Calories running

yirara

As I'm trying to find my maintenance calories I'm wondering how good my running calorie estimates are. At the moment I'm using METs with the following calculation and I wonder if that makes sense:

METs: 8.3 for 12 minutes/mile
Weight: 58.5kg
BMR: approx: 1277 per day
Size: 169cm
Age: 41, female

(BMR/1440)*MET*duration in minutes/((BMR/1440)*duration)

That would give me 199kcal for 30 minutes of running at above speed <- bold for those that don't like equations.

I'm interested in net calories, thus the BMR taken out. Does this number make sense? I read some articles about using VOmax, which I don't have or estimating VOmax using stepwise regressions, which is a bit overdone. Plus that research was done with professional male athletes below my age. Probably not relevant for me I guess.

Any suggestions on a calorie expenditure that makes sense?

SezxyStef

I use an activity tracker and use that or I use mapmyfitness and use that...I typically don't eat all my calories back due to inaccuracies of the estimates.

Just easier that way or log it here and eat some of them back.

There is no way to accurately count burned calories unless in a lab setting so go with your best estimate...that could be a combination of a couple estimates or which ever one works best for you.

TimothyFish

Try using 0.63 times your weight in lbs per mile. That will give you your net calories burned.

Gianfranco_R

I'm not familiar with the METs, but here is a simple formula for the net calories:
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

yirara

Gianfranco_R wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the METs, but here is a simple formula for the net calories:
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

Thus 0.63*129 = 81.27 per mile x2.48 = 201kcal. Hmm.. quite close actually in this case. Though I'm missing some kind of intensity factor in there as intensity at least for me does not correlate well to distance. And I'm sure the walking number is only correct for a certain intensity as well. Looking at METs, there's a point where running and walking at the same speed gives the same factor. That is fast walking then, not a leisurely stroll.

brianpperkins

The formula in Runner's World and the MET tables are both similar approximations based on the comparable averages from testing. The primary factors are mass and distance ... intensity doesn't come into play as much. Burning fractionally more calories per minute over less time doesn't produce a notable difference until you start moving well out on the bell curve.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

StaciMarie1974

Based on weight & pace, I think that's a good starting point. Works out to about 6.63 cals/minute. For me (125 pounds) between various trackers, HRM, etc. I seem to burn 7ish per minute gross. My BMR is just below yours.

Go with that for 4-8 weeks, check actual against expected. Adjust if needed.

yirara

GuitarJerry wrote: »

Intensity is not a factor.

Then why does MFP list different calorie values for different velocities? Why are there different METs for different running velocities? At least the latter should be kind of reliable when it comes to doing research.

DWBalboa

Just curious, why not use a HRM? Then the intensity would already be factored in. When I run the same distance on a hard surface as opposed to running on the beach my burn is not nearly as high. Typically my HR does not exceed 140's on a hard surface, while running on the beach I can easily get into the 160's and my average HR is usually 20-30 points higher.
Just a thought.

BrianSharpe

DWBalboa wrote: »

Just curious, why not use a HRM? Then the intensity would already be factored in. When I run the same distance on a hard surface as opposed to running on the beach my burn is not nearly as high. Typically my HR does not exceed 140's on a hard surface, while running on the beach I can easily get into the 160's and my average HR is usually 20-30 points higher.
Just a thought.

Because there's not a linear relationship between heartrate & caloric expenditure? Most HRM's algorithms are about as reliable as MFP's estimates.

StaciMarie1974

Less reliable than the formula you're going off of? Not trying to start anything, but that was the thought that came to mind...

In the end the best you can really do is try something, collect data, and then go up or down as needed.

BrianSharpe wrote: »

Because there's not a linear relationship between heartrate & caloric expenditure? Most HRM's algorithms are about as reliable as MFP's estimates.

yirara

DWBalboa wrote: »

Just curious, why not use a HRM? Then the intensity would already be factored in. When I run the same distance on a hard surface as opposed to running on the beach my burn is not nearly as high. Typically my HR does not exceed 140's on a hard surface, while running on the beach I can easily get into the 160's and my average HR is usually 20-30 points higher.
Just a thought.

Because I don't have one. HRM with a breast strap cause sidestitches for me as my anatomy is somewhat inconvenient and I'd need to fix them really, really tightly which influences the way I breathe. And I cannot get one with an optical wrist sensor in the country I live - and the usual shops don't ship here. I'd like to have an optical watch though.

Hey look, I've been trying to figure out my maintenance calories a bit longer than yesterday. If everything else is correct then it's time to look at the workout calories again. At the moment my maintenance calories seem to be about 400kcal above what calculators give me, which is a lot for a not very tall woman.

yirara

BrianSharpe wrote: »

Because there's not a linear relationship between heartrate & caloric expenditure? Most HRM's algorithms are about as reliable as MFP's estimates.

And that as well I'd still like to have one just for stats' sake. One thing where those things are way off is temperature. My HR is rather high when running during this time of the year. at this moment I'm waiting for the sun to go down. Still it will be around 39C/102F then, and I won't burn more calories than when running at lower temperatures. I think...

My HRmax is at around 205 btw. The usual equations for training bands would not work for me anyway.

omma_to_3

Intensity is a factor. The article talks about why. Running burns approximately twice the net calories that walking does over the same distance.

The calculator in the article posted is very, very close to the results I get from my HRM. HRMs are most accurate for things like running so that makes sense to me.

TimothyFish

omma_to_3 wrote: »

Intensity is a factor. The article talks about why. Running burns approximately twice the net calories that walking does over the same distance.

The calculator in the article posted is very, very close to the results I get from my HRM. HRMs are most accurate for things like running so that makes sense to me.

That isn't necessarily due to intensity. The big difference between running and walking is that running changes your center of gravity while walking does not. Throwing your weight up into the air and catching it burns more calories than always having your weight resting on the ground.

DWBalboa

StaciMarie1974 wrote: »

Less reliable than the formula you're going off of? Not trying to start anything, but that was the thought that came to mind...

In the end the best you can really do is try something, collect data, and then go up or down as needed.

BrianSharpe wrote: »

Because there's not a linear relationship between heartrate & caloric expenditure? Most HRM's algorithms are about as reliable as MFP's estimates.

Well I have heard a few people say that they aren’t accurate enough or whatever; I guess I should look for a few case studies on the matter, if anyone has links to existing studies please post them. I just know I have seen great results using mine, but I do know that results may vary.
And if they are only a little less accurate than that will work for me.

DWBalboa

yirara wrote: »

DWBalboa wrote: »

Just curious, why not use a HRM? Then the intensity would already be factored in. When I run the same distance on a hard surface as opposed to running on the beach my burn is not nearly as high. Typically my HR does not exceed 140's on a hard surface, while running on the beach I can easily get into the 160's and my average HR is usually 20-30 points higher.
Just a thought.

Because I don't have one. HRM with a breast strap cause sidestitches for me as my anatomy is somewhat inconvenient and I'd need to fix them really, really tightly which influences the way I breathe. And I cannot get one with an optical wrist sensor in the country I live - and the usual shops don't ship here. I'd like to have an optical watch though.

Hey look, I've been trying to figure out my maintenance calories a bit longer than yesterday. If everything else is correct then it's time to look at the workout calories again. At the moment my maintenance calories seem to be about 400kcal above what calculators give me, which is a lot for a not very tall woman.

Ok that is a good reason not to use one. Sorry to hear about the stitches and the shipping issue, hopefully the shipping issue can change for you.
Either way good luck with figuring out the maintenance calories.

TimothyFish

DWBalboa wrote: »

StaciMarie1974 wrote: »

Less reliable than the formula you're going off of? Not trying to start anything, but that was the thought that came to mind...

In the end the best you can really do is try something, collect data, and then go up or down as needed.

BrianSharpe wrote: »

Because there's not a linear relationship between heartrate & caloric expenditure? Most HRM's algorithms are about as reliable as MFP's estimates.

Well I have heard a few people say that they aren’t accurate enough or whatever; I guess I should look for a few case studies on the matter, if anyone has links to existing studies please post them. I just know I have seen great results using mine, but I do know that results may vary.
And if they are only a little less accurate than that will work for me.

I keep looking for someone who has looked into this, but my experience has been that HRM are very far off. Mine reports that I burn 1300 calories on a 20 mile bike ride (which is consistent with MFP), but when you do the physics calculations, the calories burned should be between 500 and 600.

juggernaut1974

200 calories in 30 minutes sounds pretty reasonable.

The thing to remember is regardless of the method used, it's only going to give you an estimate. Assuming you use a somewhat reliable method to estimate, it will give you a base starting point to use. Beyond that - it's simply 'trial and error'.

yirara

TimothyFish wrote: »

That isn't necessarily due to intensity. The big difference between running and walking is that running changes your center of gravity while walking does not. Throwing your weight up into the air and catching it burns more calories than always having your weight resting on the ground.

True, but if you walk very fast, I'd think the movement gets more difficult than running. You'll use your muscles differently compared to a slow stroll. Hey, I don't think our anatomy is well made for fast walking. Look at professional fast-walkers: what they do looks very difficult. From that point of view I can understand if walking energy expenditure gets close to that of running, assuming both are at the same speed. Personally, I find it very difficult to keep speed up when walking at a fast pace compared to running. With running my lung performance seems to be the limiting factor, while fast walking is also hard on all sorts of muscles, including legs, core, lower back and shoulders.

yirara

ceoverturf wrote: »

200 calories in 30 minutes sounds pretty reasonable.

The thing to remember is regardless of the method used, it's only going to give you an estimate. Assuming you use a somewhat reliable method to estimate, it will give you a base starting point to use. Beyond that - it's simply 'trial and error'.

Yes, that's certainly true. We're not machines that all function the same.

yirara

TimothyFish wrote: »

I keep looking for someone who has looked into this, but my experience has been that HRM are very far off. Mine reports that I burn 1300 calories on a 20 mile bike ride (which is consistent with MFP), but when you do the physics calculations, the calories burned should be between 500 and 600.

Depending on the speed I find cycling to be a very easy way to get around, provided the bike is good and not too heavy. I need to do a serious effort to really get out of breath on a 20 mile bike ride. As such I cannot believe that cycling burns so many calories until you get into high speeds and add some terrain. But it's only guessing. Hey, I cycled to work every day for 4 years, about 7.4 miles km each day in every weather including 4.5 inches of snow and horizontal rain. When I moved and had to use the car nothing changed on my weight while I was still eating the same.