For the past few months my cardio has consisted of doing a 6 k run in around 30 mins, out in the open, 6 days a week. This used to kill me when i first started it, but now i hardly feel it, and thus feel that it probably doesnt cause much in the way of weight loss anymore. So i was thinking bout changing it up, but am not too sure whats the best change to make? Should up the distance or keep the same distance but try to run faster and faster? which is better for fat loss?
P.S. My 'HIIT' consists of 2 days of soccer every week...
06-18-2008, 10:41 AM #1
Increase running distance or speed?
06-18-2008, 11:53 AM #2
Without knowing anything about you, goals, body type etc.. I would say try to run a certain distance, as fast as you can, but aiming for about 30 minutes of cardio.
So, increase distance slightly, and try to cover that in less than 30 minutes. I say this because for this type of cardio, I think ~30min is probably the right amount of time for an average person.
Or, what I would personally do is split into 20 minute HIIT (with warmup and cooldown) and longer 45-60 minute runs.
Soccer is not HIIT. You should be pooped after 15-20 minutes, otherwise the intensity is not high enough. It's certainly counts as cardio of course.
06-18-2008, 11:58 AM #3
I think you should do HIIT.
I do cardio like I would newbie weight training. For example, each lap is a quarter mile. So, 3x10 laps, inbetween the sets of 10 laps about 5-10 minutes of rest. And inbetween every lap I rest for a minute. Then the next day I increase it to 3x11, next day 3x12, etc.My journal (funny IMHO :<) http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=108474801
06-18-2008, 12:33 PM #4
Speed is irrelevant when it comes to calorie expenditure and that's what we're trying to achieve here, right?
Besides that running faster will impair your recovery (on a diet overtraining legs is a real issue), walking is far easier. It doesn't imply the whole psychology of "I have to workout, I don't want to, GRR".
Walking for 1h = 30m pretty hard jog.
06-18-2008, 06:22 PM #5
So wrong for so many reasons. Speed is completely relevant to the number of calories you burn when running. I have no idea where you got the walking for 1hr = 30mins pretty hard jog statistic from, but imo it is so far from true. Simply run for 5 mins on any treadmill at say 8km/h, and 12km/h and see the difference in the total calories burnt.
My advice would be to mix up your runs. HIIT is fantastic for burning fat, but then again going for a nice long run will also show results. I would say that you should take the number of runs down to say 4 days, and then just having a couple more off days to fully recover. Also on those "off days" you can go for a walk.
I do 2, 1 hour runs a week, at a fairly high intensity. Then I do one of the hill running programs on the running maching in the gym for 24 mins. I find that the incline and decline running is alot harder than flat running. I get my version of HIIT doing boxing once or twice a week.
Good luck buddy, and remember, the body reacts well to change. Whatever you do, keep mixing it up.
06-18-2008, 06:40 PM #6
- Join Date: May 2008
- Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States
- Age: 31
- Posts: 922
- Rep Power: 0
i highly doubt that's true. probably more like 1hr walking = 10min jogging, and who wants to waste hours on that boring crap? sure jogging is harder and you may not want to do it but at least it's over quicker and it makes you feel good when you're done. walking for that long would just make me bored out of my mind so i'd hate it even more than jogging. imo, walking instead of jogging is lazy and stupid in most cases
06-18-2008, 07:27 PM #7
- Join Date: Apr 2008
- Location: Falls Church, Virginia, United States
- Age: 38
- Posts: 1,987
- Rep Power: 1448
if the distances are the same, I've heard it's pretty close in how much energy it takes to move your body, as long as you're going a pretty constant rate. I think that's kind of hogwash, plus I don't have the time to walk 4-6 miles to see how it feels. Also, people's definition of jog are different.. What's a hard jog?
06-18-2008, 08:45 PM #8
thanks for the replies guys, i have incorporated HIIT in the past, like doing 30 sec sprints followed by 1 min walk. Repeat 8 times. The reason why i stopped was that i didnt know if i was doing it right. For e.g. i couldnt sprint the whole 30 secs by the third 'sprint', and my 7th and 8th 'sprints' were mainly just fast jogs, so i wasnt too sure if that was considered HIIT, and so stopped doing it. I also want to incorporate some uphill sprints in my routine, but am not too sure what angle is considered good? i dont live in a particularly hilly area, so the most uphill that i can get is a 500m stretch at about 20-25degree elevation, would this be enough to try uphill sprints (i wanna try them cause i heard they are good for improving speed).
as far as my stats are concerned:
06-18-2008, 09:57 PM #9
06-18-2008, 10:54 PM #10
Isn't it something like this: Doesn't matter how fast you go at it you kinda burn the same calories for a set distance? run 3 miles in 20 min and lets say you burn 500calories...or jog the 3 miles in 60 min you'll still burn 500 calories.
But then again with the running your heart rate goes mad so you will prolly develop a much better condition than the granny pace?
06-18-2008, 10:58 PM #11
OFC. what I said was a ballpark estimate for me... 1 hour of walking burns 250 calories. For me if I burn 8 calories/min. with jogging I'm WORKING, it's getting discomfortable... 8 x 30 min = 240 calories. I use the most conservative walking burn I could found on the internet: www.caloriesperhour.com
06-18-2008, 11:00 PM #12
06-19-2008, 02:28 PM #13
Actually this is not true. If it were as simply as moving mass from A to B, it would only take 2 candy bar's worth of food to climb Mt Everest. Most of the energy expenditure comes from inefficiency in movement. So even for the same distance, the movement that is most efficient will burn less calories than one that is less efficient.
Generally (but also not necessarily) running is much less efficient than walking.
If I got on a bike and cycled the 3 miles nice and leisurely on the flat I would burn less calories than running, even though I have to move myself AND the bike the 3 miles.
There have been some studies on this too. I don't remember the details of how different the energy expenditures were, but decent paced walking might be something like 60-80kcal/mile, running more like 100-120kcal/mile.
Last edited by Jules Verne; 06-19-2008 at 02:30 PM.
06-19-2008, 03:05 PM #14
B.S. in Health & Exercise Science
- Join Date: Jan 2002
- Location: New Jersey, United States
- Age: 31
- Posts: 5,771
- Rep Power: 29099
M.S. in Exercise Physiology
Fitness Director at Private Personal Training Studio
"There's US & there's THEM; always has been & always will be" - B.F., My Mentor
"If you're not PASSIONATE about it... it's just another thing" - My Pops
**NEVER NEEDED A CREW** CREW - POPULATION = 1
06-19-2008, 07:09 PM #15
Okay some of the other reasons; your weight will have an affect on how many calories you will burn per session. If you are carrying more weight for example then it is "harder" to run. Hence why long distance runners are so skinny. And also why people run with backpacks/weighted vests on to make a workout harder.
The person running. Simply put, each person will burn a different number of calories over the same distance due to genetics, metabolism and many other factors.
Fitness. I will burn less calories if I am fitter and hence my body is used to doing a certain speed/distance, it will become adjusted. This is one of the principles behind newbie gains. If you are simply going through the paces when running, you will be burning less than if you push yourself.
As for some of the other comments that have been made. Manic keep up the sprints, even if you are only seeming to go a a fast jog by the end, so long as you are pushing your body to the max then you will be gaining benefits. Hill running is great, but if you want to get up your sprint speed, don't overlook things such as plyometrics. Mixing up shorter and longer sprints. And weight training for your legs and getting some explosive power! Plenty of great online articles on other sites and on here I'm sure as well.
As for the walking v run, I'm sure it all depends on what you class as running, and how fast you walk. I am not 100% sure I am right on this, but I don't think the number of calories stay fixed for a set distance. I still think it matters how fast you run. As manofsteel said, harder workout uses more calories. I take that as a given tbh, that you run faster you burn more calories. If you work harder you will get better results.
06-19-2008, 09:14 PM #16
06-20-2008, 11:47 AM #17
In which case you might just burn more calories with a very fast walk than a light jog for the same distance. But that's getting into semantics. At the end of the day, burning calories is the most important form a fat-loss point of view.
06-20-2008, 11:53 AM #18
- Join Date: May 2008
- Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States
- Age: 31
- Posts: 922
- Rep Power: 0
06-21-2008, 12:22 PM #19
That is very true. Power walking (I think also known as speed walking) is a different form of cardio to running - as seen by Hal in Malcomn in the Middle; very funny. Also another reason that can affect cardio is the physical size of the person. By this I mean that length of each stride, a taller person can take slower but longer steps during a run, versus a quicker but shorter length. But this in itself affects the amount of energy an individual will burn. I remember a documentary on Ricky Hatton and his 5 mile runs using small steps so he can run further.
06-21-2008, 02:47 PM #20
06-21-2008, 04:35 PM #21
- Join Date: Aug 2006
- Location: San Diego, California, United States
- Posts: 19,108
- Rep Power: 40121
It really depends on your goals. I love speed but I more love the distances so really it is a personal issue.
One thing i can tell you from trying both is you will get hungrier by adding distance. Much more then adding speed. Adding speed is almost a natural outgrowth of the run wheeras adding distance changes the work load every time.
Once you have fiddled with both then try adding speed to your distance runs for a reral bastard of a workout.
Nothing like a half marathon while pushing yourself the whole way to run faster. You can do it, just unleash whats inside and go for it."To be a warrior is not a simple matter of wishing to be one. It is rather an endless struggle that will go on to the very last moment of our lives. Nobody is born a warrior, in exactly the same way that nobody is born an average man. We make ourselves into one or the other."-- Carlos Castaneda
06-21-2008, 08:13 PM #22
Increase the distance but slow your speed
When you can do that distance increase the speed to what it was before
If that even gets too easy then increase the speed a little and see if you can make it the 6k or a little less.
All in good time**MISC Running Crew**
You are what you eat, love what you are.
"are u guys fuking wizard chefs??? surely u don't eat like this all the time...." TheDarkKnight27
I may or may not have gotten my avi idea from American_Psycho
06-22-2008, 04:05 PM #23
A friend of mine once gave me some great advice and I think it is really useful.... do whatever you feel like doing.... he advocated that if you are tired and not really in the mood, just to do the minimum cardio eg 25mins, and if you felt great to do more, even if you were only planning on doing say 5k. I used this and one day I managed to run a half marathon when I was only planning on doing 25mins on the treadmill. I felt fantastic and it was really easy to run. (This friend subsequently managed to run a 3 hr 19min London marathon on his first attempt!)
06-23-2008, 06:21 PM #24