My coworker and I were recently discussing running (I know, it's bike forums, not running forums.) We were debating whether or not running faster for a set distance burned more or less calories. Instinctually, you'd say running faster would burn more calories. But, if you think about it, if you run faster for a set distance, you're running for less time. (Same goes for biking.) So, we went off to google and I found this.
Mythbusting: Running A Mile Always Burns The Same Calories | Runner's World
This article talks about running (sorry, it's not biking.) and basically says that when olympic runners ran faster their energy intake in joules/meter actually went down. Therefore they'd burn less energy for a set distance. (The study didn't take into account anaerobic energy used, a point the author of the article quickly pointed out.)
Now, I wholeheartedly disagree with this. I was a competitive D1 runner in college and I know what my legs feel like after a workout day compared to a long distance day. But, I can't find any studies that say similar things for biking as the article above, or any studies giving real data on how many more calories are burned when you run/bike faster. I guess a power meter would be perfect for these types of measurements, therefore there has to be data on this somewhere...
Anyone know of any good data for this? Anyone have any opinions about the matter?