energy output run vs ski

same course, same terrain, same everything except one person on skis, one
person runs.
who burns more calories?

I'll say the runner.

"outsideinmi" wrote:

same course, same terrain, same everything except one person on skis,
one person runs.
who burns more calories?

I'll say the runner.

Agreed, assuming the individuals are equal in general and specific
training and abilities for their sports and have very similar body
weights and compositions. And assuming we accept the catch in the way
you've posed it: X-C ski race courses typically have more difficult
terrain than running courses, hence a runner will have to work harder
on a ski course, while a x-c skier would have an easier time on a
typical running course.

If we are looking at marathon courses, as the OP posed, then things
change. The typical x-c ski marathon course is a fair amount longer
than offical running marathon ones (26.22 miles = 42.19k). In that
case, a real world comparison points to the likelihood of higher
overall caloric expenditure for the skier.

This can be seen looking at METS (metabolic equivalents), a commonly
used measure of energy output (ml O2/kg/min divided by 3.5). From the
Compendium of Physical Activities,* an average 3:00 marathon runner
(8.74 mph) is putting out about 14.3 METS, while a 3:00 ski marathoner,
say on a 50k course (10.36 mph), is putting out - well, the table
doesn't go that high; the closest is 14.0 METS at 8 mph racing.

For the very top marathon runners, a 2:05 is 12.57 mph; the highest the
table shows is for 10.9 mph - 18.0 METS. Pretty hefty. A 2:05 ski
marathon on a 50k course, a time that for top skiers is quite a bit
slower than the marathoner's 2:05, averages 14.92 mph. I have no data
to extrapolate the latter into METS, but it's hard to imagine it is
less than 18.0, or even close (and less so at a more equivalent top
ski racer's average speed). Note that these MET figures are not adjusted
for course difficulty or length, which presumably disfavors the x-c
skier.

*http://www.liveoakcaf.com/kin%20163/...activities.pdf

Gene

a 42K is not even technically a real ski marathon, but any national
level skier will ski 42K faster than 2 hrs. Also skiing courses are
hilly compared to Olympic marathons. The Lake Placid loppet, the 50K
course I am most familiar with, has ~3,700 feet of cumulative
climbing. I am not sure there are "bona fide" running marathons with
that much climbing. Trail running would probably be a better
comparison, and a 42K trail run following the Loppet course (imagining
it was paved - ha-ha) would not be done in 2 hrs even by the top
runners.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 14:13:09 -0800 (PST)
" wrote:

a 42K is not even technically a real ski marathon, but any national
level skier will ski 42K faster than 2 hrs. Also skiing courses are
hilly compared to Olympic marathons. The Lake Placid loppet, the 50K
course I am most familiar with, has ~3,700 feet of cumulative
climbing. I am not sure there are "bona fide" running marathons with
that much climbing. Trail running would probably be a better
comparison, and a 42K trail run following the Loppet course (imagining
it was paved - ha-ha) would not be done in 2 hrs even by the top
runners.

That's why I've compared only to road running, which Neil in the
earlier thread seemed to be referring to. Get on a trail and everything
changes.

Gene

wrote:
a 42K is not even technically a real ski marathon, but any national
level skier will ski 42K faster than 2 hrs. Also skiing courses are
hilly compared to Olympic marathons. The Lake Placid loppet, the 50K
course I am most familiar with, has ~3,700 feet of cumulative
climbing. I am not sure there are "bona fide" running marathons with
that much climbing. Trail running would probably be a better
comparison, and a 42K trail run following the Loppet course (imagining
it was paved - ha-ha) would not be done in 2 hrs even by the top
runners.

The marathon which ends the Norseman eXtreme Triathlon (nxtri) goes from
190 to 1850 m over the last 17 km, i.e. very close to 10% average grade.

http://nxtri.com/

The hill is simply known as "Zombie Hill".

Take a look at the course he

http://nxtri.com/var/nxtri/storage/images/race_info/course_and_map/norseman_profile/587-1-eng-US/norseman_profile_lightbox.gif

Terje
PS. My sister's son Christian will start his 4th race this August, he
came 10th last year, 20 the previous attempt and the first time he hit
the wall so badly on Zombie Hill that he had to withdraw.

--
- Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

Lol Lol Lol

On Feb 5, 6:08*pm, Terje Mathisen "terje.mathisen at tmsw.no" wrote:
wrote:
a 42K is not even technically a real ski marathon, but any national
level skier will ski 42K faster than 2 hrs. Also skiing courses are
hilly compared to Olympic marathons. The Lake Placid loppet, the 50K
course I am most familiar with, has ~3,700 feet of cumulative
climbing. I am not sure there are "bona fide" running marathons with
that much climbing. Trail running would probably be a better
comparison, and a 42K trail run following the Loppet course (imagining
it was paved - ha-ha) would not be done in 2 hrs even by the top
runners.

The marathon which ends the Norseman eXtreme Triathlon (nxtri) goes from
190 to 1850 m over the last 17 km, i.e. very close to 10% average grade.

http://nxtri.com/

The hill is simply known as "Zombie Hill".

Take a look at the course he

http://nxtri.com/var/nxtri/storage/images/race_info/course_and_map/no...

Terje
PS. My sister's son Christian will start his 4th race this August, he
came 10th last year, 20 the previous attempt and the first time he hit
the wall so badly on Zombie Hill that he had to withdraw.


there are plenty pain fest-type races out there. Badwater and the
Western States pop into mind. May be your nephew can check those out,
too.

wrote:
On Feb 5, 6:08 pm, Terje Mathisen"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no" wrote:
PS. My sister's son Christian will start his 4th race this August, he
came 10th last year, 20 the previous attempt and the first time he hit
the wall so badly on Zombie Hill that he had to withdraw.


there are plenty pain fest-type races out there. Badwater and the
Western States pop into mind. May be your nephew can check those out,
too.

"pain-fest races" indeed.

A few weeks ago he took part in the Abu Dhabi Adventure Challenge, which
includes ~110 km on foot across the Rub al Khali, also known as "the
Empty Quarter". (On this leg one of his team mates broke down due to
dehydration. :-()

I do think the nxtri is or used to be acknowledged as the worst of all
the "classic Ironman" distance tris.

Maybe something about the combination of glacial melt water on the fjord
swim, the 4 mountain passes on the bike leg and the vertical mile at the
end of the marathon?
:-)

Terje
--
- Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

I don't get it. I can run, ski and bike all at 190 HBM -- but skiing
is using the most muscle by far, due to using all 4 limbs plus trunk,
so isn't it burning more calories?

Isn't it a semi-simple HR + muscle mass equation? OK, you need to add
force-per-stroke in there.

I sense more effort going into skiing than either running or cycling
-- I assume due to the much greater muscle engagement.

I suppose the cadence of cycling is fastest, then running, then
classic skiing, then skating. But then we need to count force per
stroke. Speed skating is high on the force, low on cadence
(generally). What about rowing? HUGE on force and muscles recruited...
But when you put cadence back in there... Doesn't this relate to why
skiing seems to come out on top in the VO2Max ranks?

--JP