splitting up runs

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

Quoted message 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

Quoted message said:

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.

True, but let's get more specific. Let's limit it more to additional calories burned. After all
the body burns them just resting. This will assure your statement "If you run a mile you will
burn more calories than if you walk a mile" is valid. ;-)

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

you run a 10 minute mile.

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Just adding a few odd pieces of information, that do not change or challenge you statements. Too
bad the local troll does not wish to acknowledge the truth. However that is the way of trolls,
their self esteem is so low they can't acknowledge they could be wrong, even when they know what
they said was wrong even before the wrote it. They just don't know the difference between
attention and respect.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

In article said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Haselden wrote:

Quoted message said:

Don't mind him, he's just a troll spewing random noise as usual.

Oh...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The truth is that runners likely have lower metabolic rates when resting than do sedentary
people,

You're saying that they have BMR because they are smaller, despite having approximately the same
weight-normalised BMR, right ?

I'm not saying that exclusively. Remember athletes are more efficient metabolic organisms than
sedentary people.

I don't agree with this.

Quoted message said:

At their respective resting rates runners will have metabolic/catabolic processes lower and slower
than sedentary people.

Cite ? I've seen very knowledgeable sources say just the opposite over on misc.fitness.weights.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But this is only true for elite runners who have BMI around 20. Most

people

Quoted message said:

who run are much heavier than elite runners.

Most people who run have some lean muscle mass loss, yet still have efficient metabolic processes.
At their respective resting rates the sedentary person is very likely to have a higher burning
metabolism, while at a running pace the runner will have the lower burning metabolism.

I agree that the runner uses less energy to run at the same speed even when you correct for body
weight differences. But this is usually attributed to neuromuscular factors. I don't think the
resting metabolism is lower, and I don't see how training would make the ressting metabolism more
efficient.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:57:09 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote:

...

i was about to drop out of this thread cause it seemed to go from an innocent question to fruity
talk and misinformation (except for everything i wrote of course). thanks for bringing some lucidity
back into it. ...thehick

In article said:

"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]...

> 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:

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

Intensity is never a goal in itself. It's a means to an end.

I doubt you will find any credible source that recommends breaking up training runs into several
runs so that you can run faster.

Quoted message said:

the two short runs are better and will burn more calories.

Most sources argue that total calories burnt is only a function of distance. Burn rate increases in
direct proportion to speed, but running faster also means that you cover the distance in less time.

Do you have a source for your alternative theory ?

Quoted message said:

I believe the original poster was looking for weight loss

It would be inadvisible for an overweight person to go out of their way to run fast during training.
To do so would result in injury.

Quoted message said:

and if 10 miles is the dictate then 10 miles at the highest intensity will burn the greater number
of calories.

Again, I don't believe this is correct. Do you have a source for this ?

Quoted message said:

And except for advanced runners, most of us would run 2-5 milers faster than a single 10-miler.

Again, this is only true if you are trying to run as fast as possible.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Frank in-toronto said:

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:57:09 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote:

...

i was about to drop out of this thread cause it seemed to go from an innocent question to fruity
talk and misinformation (except for everything i wrote of course). thanks for bringing some
lucidity back into it. ...thehick

thehick tells thedick he's cool. How pathetic...

Donovan Rebbechi said:

I doubt you will find any credible source that recommends breaking up training runs into several
runs so that you can run faster.

Said in this way, it would appear that you don't believe that interval training is credible?

In article said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

I doubt you will find any credible source that recommends breaking up training runs into several
runs so that you can run faster.

Said in this way, it would appear that you don't believe that interval training is credible?

I've already addressed this. I don't consider the difference between two short continuous sessions
separated by a long intermission and one long continuous session to be the same as the difference
between interval training and continuous training.

--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Donovan Rebbechi said:

I've already addressed this.

Oops! To my eternal embarrassments, it was probably with me too :-(

Quoted message said:

I don't consider the difference between two short continuous sessions separated by a long
intermission and one long continuous session to be the same as the difference between interval
training and continuous training.

Sometimes I get it, sometimes not. Perhaps it depends on the intervals.

Take 30"/30" done at vVO2max (cf Billat who has the research to go with the theory, something sadly
lacking in many other "works"😉.

The point of the rest period is to allow time for "uninteresting" parameters - such as blood
lactates - to fall back to "sub-stress" levels? Uninteresting means "we are not focusing on them
today, so if they could just shut the f up and get out from under out feet".

In this way, the "interesting" parameter(s) - VO2max in the case of 30"/30"s - can be hacked at much
longer than would normally be possible; ie if all parameters were allowed to go their own way and
start interfering.

For the one long run versus two short runs argument, and if we are aiming at simple endurance (time
on your feet or miles or kilometers or number of babes greeted, depending on which religion you
have) then why is that pause in the middle any more significant than the 30" pauses in our vvO2max
workout? Is your position intuition-based or is it driven by some physiology? Either is fine by me,
I'd just like to understand.

In article said:

Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

In this way, the "interesting" parameter(s) - VO2max in the case of 30"/30"s - can be hacked at
much longer than would normally be possible; ie if all parameters were allowed to go their own way
and start interfering.

For the one long run versus two short runs argument, and if we are aiming at simple endurance
(time on your feet or miles or kilometers or number of babes greeted, depending on which religion
you have) then why is that pause in the middle any more significant than the 30" pauses in our
vvO2max workout?

It's not so much the pause that is significant as is the length of the "repeats". The "two short
runs" are continuous efforts of 5 miles a piece. I've yet to see a form of interval training that
involves doing 5 mile repeats.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗