We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
260 calories for 20 minutes of running?
lesliezimmer
Posts: 85 Member
I am a 170 lb female. I run about a 10 minute mile and I do about 2 miles a day.
Why is MFP saying I am burning 260 calories on my runs? I don't know, that seems really high to me, but is it my perception that's off or is MFP estimating too high?
I don't have a fitbit or anything and i don't have the money to buy one, so what would you recommend I put as my calorie burn for this type of activity?
Why is MFP saying I am burning 260 calories on my runs? I don't know, that seems really high to me, but is it my perception that's off or is MFP estimating too high?
I don't have a fitbit or anything and i don't have the money to buy one, so what would you recommend I put as my calorie burn for this type of activity?
0
Replies
-
Seems ok to me.
Edit; didn't realise it was MFP. I'd recommend eating 50% of this calorie burn back, MFP always over-estimates.0 -
MFPs exercise calorie calculations are often assumed to be on the high side. There's other run calorie calculators on the web you can use to find a second opinion. They usually ask for your physical stats as part of the calculation.0
-
I calculate about 220 calories, for 170 lbs, 2 miles.0
-
I weigh 231 pounds and on a 2 mile run for me (about 25 minutes) I burn about 8 calories a minute according to my heart rate monitor. My burn would be about 200 calories and may be a little higher than your burn since I weigh almost 60 pounds more than you. If you are using MFP calorie burns, I would only eat 1/3 - 1/2 of the calories back for awhile to see how it affects your weight loss.0
-
0
-
lesliezimmer wrote: »I am a 170 lb female. I run about a 10 minute mile and I do about 2 miles a day.
Why is MFP saying I am burning 260 calories on my runs? I don't know, that seems really high to me, but is it my perception that's off or is MFP estimating too high?
I don't have a fitbit or anything and i don't have the money to buy one, so what would you recommend I put as my calorie burn for this type of activity?
That would be 6 mph, which is fairly quick. It seems like a comparable amount calories for other calculators out there.0 -
AnthonyThrashD_ wrote: »
But OP says she runs a 10-min mile, which is 6 mph, so a calculation based on 3 mph isn't exactly relevant.
OP, I'm about your weight (and about 10 years older), and I use the MFP estimates for my runs, even when I run on the treadmill at the gym (the treadmill gives an even higher number than MFP does). I don't always eat all of my exercise calories back (but sometimes I do), but if my MFP net is in deficit, I've almost always lost weight (except for the odd week here and there where the monthly hormonal water retention swing apparently overwhelmed the deficit).
0 -
You don't need to go by MFP or even a HRM. As both are guesstimates.
Use this simple formula for running on relatively flat ground, it is most accurate.
Net Running calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.63) x (Distance in mile)
170 x .63 x 2= 214 cals burned more than just sitting is your answer.0 -
Most of the burns are overestimated, thus people usually eat only a portion of the exercise calories.0
-
Thank you! I really appreciate the responses.0
-
lesliezimmer wrote: »I am a 170 lb female. I run about a 10 minute mile and I do about 2 miles a day.
Why is MFP saying I am burning 260 calories on my runs? I don't know, that seems really high to me, but is it my perception that's off or is MFP estimating too high?
I don't have a fitbit or anything and i don't have the money to buy one, so what would you recommend I put as my calorie burn for this type of activity?
MFP always estimates too high, as do treadmills and other gym machines. 260 calories for 20 minutes of running does seem high. I would cut that in half and go from there.0 -
You don't need to go by MFP or even a HRM. As both are guesstimates.
Use this simple formula for running on relatively flat ground, it is most accurate.
Net Running calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.63) x (Distance in mile)
170 x .63 x 2= 214 cals burned more than just sitting is your answer.
No, that's no accurate, and it's very genrealized.0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »Most of the burns are overestimated, thus people usually eat only a portion of the exercise calories.
This, except, due to my weight loss and maintenance journey, I have found my heart rate monitor to be most accurate of all sources.0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »Most of the burns are overestimated, thus people usually eat only a portion of the exercise calories.
This, except, due to my weight loss and maintenance journey, I have found my heart rate monitor to be most accurate of all sources.
I see. So for my particular situation, might it be better for me to do the TDEE method instead of MFP + logging burns?
I am truly trying to be as accurate as possible with what I have to work with. I strongly believe in CICO.0 -
lesliezimmer wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »Most of the burns are overestimated, thus people usually eat only a portion of the exercise calories.
This, except, due to my weight loss and maintenance journey, I have found my heart rate monitor to be most accurate of all sources.
I see. So for my particular situation, might it be better for me to do the TDEE method instead of MFP + logging burns?
I am truly trying to be as accurate as possible with what I have to work with. I strongly believe in CICO.
I've not used the TDEE method, so I can't advise on that.
I would say to just cut your total cardio exercise calories burn in half and you'll be okay.0 -
I would take 50-75% of the calorie burn from MFP database for anything and judge it against your average weight loss over 6-8 weeks
If you are losing more than your target eat back more
But I agree that burn looks inflated for 20mins and a HRM would be your best bet
0 -
lesliezimmer wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »Most of the burns are overestimated, thus people usually eat only a portion of the exercise calories.
This, except, due to my weight loss and maintenance journey, I have found my heart rate monitor to be most accurate of all sources.
I see. So for my particular situation, might it be better for me to do the TDEE method instead of MFP + logging burns?
I am truly trying to be as accurate as possible with what I have to work with. I strongly believe in CICO.
Makes no difference you are still working with estimates ...and they should both come out the same
The only reason to use TDEE is if you do the same every day IMO0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions