Old runner wrote:
I don't want to read the whole thread to see if this has been addressed... But I don't accept the basic premise that Kg of mass equals calories burned for 1Km of distance. Can't remember the formula at the moment, but it has to do with mass over distance over time which affects the calories burned. I'm old school so I will use miles...
When I walk 1 mile in 16 minutes I burn about 128 calories. When I jog 1 mile in 10 mins, I burn about 192 calories, when I run 1 mile in 7:30, I burn about 178 calories. My point is that I get less efficient as I go from walking to running and more efficient as I move from running to running faster across the distance. However, I increase my calories per minute across the whole scale during the course of the distance.
OP may be right about Solinsky having greatest energy output, but not for the right reason in the post.
Cheers all
I think net caloric burn (that is, total calories burned subtracting the calories you would have burn over that interval regardless of motion) for covering 1 mile distance tends to be pretty static at any one specific weight. Once you go from walking to running, the pace becomes irrelevant in the calculation of net caloric burn, which I think is the number the kg/km rule gives (it predicts a 150 lb person would net a burn of 110 calories running 1 mile, which is fairly accurate)
I am fuzzy on this stuff so I might be mistaken, but I think that is the distinction that supports Sprint Geezer's initial premise.