Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Running - what does it really do?

  • 24-01-2012 11:58am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6


    Hi all,

    Sick of reading different answers on different websites.

    Quick question, what exactly does running do? In relation to weight loss, areas toned etc.

    Cheers


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,684 ✭✭✭marathonic


    You'll probably have some replies here defining ‘toned’ and so on but, assuming you mean that you want defined muscles, the following should hold true:

    For muscle definition, you need a combination of muscles (obviously) and low body-fat. For this reason, diet is more important for most people than the actual exercise. For the typical person that has a sedentary job and doesn’t work out, getting to a low enough body-fat level to achieve muscle definition will result in them being underweight (of course, this depends where you start and where you want to end up).

    If you’re training for a particular sport, then some sport-specific training will be required (and extremely low bodyweight may be beneficial) but, if you are just training to look good, it’d be advisable to add some weight training into your routine so that you don’t end up overly skinny or with disproportionately large legs when compared to the upper body.

    Regarding the running itself, it should burn, on average, about 110 calories per mile. In addition, it’ll build up the leg muscles to a certain extent (not to the extend that weight-training would though) and will improve cardiovascular endurance.

    A pound of fat equates to about 3,500 calories so you should burn off a pound of fat for every 30 or so miles ran. This means that, to achieve the ‘recommended’ safe fat-loss of 2lb per week, you could build up to 30 miles total running per week and ensure that you have a calorie deficit of 500 daily (to burn off that second pound).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 162 ✭✭Mack_1111


    There's a huge feel good factor to be gained when you run, makes dieting a hell of a lot easier.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5 Runner Boy


    When you run make to loose weight never let you heart go above 145 beats this is key for loosing weight


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 821 ✭✭✭xgtdec


    Runner Boy wrote: »
    When you run make to loose weight never let you heart go above 145 beats this is key for loosing weight

    can you explain how its key, is it like an optimum rate for fat burn?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,992 ✭✭✭Plastik


    Runner Boy wrote: »
    When you run make to loose weight never let you heart go above 145 beats this is key for loosing weight

    LOL


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 21,981 ✭✭✭✭Hanley


    xgtdec wrote: »
    can you explain how its key, is it like an optimum rate for fat burn?

    It’s around where the highest proportion of fat will be utilized for energy, but in absolute terms it may not be the range where most is burned.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5 Runner Boy


    if you google "fat burn chart" and use this as a ref, people may disagree and this can work dif for everyone else


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 960 ✭✭✭oppiuy


    Runner Boy wrote: »
    When you run make to loose weight never let you heart go above 145 beats this is key for loosing weight


    I found moving more eating less and eating right shifted my excessive waste. couldnt be arsed with of the tech stuff


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,395 ✭✭✭AntiVirus


    mrlexus wrote: »
    Hi all,

    Sick of reading different answers on different websites.

    Quick question, what exactly does running do? In relation to weight loss, areas toned etc.

    Cheers


    Quick answer is it helps burn calories quicker and helps with weight loss.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,901 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    marathonic wrote: »
    Regarding the running itself, it should burn, on average, about 110 calories per mile.

    A pound of fat equates to about 3,500 calories so you should burn off a pound of fat for every 30 or so miles ran.

    Calories per mile will be proportional to bodyweight (more energy required to moe a greater mass).
    So much so that while 110 per mile might be the average, its an pretty useless figure. Ditto the 30 miles per lb of fat.


    I remember when I was running last year and I played around with a few calculators and it appeared to be roughly
    Bodyweight (kg) = calories per km

    There will be some variance for speed, but that's a decent approx.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,395 ✭✭✭AntiVirus


    Mellor wrote: »
    I remember when I was running last year and I played around with a few calculators and it appeared to be roughly
    Bodyweight (kg) = calories per km

    There will be some variance for speed, but that's a decent approx.

    This is pretty much bang on +/- 2 calories per km depending on if I'm running fast or medium. This is using the Garmin 610 with a heart rate monitor.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,722 ✭✭✭nice_guy80


    its quite hard on your legs and hips, for a start


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 821 ✭✭✭xgtdec


    Hanley wrote: »
    It’s around where the highest proportion of fat will be utilized for energy, but in absolute terms it may not be the range where most is burned.


    I gotcha, and armed with the figure of 145 in my head off i went for some cardio and kept the 145 in mind, im cutting at the moment so i have a keen interest in optimum rates, but i found that the 145 for me wasnt a workout, now i know sweat is no indicator of working hard but it wasnt a sweat and it wasnt a lung buster....it was just ...sort of...plodding along, so my question is, can this plodding along be my new cardio and ill check my bf% in 6 weeks to see how it goes, or is 145 just a rough guideline and obviously if i dont feel like im working then im most likely not...if ya know what i mean:rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,684 ✭✭✭marathonic


    xgtdec wrote: »
    I gotcha, and armed with the figure of 145 in my head off i went for some cardio and kept the 145 in mind, im cutting at the moment so i have a keen interest in optimum rates, but i found that the 145 for me wasnt a workout, now i know sweat is no indicator of working hard but it wasnt a sweat and it wasnt a lung buster....it was just ...sort of...plodding along, so my question is, can this plodding along be my new cardio and ill check my bf% in 6 weeks to see how it goes, or is 145 just a rough guideline and obviously if i dont feel like im working then im most likely not...if ya know what i mean:rolleyes:

    If it doesn't feel like a workout, go harder. As Hanley says ' the highest proportion of fat will be utilized for energy, but in absolute terms it may not be the range where most is burned. "

    Basically, what he means is that, if a run burns 500 calories, running at a certain heart rate will ensure that as many as possible of those calories will come from fat stores - with the rest coming from carbs or protein.

    If you have, for example, 1 hour to run and you run 8 minute miles at a heartrate of 145 and 6 minute miles at a heartrate of 185, then the breakdown could be something like the following:

    1hr at 8 minute miles: 825 calories of which 50% (412.5) come from fat
    1hr at 6 minute miles: 1100 calories of which 40% (440) come from fat

    Of course, the above percentages may not be in any way near accurate but that's the basic idea. Also, assumming your diet remains constant in both cases, you'll have burned an extra 275 calories overall. This means that your carb stores are depleted more which, in turn, means that you're more likely to be burning fat as opposed to carbs when you're walking about the house/watching tv later in the day.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,394 ✭✭✭Transform


    Running will in general help to increase your ability to run for distance/time in a straight line.

    It will most likely help (with a better diet) to turn you into a smaller version of yourself.

    Its the job of body weight or weight training in general to help change your shape.

    I get this all the time - guy/girl turns up having lost some weight (maybe a stone or two) but looks overall no different, just smaller and a lighter.

    Hitting body weight or weights will help you make massive leap in how you look overall plus a rake of other nice benefits e.g. boosts metabolism, get stronger, improved bone density etc


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,684 ✭✭✭marathonic


    Mellor wrote: »
    Calories per mile will be proportional to bodyweight (more energy required to moe a greater mass).
    So much so that while 110 per mile might be the average, its an pretty useless figure. Ditto the 30 miles per lb of fat.

    Sorry, on re-reading my post, it may have been a little misleading. By on average, I meant the average person as opposed to the average burned per mile for anyone over, for example, a 10 mile run.

    Using your figures, 110 calories would be burned in a mile for someone weighing 69kg so the 110 calories per mile figure seems to match up to your figures - although yours are more useful as they allow anyone to work out the number of calories they'll burn for a run of a particular length.


Advertisement