So if you want to know *total* calories burned or O2 used or CO2 produced (all equivalent in terms of information) then you need to add up *all* of the CO2 or O2. So either you do constant measuring or you confine the gases to some space and measure once (lets say i locked you in an air tight room and had you breathe for an hour. I don't need to measure in real time to know how much O2 you sucked up).

Edit: I got beat to it.
Last edited by BrokenBricks; 12-13-2008 at 10:44 PM.

27. AR-Hall of Famer
Join Date
Oct 2006
Location
ShredVille
Posts
11,617
Blog Entries
6
I think it will be very interesting to see how much exercise physiology changes in the next 5-10 years. Just in the last 5 years so much has been questioned and has changed. Even the Sliding filament Theory is being question, which at one point was almost exercise gospel. I am in fact guilty at times of not questioning enough of what I have learned to be true in regards of exercise. The problem is there is so much to know that it virtually impossible to keep up on everything.

28. AR-Hall of Famer
Join Date
Oct 2006
Location
ShredVille
Posts
11,617
Blog Entries
6
Originally Posted by BrokenBricks
No, direct calorimetry is when you directly measure the production of heat while accounting for any actual work done. Burning a gram of sugar in a closed vessel and seeing how hot the contraption got would be direct calorimetry. Doesn't work so well with people as you would imagine.

Indirect implies using either O2 or CO2 as proxies for energy expenditure. This is possible because all human energy production relies on consumption of O2 and production of CO2 in fixed ratios. (Anaerobic metabolism does not, but a consequence of homeostasis is that your body will dispose of the products of anaerobic metabolism by aerobic means, just at a delay, so all expenditure is still accounted for with O2 or CO2).

To understand why you can use O2 or CO2 all you really need to do is look at the chemical equation for glucose catabolism.

C6H12O6 (glucose) + 6O2 = 6CO2 + 6H20

This reaction does not take place in the body, but it is the sum of the reactions. You can see that there are 6 O2 consumed and 6 CO2 produced for each glucose molecule. If you know either the amount of O2 consumed *or* CO2 produced you know how much glucose you consumed.
Yeah that is a very important assumption...

I would be interested in where you think protein fits into energy usage and exercise. Just wondering what camp your in on this and I think you will know what I mean.....

29. Originally Posted by MuscleScience
Yeah that is a very important assumption...

I would be interested in where you think protein fits into energy usage and exercise. Just wondering what camp your in on this and I think you will know what I mean.....
No I'm not sure what you mean. Just full disclosure I am a Biochemistry major and doctor in Emergency Medicine (not done with residency). My exposure to most of this is either related to my undergrad degree or at 2-3 degrees of separation via medical school. You are going to be way more hip to the technical details than I am (and practical details for that matter). I'll take your word on most of this jazz. You just take my word on the infection thread, heh. (as you generously have)

30. AR-Hall of Famer
Join Date
Oct 2006
Location
ShredVille
Posts
11,617
Blog Entries
6
Originally Posted by BrokenBricks
No I'm not sure what you mean. Just full disclosure I am a Biochemistry major and doctor in Emergency Medicine (not done with residency). My exposure to most of this is either related to my undergrad degree or at 2-3 degrees of separation via medical school. You are going to be way more hip to the technical details than I am (and practical details for that matter). I'll take your word on most of this jazz. You just take my word on the infection thread, heh. (as you generously have)
Oh I will admit when my knowledge is lacking somewhere. The first thing you learn in science and medicine as well is when your going to be humbled by someone that has more knowledge on specific subject. If you dont it can be a bad scene as I am sure you have seen.....

I thought the way you were talking that you were some sort of Physiologist which i guess you are. Actually if your up for it, I wanted to write a more technically sound thread about the risk of infection. But I wanted to make it were the common person on here could understand it and use terms that the lay person would know. Your obviously much more experience in that realm and i think you could add valuable insight on the matter.

What I was meaning by the protein question is that the last few Exercise Physiology conferences I have attended had something on how gluconeogensis has been under represented in caloric expenditure. There are some very divided camps on the issue. If you had been to them you would know what I mean....LOL

31. I'm not sure what I could contribute to a discussion of infection. It is important for people to understand that while using sterile technique and pharmacy grade drugs their risk of infection is vanishingly small. While using underground drugs and shabby technique they are essentially IV drug users. I am not making a moral distinction but a medical one. They are at risk of limb and life threatening infections and at the first hint of a problem they need to see a doctor and not consult the masses on AR.