General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

splitting up runs

Started by Dig Dug · · Last activity · 69 posts · 2,587 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
27 September 2003
Last activity
2 October 2003
Original author
Dig Dug
Posts
69
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,587
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 41–60 of 69
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Frank in-toronto said:

    now i've heard this so much and there's even studies that prove it, but, i beg to differ slightly.

    that's what's such fun about newsgroups :-)

    Quoted message said:

    it looks true that post-workout metabolic rate is higher. however, once we get outside of the study
    group, most people try to cool down after a workout... long showers, fans on their faces, etc. this
    must reduce the metabolic rate somewhat.

    Agreed, if we admit that "most people" actually means something useful. I'd love to do what you say,
    especially when we had the 40°C+ (104°F+) temperatures this summer, but only have (all things
    relative) limited time for my lunchtime workout. Typical chronology:

    T0 usually 12:05, leave office for on-site (thank heavens) changing rooms T0+5 changed and waiting
    for partners to finish getting ready :-> head out from work site towards track/riverside/whatever If
    not a recovery or slow run this bit counts as first part of warm-up T0+15 if speedwork to be done,
    drills & lines T0+19 drink at fountain and leek in the bushes ;-> T0+20 main body of workout eg 15 x
    30"/30" or 10 x 300m/100m or 1000m 2000m 3000m 2000m 1000m or whatever T0+40' (or more for the
    longer stuff, but rarely) head back to office This is the cool down. On steady days, this is where
    I'll do a handful of accelerations to boost the metabolism a bit T0+50' Stretching, abs/dorsals
    T0+65' Shower and change. T0+75' Too late for the can tine. Coffee/tea in the cafeteria then lunch
    in office. Aren't Slim fast's products wonderful :->

    Generally that brings us nicely up to the afternoon's first meeting, if it hasn't already started
    when I've run up back upstairs to my office on the fourth (top) floor :oP Thank the good lord for
    phone conference bridges.

    My resting HR is never down to pre-exercise level by this stage. In the few times I tried it, I was
    back down to 55bpm around 2.5-3 hours after the end of stretching/abs. OK, HR was already below
    100bpm after the stretching session, but it stayed around 80bpm for a considerable time after that.

    Quoted message said:

    who knows how much. in any case, i wouldn't depend on upping my caloric usage by some small
    amount to reduce my weight. i would just eat less cookies or chips.

    Seen from that angle, there's no way I'm going to argue with you :-))

    Quoted message said:

    also, this is a running newsgroup. if you run, and eat right, i would be very surprised if you have
    a weight problem. the two just don't seem to go together.

    Quite. Except maybe when you're beginning running, or can't run regularly, or just gave up
    smoking, or or....

    Globally you're right though, even if it's not as easy to "eat right" as it may appear, in our day
    and age. I was flabbergasted (?) at the contents of ordinary industrial food, even stuff openly
    touted as "healthy", when I started looking at the nutrition bits on the labels.

  2. Frank in-toronto said:

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 00:51:42 +0200, steve common it looks true that post-workout metabolic rate is
    higher. however, once we get outside of the study group, most people try to cool down after a
    workout... long showers, fans on their faces, etc. this must reduce the metabolic rate somewhat.

    Frank, You can stand on your head upside down, run sideways, stand in front of a fan or AC, or
    taking a shower cools you down, but does NOT bring your metabolism down. Nothing but barbituates
    would do that.

    Quoted message said:

    who knows how much.

    I do, the answer is not at all.

  3. TenKMan said:

    Running a 10 is very different than 2 5's but it is wrong to say that one is better than the other.
    It depends on your goals and what you are doing in your training.

    It has served me well training for several dozen marathons, all completed successfully. You can do 5
    in the am, and 5 in the pm for 5 days, on the 6th do a 12 to 18 miler with ease. I've never "hit the
    wall" ever, if I did I did not know it and ran right through it.

  4. Joseph Meehan said:

    I doubt if there is any significant difference between two short runs and one long one over
    all. If there is a difference I would tend to argue that the one long run may well require more
    effort after the run since a longer run would deplete less efficient reserves than two short
    runs and replacing them would take a little more energy.

    Joe, Doesn't it seem reasonable to you that if the two runs are 3 miles each, that the differences
    would be significant if the runs were 20 miles each instead? Concede this point, and your arguement
    is null and void.

  5. fedson said:
    Frank in-toronto said:

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 00:51:42 +0200, steve common it looks true that post-workout metabolic rate is
    higher. however, once we get outside of the study group, most people try to cool down after a
    workout... long showers, fans on their faces, etc. this must reduce the metabolic rate somewhat.

    Frank, You can stand on your head upside down, run sideways, stand in front of a fan or AC, or
    taking a shower cools you down, but does NOT bring your metabolism down. Nothing but barbituates
    would do that.

    Quoted message said:

    who knows how much.

    I do, the answer is not at all.


    OK. now i'm interested. Steve Common said:

    My resting HR is never down to pre-exercise level by this stage. In the few times I tried it, I
    was back down to 55bpm around
    2.5-3 hours after the end of stretching/abs. OK, HR was already below 100bpm after the stretching
    session, but it stayed around 80bpm for a considerable time after that.

    I've always said to "just check your journal". it will tell you the truth. so, instead of arguing
    about whether my metabolism is higher for an extended period of time, i'll just check. starting
    tomorrow, i'll get my HR post shower and 1 and 2 hours later. These won't be resting HRs, cause I'll
    be at the office, but they will be normal since my activities don't change much from day-to-day.

    personally, i have no stake in the matter cause i'm not running for weight control. so an elevated
    metabolic rate is only a pain in the ass to me. makes me stink. ...thehick

  6. Sure, but if you go back up the thread we were discussing two short runs that total the same
    distance as the one long run.

    I might add that we have ignored the possibility that the speed of the runs might be
    different as well.

    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

    "Null" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Joseph Meehan said:

    I doubt if there is any significant difference between two short runs and one long one over
    all. If there is a difference I would tend to


    argue

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    that the one long run may well require more effort after the run since a longer run would deplete
    less efficient reserves than two short runs and replacing them would take a little more energy.

    Joe, Doesn't it seem reasonable to you that if the two runs are 3 miles each, that the differences
    would be significant if the runs were 20 miles each instead? Concede this point, and your
    arguement is null and void.

  7. Frank in-toronto said:

    I've always said to "just check your journal". it will tell you the truth. so, instead of arguing
    about whether my metabolism is higher for an extended period of time, i'll just check. starting
    tomorrow, i'll get my HR post shower and 1 and 2 hours later. These won't be resting HRs, cause
    I'll be at the office, but they will be normal since my activities don't change much from
    day-to-day.

    How will you meaure it? HR isn't the only thing involved.

    Quoted message said:

    personally, i have no stake in the matter cause i'm not running for weight control. so an elevated
    metabolic rate is only a pain in the ass to me. makes me stink.


    You're confusing your cool down period with a higher metabolic rate. There's many other measurable
    and unmeasureable things involved besides sweat and your HR.

  8. "Frank in-toronto" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    personally, i have no stake in the matter cause i'm not running for weight control. so an elevated
    metabolic rate is only a pain in the ass to me. makes me stink. ...thehick

    Your metabolic rate (for one example) increases after every meal. Do you sweat and stink after
    every meal?

    Are you the same guy who said most runners take showers and sit in front of fans to cool down and
    slow their metabolic rate after a run?

    Man, the way you're wiffin' em around here you ought to be playing for the Colorado Rockies.

  9. Frank in-toronto said:
    Rogiepoo said:

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:31:46 -0400, Frank in-toronto <[email hidden]> wrote:


    ...

    Quoted message said:


    How will you meaure it? HR isn't the only thing involved.


    ...

    Quoted message said:

    There's many other measurable and unmeasureable things involved besides sweat and your HR. Cmon.
    please. "unmeasureable"!!!

    I meant unmeasureable without special equipment like BP monitor, etc etc. Your idea of measuring it
    only indicates how long it takes you to cool down, you aren't measuring your metabolic rate.

  10. Haselden said:


    "Null" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I have, because I believe it's irrelevent. Certainly it takes more out of you do those two runs
    fast, but you won't lose anymore weight by going faster.

    Running faster will burn more calories and will result in additional weight loss compared to a
    slower run, everything else being equal. Effort and intensity are the harbingers of a higher
    caloric burn given the same distance and all other conditions.

    Your comment that "it takes more out of you" is the proof of not only a greater intensity, but a
    greater recovery as well. Remember, the adage that moving a mile burns 100 calories is nothing more
    than a hollow generalization. If you run a mile you will burn more calories than if you walk a
    mile. If you run a 6 minute mile you will burn more calories than if you run a 10 minute mile.
    Sure, for weight loss you want the duration, but intensity plays a major role in caloric burn, both
    during and after the event. For any duration, a higher intensity will burn more calories. The body
    simply needs more fuel to perform at at higher level.

    Burning greater amounts of gas in your car when driving hard and fast, compared to putt putting the
    same distance, is not an inaccurate analogy.

    You are either a troll, an an idiot, or possibly both.

  11. Joseph Meehan said:

    Sure, but if you go back up the thread we were discussing two short runs that total the same
    distance as the one long run.

    Actually I thought we discussing how the metabolic rates were affected, you said it was probably
    negligable, but I pointed out that depends on the total miles at the end of the day. Two 2 mile runs
    and the effect is small, two 10 mile runs and the effect is huge. That was my only point.

    Quoted message said:

    I might add that we have ignored the possibility that the speed of the runs might be different
    as well.

    I have, because I believe it's irrelevent. Certainly it takes more out of you do those two runs
    fast, but you won't lose anymore weight by going faster.

  12. "Joseph Meehan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I might add that we have ignored the possibility that the speed of the runs might be different
    as well.

    Now there is a point that makes sense. I mean how many of us when first starting our running
    programs didn't have faster times for the same distance when we took a 1 minute walk/rest in a run
    compared to a continuous run. The probability is that the 2-5 miles runs would burn more calories
    and be run faster than 1-10 mile run. At least for most amateur runners.

  13. Rogiepoo said:

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:31:46 -0400, Frank in-toronto <[email hidden]> wrote:


    ...

    Quoted message said:


    How will you meaure it? HR isn't the only thing involved.


    ...

    Quoted message said:

    There's many other measurable and unmeasureable things involved besides sweat and your HR.


    c'mon. please. "unmeasureable"!!! how about i just measure what i can and come to my best conclusion
    for me. I will really be surprised if an hour after i stop running, my heart rate isn't normal. but
    if that turns out to be the cse, then i'm gonna check if the same thing happens after a short 2 or 3
    mile run. the out-of-shapers i know would be very pleased to find out that a short jog will help
    them a lot. ...thehick

  14. Joseph Meehan said:

    I believe this is generally true, but I do seem to recall some experimental data where faster
    was not always buring more calories. I guess we all have some sweet spots or speeds where we
    may be a little more efficent. As I recall that was the exception and the increase efficency
    (meaning fewer calories burned per mile) was rather small.

    A good run is usually more efficent (less bouncing) than a slow jog (wasted energy bouncing
    up and down)

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Burning greater amounts of gas in your car when driving hard and fast, compared to putt putting
    the same distance, is not an inaccurate analogy.

    I know it wasn't you Tim, but that is the absolute stupidest comparison I've ever read on RR.

  15. "Null" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Actually I thought we discussing how the metabolic rates were affected, you said it was probably
    negligable, but I pointed out that depends on the total miles at the end of the day. Two 2 mile
    runs and the effect is small, two 10 mile runs and the effect is huge. That was my only point.

    I *love* it when you try to make sense. I imagine your little nose getting all wrinkled and your
    brow furrowing at the complexity of the words and ideas.

    Roger.

  16. In article said:


    "Joseph Meehan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I might add that we have ignored the possibility that the speed of the runs might be
    different as well.

    Now there is a point that makes sense. I mean how many of us when first starting our running
    programs didn't have faster times for the same distance when we took a 1 minute walk/rest in a run
    compared to a continuous run. The probability is that the 2-5 miles runs would burn more calories
    and be run faster than 1-10 mile run. At least for most amateur runners.

    You're confusing three completely different issues:

    (1) number of calories burnt
    (2) intermittent versus continuous training
    (3) long continuous training versus short continuous training

    (X) Additionaly, you confuse run duration and speed

    (1) is largely unrelated to endurance performance (only predicts performance to the extent to which
    it predicts milage).

    (2), intermittent training has a substantial short term impact on performance. However, the
    difference between doing 1 minute repeats alternated with 1 minute rests and running continuously
    is NOT the same as the difference between 2x5 miles and 1x10 miles.

    (3) as has been already pointed out, the number of runs is another load parameter -- packing the
    miles into fewer runs will yield benefits, but also increase the stress of training.

    (X) There is no reason for a shorter run to be substantially faster than a long run. If you're
    running at an appropriate training pace, you should be able to keep going for 10 miles, even
    though the run is only 5 miles long. If you are going substantially faster than the pace at
    which you'd run 10 miles, you are doing speed work, whether or not you choose to recognise it.

    Cheers,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflord

  17. I see now. I have not given it much thought, you could well be right.

    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

    "Null" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Joseph Meehan said:

    Sure, but if you go back up the thread we were discussing two short


    runs

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    that total the same distance as the one long run.

    Actually I thought we discussing how the metabolic rates were affected, you said it was probably
    negligable, but I pointed out that depends on the total miles at the end of the day. Two 2 mile
    runs and the effect is small, two 10 mile runs and the effect is huge. That was my only point.

    Quoted message said:

    I might add that we have ignored the possibility that the speed of


    the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    runs might be different as well.

    I have, because I believe it's irrelevent. Certainly it takes more out of you do those two runs
    fast, but you won't lose anymore weight by going faster.

  18. "Haselden" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Joseph Meehan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I might add that we have ignored the possibility that the speed of


    the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    runs might be different as well.

    Now there is a point that makes sense. I mean how many of us when first starting our running
    programs didn't have faster times for the same


    distance

    Quoted message said:

    when we took a 1 minute walk/rest in a run compared to a continuous run.


    The

    Quoted message said:

    probability is that the 2-5 miles runs would burn more calories and be run faster than 1-10 mile
    run. At least for most amateur runners.

    I was about to differ with you opinion, but as you explain it, it makes sense.

    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

  19. "Null" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I have, because I believe it's irrelevent. Certainly it takes more out of you do those two runs
    fast, but you won't lose anymore weight by going faster.

    Running faster will burn more calories and will result in additional weight loss compared to a
    slower run, everything else being equal. Effort and intensity are the harbingers of a higher caloric
    burn given the same distance and all other conditions.

    Your comment that "it takes more out of you" is the proof of not only a greater intensity, but a
    greater recovery as well. Remember, the adage that moving a mile burns 100 calories is nothing more
    than a hollow generalization. If you run a mile you will burn more calories than if you walk a mile.
    If you run a 6 minute mile you will burn more calories than if you run a 10 minute mile. Sure, for
    weight loss you want the duration, but intensity plays a major role in caloric burn, both during and
    after the event. For any duration, a higher intensity will burn more calories. The body simply needs
    more fuel to perform at at higher level.

    Burning greater amounts of gas in your car when driving hard and fast, compared to putt putting the
    same distance, is not an inaccurate analogy.

  20. "Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    In article said:


    "Joseph Meehan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I might add that we have ignored the possibility that the speed of


    the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    runs might be different as well.

    Now there is a point that makes sense. I mean how many of us when first starting our running
    programs didn't have faster times for the same


    distance

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    when we took a 1 minute walk/rest in a run compared to a continuous run.


    The

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    probability is that the 2-5 miles runs would burn more calories and be


    run

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    faster than 1-10 mile run. At least for most amateur runners.

    You're confusing three completely different issues:

    I don't think so, I think I'm keeping it simple. The overall differences are a pittance. But if
    intensity is a goal the two short runs are better and will burn more calories. I believe the
    original poster was looking for weight loss and if 10 miles is the dictate then 10 miles at the
    highest intensity will burn the greater number of calories. And except for advanced runners, most of
    us would run 2-5 milers faster than a single 10-miler. Hence...greater intensity for the given
    distance and greater caloric burn.

    (snipped the rest)

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.