Running to lose weight? Should I run long/slow or short/fast?

I recently came across a Q&A on Runners world and here is what was aid on the topic:

"To lose weight, am I better off running lots of slow miles or fewer but faster miles?"

The simple answer is running at any speed expends about one hundred calories per mile. However, running at a seven minute per mile pace does burn a few more calories than say running at a ten minute mile pace because of the added effort. So, in the short-term, running fewer but faster miles does burn more calories.

The problem is when you add on lots of extra miles in a high gear, you risk getting injured. Adding a few slow miles each week is going to create a steady calorie deficit and over time that's going to help you reach your weight loss goals."

So what do I make of this from my experience?

Well running hard and fast regularly keeps workout times short... but I also seemed to get hip flexor injuries...especially on striding out sprints... You also "run" the risk of tripping up (I broke my ribs after a fall at speed and not having time to put the"brakes" on at a tree trunk obstruction which was obscured!), You're more likely to tear things, or do something suddenly at speed, twisting etc. And less time to assess things using proprioception.

What may work is doing a long distance but with some short bursts of speed to get your heart rate up. Like Interval training. Also trying to maintain your speed uphill will add some more burn as it requires more effort. Fartlek training a Swedish variation of interval training meaning speed play may be beneficial not only for a safe and effective workout in terms of calorie burning, but in terms of getting you fit Cardio-vascularly as you will be getting your heart rate up and down lots whilst retaining a training workout heart rate!

Anyway... just some thoughts! I want to write a blog on Multi-Vitamins...And taking a break from "dieting" in its traditional sense in order to lose more weight following a plateau.