Fast but short or slow but long

2 posts | Original | Recent
3 Posts
Jun 15, 2014 12:07am
via Android

I was wondering, which one is better for weight loss, running fast in short distance or running slow in longer distance?

15 Jun
Edit your title to change the second short to slow
15 Jun
Oops wrong writing, thank you for your attention! :)
15 Jun
Fast and short is Better :)
15 Jun
Tq jeroen! (:
15 Jun
No problem ;)
730 Posts
Jun 15, 2014 8:04am
via iOS
It depends. Now running for 2 hours in a row everyday May not be a good idea, but it says itself that running 10 kilometers burn more calories Then running 5 kilometers regardless of the pace.

But if it takes you 60 min to run 10km and burn 700kcal you Will have burned 12 or so kcal Per min
And if you do lets say sprint intervals for 5km and that takes you 25 min Then you burned a total of 350kcal Then you burned 14kcal Per min. 
So short and fast are more time efficient. In addition to that interval training Will get you in better condition faster. And increase the power output of your legs.
15 Jun
Okay, thanks a lot!! :D