do i still need to post a site when all i am doing is stating a SIMPLE fact?
Foolish? I ask you for a cite to back up your idea and you tell me learn about gas mileage for cars apply the same thing to my body.
Your body isn’t a car. You can’t say “this is how a car works” then from that decide your body works the same way.
Fact : Whether walking or running, fast or slow, the average person will lose approximately 100 calories for every mile walked or run.
If you say that this isn’t true please provide some sort of actual proof. And I don’t care about gas mileage.
And yes, you do. I am stating a simple fact and providing cites. You are telling me I am wrong and not providing any cite.
O.
My.
Gosh.
you just said, “you are telling me i’m wrong…” when i just stated “we are both right” twice.
your last “fact” you posted is wrong. (for proof, see my last post.) if you don’t believe my last post, then quote the illogical part and state why it is wrong. i will not waste my time trying to find a site until you tell me why what i am saying could be wrong.
You post isn’t proof. In fact all of your posts make very little sense. I would tell you why you were wrong if I could even figure out what you were trying to say. When I asked for explaination you told me to learn about car gas mileage. How is that helpful?
Once again you are telling me that my fact is wrong. It is the same fact I have stated over and over again and you keep saying is wrong. Please provide me with some real proof that is is wrong.
We are talking about additional calories burned by exercise not what a person would burn naturally by not doing anything. I am not taking into acount time because the OP did not ask for time. He was asking about distance. Time doesn’t matter.
As a fellow member of the boards, I’d like to respectfully ask both of you to take a step back and take your fingers off the submit button for a little while before you get this thread locked.
If you want to debate this, there’s a forum for that.
If you want to sling poopy at each other, there’s a forum for that, too.
Thanks in advance.
splat Flying poopy hits KneadToKnow in the back of the head.
Perhaps you are right that this is getting out of hand. All I wanted to do was provide the OP with a simple answer to his question. An answer which I backed up with cites. It was when Fuel called me foolish that I got upset. I certainly don’t want to start a fight in GQ.
Your body will use protein as a fuel only as a last resort, as this is very inefficient. Glucose is the preferred fuel and fat is next. Hence, you are not going to lose muscle by running (jogging, whatever) unless you are on a starvation diet and in LSD (long distance running to the uninitiated.) At a slow pace, more fat than glucose is used. When running at a fast pace, oxygen is at a premium and the body needs oxygen to use fat as a fuel. It does not need oxygen to use glucose as a fuel, but this will build up the lactic acid. I’m sure some scientist will pop along with all the details of the Krebs’ cycle and the associated physiology. 
Calories is a measure of work performed. One calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise 1 cc of water 1 degree C. (When we refer to calories, we actually mean kilocalories, which is probably better referred to with the capital “C,” but I also ignore that, and just use calories. Sloppiness, I guess.) Although there may be slight differences depending upon walking, jogging, or running at a more efficient and fast pace, these differences will be very slight. And for my money not worth higgling over. Certainly, if you are talking about hobbling along at a snail’s pace, you have to add the other calories needed for basal metabolism, but that is true no matter what you are doing.
If you are interested in the physiology, read this cite: http://www.nismat.org/physcor/energy_supply.html
running for 45 minutes doesn’t “burn” muscle per se. but the end result is a destructive attack upon muscle reserves. muscle glycogen is depleted and after about 15 minutes of hard running, your body goes into a catabolic state, wasting muscle, due to anti-muscle-supporting hormones. this is WIDELY known in the bodybuilding world. search any bodubuilding site online such as musclemag.com.
as for the OP subject, i will search for a site to back me up since no one gives a good hard factual analysis credit anymore.
do you agree that walking @ .5 mph for 10 miles burns 3,200 calories and running 10 mph for 10 miles burns 1000 cals? i just broke these numbers down and you are saying you don’t understand. how could you not understand this? what exactly is there to not understand? .5 mph for 10 miles takes 20 hours. basal caloric expenditure per hour is reasonably estimated at 150 cals per hour, so by walking at that rate for 20 hours you burn 3000 + small amount for stepping forward for an hour rather than standing = 3,200 cals.
running 10 mph for 10 miles takes 1 hour. per your quote of 100 cals per mile, that takes 1,000 cals.
again, what’s to not understand?
here is some backup for me saying running for 45 minutes will burn muscle: it’s from bodybuilding.com
CORTISOL
The first is cortisol. Cortisol is a hormone secreted in response to stress (in our case exercise). Cortisol’s main objective is to liberate energy from tissues for use during these periods of stress . It doesn’t have a preference on what tissue it gets it from, but it does seem to favor muscle tissue rather heavily . The amount of cortisol released is directly related to the intensity or degree of the stress. It seems that after about 20 minutes of high intensity work, cortisol levels shoot through the roof. With that said, for high intensity (85-90% VO2 max) cardio to have the most benefit in its muscle building/fat burning properties, sessions should be kept under 20 min.
summary: anything over 20 minutes will burn muscle. i could find this same exact thing written all over the internet on EVERY single bodubuilding site.
here’s the site where that came from for reference: ^^^^^^
Altho that link provides cites for many of his statements, he does not provide a cite for that statement. Cortisol is the “fight or flight” hormone and releases adrenaline (norepinephrine). This hormone encourages the liver to release more glucose, which is the energy fuel. This is the reason that the adage of not taking a sports drink before a race is not accurate. The theory is that the glucose will cause a spike in insulin, resulting in the glucose to be stored in the muscles and then the liver, and not in the bloodstream where it is needed. However, your adrenaline flows before a race, which has the opposite effect.
Cortisol has nothing to do with muscle for energy use. As I said before, and if you read the link, protein is a last resort fuel.
As your link stated in a previous article, running actually develops muscles, especially the leg muscles, because that’s what you are using. It also, of course, develops the heart muscle.
yes, protein is definately NOT used, but carbs (glucose) is, and glucose is part of muscle, hence where we are misunderstanding each other.
glucose is drained extensively during a hard 45 minute run. this leaves muscle drained, or, another way to put it, burned. that’s why i said not burned per se.
also, this is all said with the assumption that liver glycogen is completely depleted after say 25 minutes and the remaining time is spent draining actual skeletal muscle glycogen. this is why i say it burns muscle. maybe i am misusing the word, sorry!
in the end, running a long time will inhibit one from growing muscles. that is what i know to be true.
You are wrong Barbitu8, protein is burned while running. It is related to Cortisol levels. The body does not use ONE source of fuel at any given time, nor does it use that source from any given area.
I have seen it speculated that the effects of cortisol on muscle tissue is beneficial in that it breaks down the weaker protein chains in the muscles, which for a weightlifter leads to “muscle maturity” over the years. Sort of like survival of the fittest muscle fibers. Hehe.
I have come to the conclusion that it is a bit misleading to say that running causes muscle breakdown. It does physiologically, but for the average person it is not a big deal. It could effect a bodybuilder that is looking for every tiny advantage, but a good strength athlete can run and not worry about the breakdown if he just eats more to compensate for the calories spent. (carbs to replace the muscle glycogen and protein for muscle fiber repair)
gluconeogenesis, that’s the word i was looking for.
good info, epimetheus.
Fuel - I’m checking your numbers up there, and I don’t think your math is quite right. According to your 150 calories an hour statement, that 10 mile/20 hour walk would cause a person to burn 3000 calories. Then you added 200 for the slight effort of moving forward.
According to the 100 calories/mile theory, running that same distance in an hour would burn 1000 calories. So you stop there, and say that walking burns more energy, because you loose more calories. But the person that ran, has burned that 1000 calories (which is an increase of 850 over the person walking) and will still continue to burn the other 150 calories/hour.
So looking at it from another perspective, during the same time period, the runner will have burned 650 more calories than the walker. Which puts him 6 hours ahead of the walker in total calories burned. You cannot take a value from one equation, and use it as a comparison to another equation, without having similar variables. You’re attempting to take the distance from one, and the time from the other.
This has to be the best message board on the internet. Thanks for all the quick and insightful research and answers guys, much appreciated!
FINALLY! Atrael, i said the same EXACT thing a couple posts before. but In Conceivable didn’t understand this complex idea.
i said the same thing you said, thinking for sure he/she would reply something like “o yeah, i see where we are miscommunicating, i understand”, but instead he/she just keeps saying he doesn’t undestand what i am saying.
at least someone understands.
if this was a question on a test or something, i would get it right and In COnceivable would get it wrong. I took the technical aspect of it, he took the practical aspect. whatever. SNAFU.
this was the post i posted to In Conceivable for reference. he didn’t get it.