Take the 2-minute tour ×
Sports Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for participants in team and individual sport activities. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Michael Bradley of the US team leads all athletes in "distance covered" during the group stage of the 2014 World Cup with 38 km (23.6 mi) in 270 minutes of play. That's about 8 mi per game (90 min), for an average speed of 5.33 mph.

How much more calories does football (soccer) burn per mile compared to running? Is it considerably more exhausting than running for 90 min straight at 5.33 mph?

I would think yes, considering Bradley and other players are in fact sprinting and resting (more tiring, I think, than medium-distance jogging), plus constantly shifting directions, which I assume requires more calories than running straight ahead (citation needed).

But is the "distance covered" metric measured this way actually analogous to running? Is 8 miles on the soccer pitch equivalent to some greater distance on a racetrack? What's the conversion rate for "distance covered" in soccer vs. running?

How much more or less calorically expensive is soccer than running?

share|improve this question
2  
Quite subjective... A football would train for 90 mins stop/start running so they would find that less tiring than a pure run. A runner would train to run that far but would find stop/start more tiring. Depends on who who speak to. –  aqwert Jun 27 at 5:04
1  
I find playing a football game much less tiring than running a 10K route (e.g. there has been times I played two matches in a row, but I am yet to complete a 10K run). But I'm sure that has to do with motivation as well, I personally like football much more than running, but that's just me.. As it's phrased it's hard to give a factual answer to this question. –  posdef Jun 27 at 9:20
    
@posdef Hoping to find something more than anecdotal evidence to demonstrate the caloric cost of playing soccer vs. running. Is there any out there? –  SamtheBrand Jun 27 at 15:00
    
"Is it considerably more exhausting than running for 90 min straight at 5.33 mph? I would think yes, considering Bradley and other players are in fact sprinting and resting (more tiring, I think, than medium-distance jogging), plus constantly shifting directions, which is more calorically expensive than running straight ahead." You think, but hard evidence would drive this point home. –  edmastermind29 Jun 27 at 17:03
    
"...to demonstrate the caloric cost of playing soccer vs. running. Is there any out there?" Then one would have to consider the heart rate of a specific individual during these activities. This specific individual would play soccer then run with the stats you present above for comparison to provide any evidence beyond anecdotal. This would be a great find and would answer your question. –  edmastermind29 Jun 27 at 17:05

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.