calories burned running - tale of 2 apps

55in13

So I decided to try Endomondo after reading all the positive reviews yesterday. I have been using Strava recently mostly because of cycling buddies encouraging me to for following each other and what not. Their cycling app works better than their running app and I have been a little disappointed in Strave. Anyway, I used both apps at the same time to do some cross checking. They came up with significantly different results for calories burned, so I was wondering if there is an accepted calculator out there.

Here are the run specs:

10.2 miles in 1:52:xx (seconds varied as I was stopping each app separately, but not by much). The rise/fall on the route was 1282 feet, I weigh 178 lbs, 69.5" tall, 54 yo male.

Endomondo says 1407 calories burned. Strava says 1747. That's a difference of 340 - nearly a full meal.

BTW, stealth gloat in there - that is my first 10 mile run and while it was a slow pace (a little over 11:00, but early miles were under) I completed it without stopping or walking!

RunnerElizabeth

I don't believe the calorie burn estimate on any of the aps. I think they are all high. An average person burns about 100 calories per mile. I weigh 124, I believe the average person Iis supposedly between 130-150. So I subtract a little for being a little smaller. Also if you run regularly you get more efficient at it and burn a little less, so for these factors I subtract 15-20 calories per mile, 20 if I'm running pretty fast 15 if I'm la-ti-da abiut it. So if I go for a 10 mile run I count it only as about 850 max. Keeping my estimates conservative keeps me from overeating.

55in13

I have noticed from some previous runs using Strava that the rise/fall is definitely factored in. There is a really big hill nearby that I sometimes choose to include. By really big, I mean there are bluffs where there is a park and trails to overlooks, not just a minor rise in the road. Across the road from the park is a neighborhood that has the same drop without the sheer cliffs and if I run there versus running just in my neighborhood (up on the hill top; still some variation but nothing like that) Strava calculates substantially more calories for the same distance. Kinda makes sense; it's so steep that even running down hill is hard.

55in13

I just checked a calculator at SparkPeople:
http://www.sparkpeople.com/resource/calories_burned.asp
And it used the speed (5.5 mph or 11:00 miles), my weight (178) and the number of minutes (112) to calculate it to be 1391.

Where did you get the 100 per mile figure from?

55in13

bump; still wondering where the other guideline (100 per mile) came from and trying to decide what to use. I have 2 calculations coming in close to 1400, another calculation at over 1700 and a post suggesting it should be closer to 1000, maybe even below.

RunnerElizabeth

bump; still wondering where the other guideline (100 per mile) came from and trying to decide what to use. I have 2 calculations coming in close to 1400, another calculation at over 1700 and a post suggesting it should be closer to 1000, maybe even below.

It comes from where all the best information comes from, the internet! I've been using this figure for a while based on lots of articles. And when I did a google search for 100 calories per mile I found articles saying its true and others saying it's not, but mostly because there is room for adjustment based on weight and speed, which is what I do.

Interestingly enough the sparkpeople calculator (which I've used before) gives me 840 for a 10 mile run at 10 min miles, which is around what I give myself since I subtract 15-20 per mile. For you I would add the 20 to account for weight, so I'd say your conservative eastimate would be around 1200 or so. I believe in being conservative. Anyway, all my aps with my stats give me around 1000 for 10 mile run, so I just cut 200 off and go with that.

There are so many other factors that effect it, like temperature and elevation, etc. But I calculate the way I do so that I'm eating back a good portion of my actual output, but definitely not eating too much. But I'm not eating at a deficit anymore.

froeschli

i use runkeeper and it's within 10% of my hrm. haven't got a base of comparison to other apps though.
if you are losing weight, you have to update your stats inside the app regularly. and some apps tell you total calories burned, whilst others subtract bmr.

cwolfman13

Per my HRM, I come in at just over 100 calories per mile whether I'm running or walking. I'm 180 Lbs...I did 2 miles yesterday and came it at 238 calories (after I subtracted my BMR calories).

Personally, I'd go with the most conservative estimate. You're never going to be exact nor is it necessary to be exact. Just be conservative so that you don't over eat your exercise calories if you're using the MFP (NEAT) method. I use the TDEE method so I don't even worry about it anymore...just base my activity level on the number of hours per week I exercise and call it a day.

55in13

RunnerElizabeth,

Thanks for the longer explanation. You added substantial legitimacy to the SparkPeople and EndoMondo calculations (since they are close to each other). I used the calculator you mentioned at SparkPeople for you and double checked you (this is the internet :bigsmile: ) and saw the 840 score at 6 mph for 100 minutes for a 124 pound person. Then I put in 178 for the weight and it came in at 1380, roughly in line with numbers I am getting. Kinda makes sense; if you ran while lugging around an extra 50 lbs you would burn a lot more calories. This is yet another nail in the Strava running app coffin; the switch to Endomondo is a done deal. I don't try to "eat back all exercise calories" so the exact number is not so important as the general range.