From: jayers@hamline.edu (Judi Ayers)
Newsgroups: rec.running,misc.fitness
Subject: Re: Max Acceleration, Min Space
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:07:39 GMT
Organization: Hamline University, St. Paul, MN.

In article <sandrock.702912740@aries> sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes:
>jpeach@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>>In article <AJ3U.92Apr5153316@topaz.cs.virginia.edu>, aj3u@topaz.cs.virginia.edu (Asim Jalis) writes:
>>> If one is running in order to lose weight, should one run longer
>>> distances say three times a week or should one run shorter
>>> distances more frequently during the week?
>
>>Distance is not important when you are running to loose weight.  What is 
>>important is the number of Kcal that you burn.  The intensity does not matter
>>as long as you burn 300 to 500 kcal per work out.  You should do this five
>>times a week (work up to this, do not start at 5 times a week)  do not
>>exercise when you feel pain and stop when you feel pain.   
>
>Sorry to disagree with Mr. Peach, but what I hear is that intensity is NOT
>as important as time/distance in running to lose weight.
>
>On page 76 of *The Complete Book of Running* by Jim Fixx, for instance, he
>states, "It is also curious that how fast you run has little effect on how
>many calories you burn. A 150-pound person running at an eight-minute pace
>uses 102 calories during a one-mile, while the same person running at a
>twelve-minute pace uses 98 calories." 
>
>The same page also contains a footnote, stating in part: "What counts con-
>siderably more than your pace is your weight. A 220-pound person running a
>mile at an eight-minute pace uses 150 calories, while a 120-pound person
>running the same distance at the same pace uses only 82 calories. ..."
>
>In answer to the original question, however, in starting out, you should
>only run as often and as far as you feel is comfortable and safe for you,
>and gradually increase the frequency and/or distance of your runs as you
>become more fit. If there is any doubt about your condition, then by all
>means check first with your physician.
>
>All else being equal, my own opinion is that say 3 30-minute runs per week
>might be more effective in "burning off" excess body fat, than say 6 15-minute
>runs, since during the initial part of each run one's body is metabolizing
>primarily stored muscle glycogen, and the relative ratio of fat metabolization
>gradually increases with the duration of the run. See Noakes' *The Lore of
>Running*, page 77, for details. But then the tradeoffs are seldom so clear-cut
>as this hypothetical scenerio. The main thing is simply to make sure you do
>exercise on a regular basis, and your body's responses will be your best guide.
>
>Good luck,
>
>Mark Sandrock
>--
>UIUC Chemical Sciences Computer Center `Each of us has a mission of truth. What
>505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801	my eye sees of reality is seen by no
>Voice:  217-244-0561			other eye. We are irreplaceable; we are
>Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu	necessary.'	--Ortega


Here's yet another opinion.  Three years ago I started training for my first
marathon.  I had 13 weeks to do it in.  My mileage went from about 10-15 miles
per week to about 30-40  during the training period.  I had about
30 pounds to lose and I thought for sure I would take off at least 15-20
just from the running.  My calorie intake was about 1500 per day.  I
am a definite back of the packer for long distances.  After all was said
and done I lost about 3 pounds.  The training class I was in did before
and after measurements, weight, and fat analysis.  I did lose a few inches
but no change on fat.  It was very interesting.  I don't think there
is a definite answer for weight loss and running.  It really does depend
on the individual.  Presently I am trying to do shorter distances (half-
marathons) and do them at a quicker pace.  I will see what happens.

Judi