Accurate Formula To Determine Calories Burned Jogging

FreeRiderInNOVA

All,

Here is a simple formula to figure out ACCURATEY how to determine how many calories your burning while Jogging. I did my research after I became concerned that the user input calories burned was not accurate.

Take 0.75 x (your weight in pounds). Multiply this total times the number of miles ran, and it accurately indicates total loss. For example, a jogger who weighs 150 pounds and runs four miles would burn roughly 450 calories. We get this number by taking 150 x 0.75, which equals 112.5, then multiplying by four, since the jogger ran four miles.

rokikio

Awesome, thanks for the information.

vickiele1

Thanks for sharing this information. I wonder if there are other equations/formulas for other kinds of exercise. For example my nordic track recumbent bike indicates the calories indicated on the screen are based on a 185 lb male. Well, I don't weigh 185 lbs nor am I a male - it doesn't let me input my own data. So, I try to use the built in HRM to estimate my average heart rate and then use a calculator to estimate calorie burn. I usually try to use a lesser amount than is indicated because I don't trust the numbers and would rather be estimating too low rather than too high.

Vickie

clioandboy

thanks for this,

I wonder is there anything to determine different speeds?

do I use the same or similar cals if I sedately run 3 miles in say 45 mins or if I do the same 3 miles in 30mins ? cheers

Heliconia

bump

TrainingWithTonya

We use the following formulas in my exercise physiology program at university.

ACSM Walk: 3.5 + [speed (meters per minute) x 0.1] + [speed (meters per minute) x % grade x 1.8] = VO2 in ml/kg/min
Meters per minute is miles per hour x 26.8.

ACSM Run: 3.5 + [speed (meters per minute0 x 0.2] + [speed (meters per minute) x % grade x 0.9] = VO2 in ml/kg/min

Bike: (1.8 x work rate) / [weight (kilograms) + 7] = VO2 in ml/kg/min
Work rate is resistance in kilograms x flywheel distance x revolutions per minute

Arm Bike: (3 x work rate) / [weight (kilograms) + 3] = VO2 in ml/kg/min

Stepper: (0.2 x frequency of steps) + (1.33 x1.8 x Height of step x frequency of steps) + 3.5 = VO2 in ml/kg/min

Once you have the VO2, you can convert it to METs by dividing it by 3.5 (because one MET is 3.5ml/kg/min). You can then multiply the METs by your weight in kilograms to get calories per hour.

FreeRiderInNOVA

Yes. Notice when you create your own personal jogging exercise entry, you are prompted to enter it on the right, and there you can change the minutes exercised based on your personalized entry you just created, and it will change based on that.

vickiele1

We use the following formulas in my exercise physiology program at university.

ACSM Walk: 3.5 + [speed (meters per minute) x 0.1] + [speed (meters per minute) x % grade x 1.8] = VO2 in ml/kg/min
Meters per minute is miles per hour x 26.8.

ACSM Run: 3.5 + [speed (meters per minute0 x 0.2] + [speed (meters per minute) x % grade x 0.9] = VO2 in ml/kg/min

Bike: (1.8 x work rate) / [weight (kilograms) + 7] = VO2 in ml/kg/min
Work rate is resistance in kilograms x flywheel distance x revolutions per minute

Arm Bike: (3 x work rate) / [weight (kilograms) + 3] = VO2 in ml/kg/min

Stepper: (0.2 x frequency of steps) + (1.33 x1.8 x Height of step x frequency of steps) + 3.5 = VO2 in ml/kg/min

Once you have the VO2, you can convert it to METs by dividing it by 3.5 (because one MET is 3.5ml/kg/min). You can then multiply the METs by your weight in kilograms to get calories per hour.

Okay, I'm a pretty intelligent person, but this is a foreign language to me. Can you provide an example. Say, I intend to run 5 miles per hour at an incline of 2 on the treadmill. I weigh 148.8 lbs - help me do this equation - because I don't get metric and this explanation is anything but clear.

Thanks

Vickie

reneelee

bump

jekl

can this apply to the elliptical trainer as well?

jekl

For example if I did 60 minutes/5.5 miles- average HR 157 intensity 9-10 (50% of that machine I think) 195 lbs 5'7'. Machine says I burned 600- this program says over 800- I kind of doubt all of those...seems high

FreeRiderInNOVA

Yeah, thats high. I dont know how to find an accurate formula for that other than google it. Probably your best bet.

BoresEasily

For example if I did 60 minutes/5.5 miles- average HR 157 intensity 9-10 (50% of that machine I think) 195 lbs 5'7'. Machine says I burned 600- this program says over 800- I kind of doubt all of those...seems high

According to Calburn you would have burned 582.24.

http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

I use Calburn when I'm figuring things out because it takes my HRM into account. Those numbers don't seem high at all.

TrainingWithTonya

We use the following formulas in my exercise physiology program at university.

ACSM Walk: 3.5 + [speed (meters per minute) x 0.1] + [speed (meters per minute) x % grade x 1.8] = VO2 in ml/kg/min
Meters per minute is miles per hour x 26.8.

ACSM Run: 3.5 + [speed (meters per minute0 x 0.2] + [speed (meters per minute) x % grade x 0.9] = VO2 in ml/kg/min

Bike: (1.8 x work rate) / [weight (kilograms) + 7] = VO2 in ml/kg/min
Work rate is resistance in kilograms x flywheel distance x revolutions per minute

Arm Bike: (3 x work rate) / [weight (kilograms) + 3] = VO2 in ml/kg/min

Stepper: (0.2 x frequency of steps) + (1.33 x1.8 x Height of step x frequency of steps) + 3.5 = VO2 in ml/kg/min

Once you have the VO2, you can convert it to METs by dividing it by 3.5 (because one MET is 3.5ml/kg/min). You can then multiply the METs by your weight in kilograms to get calories per hour.

Okay, I'm a pretty intelligent person, but this is a foreign language to me. Can you provide an example. Say, I intend to run 5 miles per hour at an incline of 2 on the treadmill. I weigh 148.8 lbs - help me do this equation - because I don't get metric and this explanation is anything but clear.

Thanks

Vickie

Okay, here is your example. Since you are running, then you are going to use the following formula:

ACSM Run: 3.5 + [speed (meters per minute0 x 0.2] + [speed (meters per minute) x % grade x 0.9] = VO2 in ml/kg/min

First we'll determine the various things you need. Speed in meters per minute is mph x 26.8, so 5 x 26.8 = 134. Percent grade is the 2% incline from the treadmill, which is 0.02 in decimal form.

3.5 + [134 x 0.2] + [134 x 0.02 x 0.9] = 3.5 + 26.8 + 2.412 = 32.712 ml O2/kg/min

32.712 / 3.5 = 9.35 METs

148.8 lbs / 2.2046 = 67.5 kilograms

9.35 METs x 67.5 kg = 631 calories per hour

Now, if you only ran for half an hour, you'd divide that 631 calories in half to get a 30 minute workout at that level.

LuckyLeprechaun

whoa. That seems HARD. I'm not knocking you, I'm actually way impressed that you 1. know all that and 2. can understand it

What about just using a HRM?

vickiele1

We use the following formulas in my exercise physiology program at university.

ACSM Walk: 3.5 + [speed (meters per minute) x 0.1] + [speed (meters per minute) x % grade x 1.8] = VO2 in ml/kg/min
Meters per minute is miles per hour x 26.8.

ACSM Run: 3.5 + [speed (meters per minute0 x 0.2] + [speed (meters per minute) x % grade x 0.9] = VO2 in ml/kg/min

Bike: (1.8 x work rate) / [weight (kilograms) + 7] = VO2 in ml/kg/min
Work rate is resistance in kilograms x flywheel distance x revolutions per minute

Arm Bike: (3 x work rate) / [weight (kilograms) + 3] = VO2 in ml/kg/min

Stepper: (0.2 x frequency of steps) + (1.33 x1.8 x Height of step x frequency of steps) + 3.5 = VO2 in ml/kg/min

Once you have the VO2, you can convert it to METs by dividing it by 3.5 (because one MET is 3.5ml/kg/min). You can then multiply the METs by your weight in kilograms to get calories per hour.

Okay, I'm a pretty intelligent person, but this is a foreign language to me. Can you provide an example. Say, I intend to run 5 miles per hour at an incline of 2 on the treadmill. I weigh 148.8 lbs - help me do this equation - because I don't get metric and this explanation is anything but clear.

Thanks

Vickie

Okay, here is your example. Since you are running, then you are going to use the following formula:

ACSM Run: 3.5 + [speed (meters per minute0 x 0.2] + [speed (meters per minute) x % grade x 0.9] = VO2 in ml/kg/min

First we'll determine the various things you need. Speed in meters per minute is mph x 26.8, so 5 x 26.8 = 134. Percent grade is the 2% incline from the treadmill, which is 0.02 in decimal form.

3.5 + [134 x 0.2] + [134 x 0.02 x 0.9] = 3.5 + 26.8 + 2.412 = 32.712 ml O2/kg/min

32.712 / 3.5 = 9.35 METs

148.8 lbs / 2.2046 = 67.5 kilograms

9.35 METs x 67.5 kg = 631 calories per hour

Now, if you only ran for half an hour, you'd divide that 631 calories in half to get a 30 minute workout at that level.

Thanks so much for the example - now I get it - I almost had it, but missed a step - so I get it now. Thanks so much for explaining it to me.

Vickie

TrainingWithTonya

whoa. That seems HARD. I'm not knocking you, I'm actually way impressed that you 1. know all that and 2. can understand it

What about just using a HRM?

Yeah, I didn't realize I had to be a mathematician to be an exercise physiologist, either, until getting in depth in the program. Thankfully, my Daddy insisted on me getting an accounting degree before I went to follow my sports dreams so that I can now follow the math we gym rats need. LOL

As for a heart rate monitor, they are great. But they have their issues, too. We use them in our program so we don't have to take a manual pulse while doing exercise testing, but not for determining calorie burns. The reasons for that are, A) each manufacturer uses their own proprietary formula for determining calories burned which may or may not have been scientifically proven accurate (Generally my prof's trust the Polar though more then other brands) and medications can effect heart rate which will effect the calorie burns from a HRM. Since ours is a clinical program, we focus on working with a lot of various illnesses and injuries which means working with a population of people on meds, so that is probably the number one reason why we don't use HRM's for calorie burns. And just FYI, caffeine is one of the things that our patients have to be off of for at least 12 hours before testing due to the fact that we are doing EKG at the same time as our treadmill test because EKG is reading heart rhythms and caffeine increases heart rate without exertion. So, someone who is relying on a HRM for calorie burns but has caffeine the day they exercise (morning coffee anyone?) will get a higher calorie burn reading then what they actually burned because of the increase in heart rate even at rest because of the caffeine. If you don't use any caffeine (even chocolate or tea), take any meds (cold meds are bad about effecting heart rate), and have a high quality HRM that is properly programmed for you (one wrong number in the programming can throw it off too), then you should be okay with a HRM for estimating calorie burns. That's all any of them are really, though, is estimates. In the real world we can't be 100% accurate with calorie burns. The only way to get accurate calorie burns is in a lab.

rnroadrunner

bump. ????

butron

I tried to simplify and translate the formula for running into pagan units ;-). Even then, instead of dealing with miles/hour, I deal with total distance in miles (just like the original simple formula at the beginning of this forum). This is a simple change but, in my view, a sensible one. Using miles, pounds and percentage of incline (where an incline of 2% is simply a 2) the formula is:

Calculate MET = 1 + (1.53 + 0.07 x Incline%) x total distance
Total calories consumed: MET x Weight / 2.2046

It does not matter if the speed changes along the way or the time it takes to run the distance. It does matter that the incline be kept constant, otherwise one should use a time weighted average for the incline. The latter statement is for mathematicians, for non mathematicians just eyeball your average incline and you will be pretty close.

Mr_Knight

Calculate MET = 1 + (1.53 + 0.07 x Incline%) x total distance
Total calories consumed: MET x Weight / 2.2046

I would change the first line to:

Calculate MET = 1 + (1.53 + 0.07 x (Incline%-2)) x total distance

Reason is that 1-2% incline is generally accepted as what is needed to more closely replicate non-treadmill running, so the first 2% of incline don't really count.

RoyBeck

I'm a runner not a jogger

But seriously how accurate is this? I'm not so sure.

Mr_Knight

I'm a runner not a jogger

But seriously how accurate is this? I'm not so sure.

It's very close. Closer than the calorie estimates on the food logging side, for sure.

Note that this gives gross calories. Knock of 10-15% for net calories, or calculate your hourly RMR and back it out manually, or just use the standard "0.63 * body weight in pounds * miles run".

SmileCozYouCan

bump!

RoyBeck

I'm a runner not a jogger

But seriously how accurate is this? I'm not so sure.

It's very close. Closer than the calorie estimates on the food logging side, for sure.

Note that this gives gross calories. Knock of 10-15% for net calories, or calculate your hourly RMR and back it out manually, or just use the standard "0.63 * body weight in pounds * miles run".

Hey buddy.

I always knock off 80 (My bmr) so the 0.63 one seems about right.

Hope OP doesn't think I'm being too dismissive I just like to understand fully and it takes a while believe me!

I ran 5k today in 0:33:32. My HRM gave me a burn of 515. I'm 210. I'm just trying to understand why there'd be such a difference.

RoyBeck

Anyone explain the difference?

zornig

For running, I found the following article at Runner's World: http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

The upshot is:

Your Total Calorie Burn/Mile When Running = .75 x your weight (in lbs.) x # of miles run
Your Net Calorie Burn/Mile When Running = .63 x your weight x # of miles run


Your Total Calorie Burn/Mile When Walking = .53 x your weight
Your Net Calorie Burn/Mile When Running = .30 x your weight

The walking formulas apply to speeds of 3 to 4 mph. At 5 mph and faster, walking burns more calories than running.

Adapted from "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise, Cameron et al, Dec. 2004.

in addition, I found the following article that does a similar calculation for cycling, which is more sensitive to variations in speed:

Running vs. Biking
Although running is also a great form of aerobic exercise, the calories burned per mile always remains the same. Two things will alter the total calories burned---speed and weight. However, with biking there is wind resistance to add into the mix. Because of this, the faster you bike, the faster you burn not only total calories but calories per mile. Running will also give you a more intense workout, but it's easier to burn calories biking, meaning you won't have to bike as intensely as you run to burn the same number of calories.

Calories Per Mile
Dr. Edward Coyle at the University of Texas in Austin has worked with top athletes studying their oxygen consumption. Here is the calorie consumption he has figured out for for biking: 10 mph -- 0.17 calories/pound; 15 mph -- 0.2 calories/pound; 20 mph -- 0.25 calories/pound; 25 mph -- 0.3 calories/pound; and 30 mph -- 0.38 calories/pound.

Calculating Calories Per Mile
To figure how many calories you will burn per mile, take your body weight and multiply it by the calorie consumption listed above for the speed at which you bike. For instance, a 140-pound man biking at 20 mph will burn 35 calories per mile (140 pounds x 0.25 calories/pound), and a 160-pound man biking at the same speed will burn 40 calories per mile (160 pounds x 0.25 calories/pound). The heavier you are, the more calories per mile you will burn.

Total Calories
To calculate how many calories you burn during a bike ride, multiply the calorie factor by your weight and miles biked. For example a 150 lb. biker, biking 20 miles at 15 miles per hour will burn 600 calories (150 pounds x 20 miles x 0.2 calories/pound).

Factors That Could Influence the Numbers
Coyle's calculations don't take into wind and hills. Biking into a headwind will be harder than biking in a tailwind. Biking uphill will be harder than biking downhill. Also, drafting behind another rider could cut your energy needs by one-third.

_TastySnoBalls_

get on my wall!