Ok, so there was a huge discussion at a family dinner tonight on the differences between running fast and running slow. My MIL went on and on about her running. She runs VERY slow. Almost walking. She says this is WAY more beneficial than running fast. This is what she said:

If two people were running the same amount of time, say 45 minutes, but she was running at 4.0 on the treadmill and he was running at 9.0 on the treadmill than she would lose more fat/weight than he would.

I just don't understand how! If he is running faster than you, working harder, and for the same amount of time wouldn't HE lose more fat/weight basically calories than her?

And if slower is better, than isn't walking for 45 minutes better than jogging or the same?

There's actually TONS of dynamics that go into that. There's so many factors that affect how much a person would lose that her statement is essentially wrong. You have to factor in body weight, body fat, metabolism, diet...among other things. Every person is gonna lose weight/burn calories at a different pace.

Basically, unless she's a professional fitness person...I'd tell her she's full of bunk.

Good point. She is in her mid 40's and weighs about 125lbs. She's trying to lose 10lbs and cannot do it worth the life of her even though she runs 3-4 miles DAILY! She only eats like once a day though and I told her this was not an effective way to lose weight...

Another thing you have to take into account is that at a certain point, you will hit a "wall." For example...someone like me, that is NOT in great shape will burn many more calories running for 20 minutes than someone that is in tremendous shape will burn running for 45 minutes.

It's like this basically...Someone that is 210 lbs and 6' and NEVER runs...vs someone that is 5'4' and 120 lbs and runs 4-5 miles a day. My exercise on 4 will be MUCH more strenuous than theirs on 8.

I stand by my original statement. There's just so many variables that go into the mechanics of it there's really no definite way to back that statement up. Like Gina said...it's diff. strokes for diff. folks.

You're absolutely right. She needs to eat more often and shake up her workout. If she isn't weight training, she should start. Muscle burns more calories. Her body is in "starvation mode", thinking it won't get enough to eat so it stores calories. If she eats more often her body will finally decide to let go of those calories. As for the running part, I think everyone has pretty much touched on the fact that it's so different for everyone. I know there's a cardio zone and a fat burning zone, but what most people have said about mixing up your workout, that's probably the best. I'll email my old boss. He's a personal trainer and I'll see what he says. :)

For my friends uni project I have to run at different speeds on a treadmill (treadmills are crap!), then I have to do uphill as well which is also fast vs slow. As far as I am concerned running slowly is a lot harder, then I run fast my muscles contract very quickly and then are able to relax very quickly, where as when I run slow, I have to slow contract my muscles and maintain the contraction for quite a long time before I can start to relax.
I have to run in 30 minute intervals, I have done the slow three times, fast three times and the uphill twice, on the fast run, I can go running a lot longer than 30 minutes no problem, on the uphill, the fast uphill is pretty easy as well, for me fast uphill is easier than slow on the flat. My heart rate is highest on the slow runs as well, which means my body is working harder, so I will be burning more calories and gaining more muscle tone on my slow runs, compared to my fast runs.

If anyone ever asks you to help them do research for their dissertation, say no!

So since you worked harder at a job, could I burn pretty quickly by walking?

See how it works for you, some people can't run for very long and are completely knackered, where as they can jog for a very long time, you could try doing a few different things to see which one is the most effective for you.

I've heard somewhere (dunno where) that walking is one of the most effective forms of exercise.

I think its a case of different strokes for different folks. Like CJ said, there is SO MANY THINGS that play in to it.

I went to a gym during this summer and I had to do 30 minutes on the treadmill. The machine tells you how much calories you burned by the end of the workout. Most of the time the faster I went the more calories I burned but it just depends on the person. It's like your heart rate needs to be in the "fat burning zone" or something like that and it's up to the person how intense the work out should be to reach that zone. For older people running slow could be just enough to get the heart rate up but for younger people you need to work harder.

At least that's what I understood from the coach during my 1 month membership in the gym XD

.... They even show on the tredmil the calories burned. & when I run, I burn more calories than I do walking.

Yeah but that's just a ballpark figure. It's not accurate.

Actually running faster and slower in the same workout burns more calories. You have to keep your body guessing. I do the weight loss workout on the elliptical and the treadmill at the gym and it makes me going really fast at a low intensity and really slow at a high intensity and I burn more calories. You don't want to walk/run at the same speed for 30 minutes but change it up a bit.

I guess its like powerwalking for her? It has more leg muscles involved I know if I walk 4.0 id be jogging (I'm short so3.5ish is power walking 4 me)

Gosh I hate running. Anyone else really rubbish at it? I think it's because I'm pigeon toed. I'm blaming it on that anyway. I am such a bad runner that my mom let me skip sports day as a kid to save me from the humiliation. I was ok once I got to high school though; they let me do javelin instead!

I have a treadmill that I jog on... that count? heh

No idea really. Interesting though.

i have heard that walking really fast, "power walking" does more for you than running does. i guess because it gets your heart rate up and it doesn't tire you out as much, so you can go for longer amounts of time.

That's a good point.

I go for runs every morning...but it's just for fitness...so I'm not trying to push myself. It helps that I run with my girlfriend and she's practically a foot shorter than I am, so I have to slow down for her, otherwise she's running and I'm just jogging...not good. But I think I'm going to give the slow vs fast test a whirl. Could be interesting.

I think I've come to my own conclusion that most are right. It depends too much on too many different factors. I'm going to try the "shake it up" approach starting today. I'm going to do 15 minutes on the treamill at moderate speed, and 15 minutes on the eliptical at a slower speed. I will do this Mon./Wed/Fri. Than on Tuesday and Thursdays I will do pilates. Than each week I will alternate. (IE: Pilates on Mon/Wed/Fri and than aerobics on Tues/Thurs) I'm going to try this for the month of December and see how it works.