Walk or Run (Page 2)

X 2

I'm not sure I have words for the bike thing.

Todd, you can't wing it and hope you finish the bike.  It's an IRONMAN.  Fix your freaking tire, get on your freaking bike, and freaking ride it a lot.

I haven't heard this. I always thought you burned more calories running.

I would go with secret option #3. Go 5 miles, but run as much of it as possible. For fat loss, intervals are better. Try to do a 2:1 ratio. For instance, run 30 seconds, walk 60 seconds. You should be running hard - a near sprint. This might not be the best way to build an aerobic base but it is good for fat loss.

Here's a chart showing calories burned for various exercises.

http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist4.htm

That's calories burned per unit of time.  The difference is that walking one mile takes longer than running one mile.  The calories burned are nearly identical per distance.

That makes sense.

Running does burn more, but the more effient of a runner you are, the closer the delta is. If you lope and/or take long strides with low turnover, you burn more than if you take shorter strides and turn over more quickly. But the bottom line is that walking is more efficient than running, hence you burn fewer calories walking.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050121.html

I don't buy the large discrepancy he quotes between the two.  Sure, if you're bouncing up and down excessively you're displacing yourself both vertically and horizontally and expend more energy in the vertical plane, but most folks aren't that bouncy.

For what it's worth...

I watched NOVA on public TV the other night about 9 people going from couch to Boston Marathon.  The group trainer who had herself done 4 or 5 and was a nutritionist stated that the calories used during a 26.2 mile run is ONLY about twice as much as the average person needs on a normal non-training day.  She used this info as an example of why many long distance amateurs do not see the weight loss they expect from marathon training.

Dunno if that adds anything to the discussion, but I was shocked at those numbers and assumed one would need ALOT more calories during a marathon that what physiologists are stating.  Looks like it's always about diet moreso than hours of training.

Actually, it's fewer calories (burned in a marathon) than what are needed to burn one pound of body fat.

The equation is "calories in minus calories out equals weight gained." Some people benefit by giving each food item (especially junk food) a corresponding workout value. You may be less likely to eat that Snickers bar if you know you will have to run three miles to burn that 280 calories.

It's also difficult to lose weight while training because you have to fuel your workouts. If you continuously incur calorie deficits you will increase the risk of bonking, especially as you continuously increase your volumes.

I meant to say that...

Oh, what you said was correct and is what was said in the program. I was just embellishing...