Will an athlete who runs for an hour at moderate pace and is not tired at the end burn more calories than an out of shape person who runs for an hour a way shorter distance but is exhausted at the end?
Assuming both have the same weight and such
What I want to know basically is if your body gets stronger will it need less energy to perform the same amount of work?
In: 1708
In general no, it requires a set amount of energy (calories) to do the same amount of work. In fact, work and energy as physical quantities have the same measurement unit (it’s Joule). However, it is possible that training will make your body more efficient at doing work, so there may be less energy wasted (like on needless movements, or panting etc.) and thus less energy spent overall. But being exhausted does not necessarily mean you’ve done more work.
Being tired/out of breath is a signal that you’re operating at something approaching your limits.
Work is work though. A 200lb person jogging for 100 metres at the same pace as someone weighing 100lbs is going to use roughly twice the energy.
You burn ~30% more calories jogging than walking. But that’s about it (i.e if you increase running speed more the increase in calories burnt doesn’t increase as much).
So walking 1km burns less energy than running 1km. Obvs efficiency comes into it as you get fitter your body becomes better at stuff. For example if your leg muscles are initially weak you may be using other muscles to compensate for the weakness.
Edit: here’s a study about it
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15570150/
I’m not a scientist, but I have lost weight using a weight loss app that tracks calories burned. Since it knows how heavy I am, the distance I traveled, and how fast I did it, it can tell me how many calories I burned during my exercise. I noticed that at around 220 lbs, it takes about 480 calories to run 5 km in 40 minutes, opposed to around 400 calories to run it when I was at 190 lbs, running it in around 35
I may be mistaken, but it seems the question isn’t being answered?
Does a calorie represent the amount of work accomplished outside your body (like, travelling 1K), or the amount of internal work (travelling 1K easily or having to work hard)?
If a pro athlete runs 1K and an average guy runs 1K, did they both burn the same number of calories?
[removed]
You ask a complicated question.
The key points to me are: *”an athlete who runs for an hour”* versus *”out of shape person who runs for an hour”*.
I’ll ignore the comments about “energy” and “work”, because they are loaded depending on your background. For example, if you’re doing a physics math problem running around the block has zero net work because you’re back where you started.
Body efficiency and physical health are major factors. Even if the two people were of similar body weight, the athlete who is strong and in shape will have strong muscles and high body efficiency if they’re a regular runner. Their body is used to the exercise. Their heart works less hard and more efficiently, their muscles are already toned and strong and work more efficiently, they need to breathe less hard, their body won’t heat as much and need to be cooled less, and so on. The out of shape person likely has weak muscles that are out of tone, and their body is not used to the exercise. Their heart must pump harder, their muscles strain more, their breathing will be more labored, all requiring more effort even furthering a core body temperature rise that needs to be cooled, and more.
Because the two ran a different distance your answer is hard to answer. If both decided to run across the same field at about the same time, for the toned athlete it is a short jog, for the couch potato it is a hard run, and the athlete will burn fewer calories both in the doing of it and the recovery of it.
The key concept isn’t the body being stronger, but having a more efficient response to intense aerobic exercises, like running. Your heart and lungs get stronger and are capable of pumping more blood with less energy, that’s called aerobic conditioning.
So yeah, if you train your aerobic conditioning, you’ll be able to do aerobic exercises with less expenditure of calories.
There is currently a study being done in Ireland sort of related to this, essentially the idea being investigated is, a person is on a bike for 60 mins in a high gear (lower rpm but more effort) and a person is on a bike for 45 mins in a low gear (higher rpm lower effort) , the work being done by both is the exact same but for an unknown reason the faster RPM cyclist is using more O2.
The candidates all had maximal VO2 tests to ensure they were fit enough. The number of revolutions were calculated to be equal. The bikes were watt bikes indoors. Basically the only variable was the resistance on the bikes.
I dont know the outcome and its a bit of a tangent to your question but the answer should be that O2 required should be the same but it isnt and they dont know why.
Effort and results vary depending on the machine doing the work. Think of it in terms of cars. An older car that’s not been taken care of will struggle to perform even moderately and consume much fuel doing so. A newer, well maintained car will out perform most older vehicles without consuming as much fuel.
The human machine is the same. Out of shape, older and obese people tax their bodies far more than younger, in shape people while performing the same task. Yes, like cars, age matters for us too… old man sigh. You will burn more calories because you’re less efficient. You will also struggle to maintain that level of effort. Strength and stamina are the signs of a well maintained machine. Strength is a result of the work being done. Stamina is your bodies efficiency which it develops as it becomes acclimated to the work.
I hope this helps.
Latest Answers