Running calories

rmitchell239

Is it just me or are these running calories calculated about 20% high? Is MFP tallying my weight into the run + 100 lbs or something?

nishatay

I agree. I think most of the exercise are calculated too high. I usually subtract a few calories just to be safe.

mangrothian

It's pretty much canon that mfp overestimates calories burned. Most people suggest to eat back half of them, and see how your weight goes depending on if you're trying to lose/gain/maintain, and to adjust how much you eat back from there.

rmitchell239

Thanks ladies.

rmitchell239

I've done rowing and the calories were pretty spot on. MFP gives more calories for running and there is just no way I'm burning more running than rowing.

MeanderingMammal

How are you assessing whether you think it's accurate or not?

Generally I'd say that MFP is mid range in terms of running, with Runkeeper being a bit more conservative, Garmin and Endomondo being less conservative and Strava being about the same.

brianpperkins

rmitchell239 wrote: »

I've done rowing and the calories were pretty spot on. MFP gives more calories for running and there is just no way I'm burning more running than rowing.

The MET value for rowing at an effort generating 150 watts is comparable to that of running 12 minute miles.

rmitchell239

I'm just judging by the calories I'm given. I'm slow and not in that great of shape, so yesterday I ran for 40 min at 11.5 min pace and it gave me 576 calories. A slow jog for 3.5 miles is 576? Where as, I rowed for 25 min huffing and puffing--way more exertion and it logged 350. The row was actually way harder than the run. Just seems off.

leggup

rmitchell239 wrote: »

I'm just judging by the calories I'm given. I'm slow and not in that great of shape, so yesterday I ran for 40 min at 11.5 min pace and it gave me 576 calories. A slow jog for 3.5 miles is 576? Where as, I rowed for 25 min huffing and puffing--way more exertion and it logged 350. The row was actually way harder than the run. Just seems off.

I've used ~100 calories per mile and it seems to work well for walking and jogging. So your 40 minute run would be about 350 calories, give or take.

Becky_charles29

I typically burn between 8 and 10 calories per mile with running depending on speed, route and temperature

brianpperkins

rmitchell239 wrote: »

I'm just judging by the calories I'm given. I'm slow and not in that great of shape, so yesterday I ran for 40 min at 11.5 min pace and it gave me 576 calories. A slow jog for 3.5 miles is 576? Where as, I rowed for 25 min huffing and puffing--way more exertion and it logged 350. The row was actually way harder than the run. Just seems off.

14.4 calories per minute for your running .... 14.0 calories per minute for your rowing .... both are exaggerated. Huffing and puffing are not methods of measuring caloric expenditure.

20yearsyounger

I burn more running than rowing and those are my two main activities and I don't rely on MFP to measure those.

lporter229

Becky_charles29 wrote: »

I typically burn between 8 and 10 calories per mile with running depending on speed, route and temperature

Per mile? Or per minute?

brianpperkins

leggup wrote: »

rmitchell239 wrote: »

I'm just judging by the calories I'm given. I'm slow and not in that great of shape, so yesterday I ran for 40 min at 11.5 min pace and it gave me 576 calories. A slow jog for 3.5 miles is 576? Where as, I rowed for 25 min huffing and puffing--way more exertion and it logged 350. The row was actually way harder than the run. Just seems off.

I've used ~100 calories per mile and it seems to work well for walking and jogging. So your 40 minute run would be about 350 calories, give or take.

Without knowing the OP's weight, how can you assess how many calories they might burn based on distance?


Running nets about twice as many calories per mile as walking. 100 net calories per mile is close for an approximately 150 pound person running ... or for a 300 pound person walking.

Becky_charles29

lporter229 wrote: »

Becky_charles29 wrote: »

I typically burn between 8 and 10 calories per mile with running depending on speed, route and temperature

Per mile? Or per minute?

Per mile

20yearsyounger

rmitchell239 wrote: »

I'm just judging by the calories I'm given. I'm slow and not in that great of shape, so yesterday I ran for 40 min at 11.5 min pace and it gave me 576 calories. A slow jog for 3.5 miles is 576? Where as, I rowed for 25 min huffing and puffing--way more exertion and it logged 350. The row was actually way harder than the run. Just seems off.

Everyone is different so just adding another perspective. On average I burn 350 calories rowing 7K. On a 10 min pace per mile, I burn on average about 100 calories per mile so that puts me over 400 calories for the same distance.

rmitchell239

Took to the internet! According to "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running" published in medicine and science 2004. Total calories burned per mile is roughly .75 x body weight in lbs. So 1 mile this would give me 159 per mile burned with a total of roughly 559 for 3.5 miles. MFP calculated at 576. Not too far off, but wait! This is not "net" calorie burn, i.e. the total also counts the resting calories you would burn sitting on the couch watching Game of Thones. Do I want to count the calories I would burn while doing nothing? I think not! MFP already asks about my activity level. Net calorie burn is .63 x body weight in lbs. Thus the run burned about 467 calories. Seems more reasonable. Thoughts anyone?

3dogsrunning

mangrothian wrote: »

It's pretty much canon that mfp overestimates calories burned. Most people suggest to eat back half of them, and see how your weight goes depending on if you're trying to lose/gain/maintain, and to adjust how much you eat back from there.

No, it's really not. For some activities it is not accurate, the more generalized the activity, the more likely it is to be inaccurate. But for things like running and walking when you have speed/time accounted for, it is a fairly decent estimate.

omma_to_3

For walking and running, MFP is pretty darn close. I use the formula you mentioned (which for women is about .63 X weight per mile) and it's pretty close to MFP.

hbrittingham

Becky_charles29 wrote: »

lporter229 wrote: »

Becky_charles29 wrote: »

I typically burn between 8 and 10 calories per mile with running depending on speed, route and temperature

Per mile? Or per minute?

Per mile

That means if you run 3 miles, you are only burning 30 calories.

steph2strong

I find the calories burned from running are pretty accurate if you enter the correct speed. I wear a heart rate monitor when I run and calculating my calories burned based on heart rate comes incredibly close to the calories MFP gives me for running. Although I run on a treadmill usually doing HITT intervals for about 45-60 minutes and I take the average speed from the run. So base pace of 7.0-7.5 mph with interval push of 9-10 mph and i log the run as 7.5 mph.

soldiergrl_101

rmitchell239 wrote: »

Is it just me or are these running calories calculated about 20% high? Is MFP tallying my weight into the run + 100 lbs or something?

I find most excersise calories are over estimated my MFP. My Fitbit is much more accurate

leggup

brianpperkins wrote: »

leggup wrote: »

rmitchell239 wrote: »

I'm just judging by the calories I'm given. I'm slow and not in that great of shape, so yesterday I ran for 40 min at 11.5 min pace and it gave me 576 calories. A slow jog for 3.5 miles is 576? Where as, I rowed for 25 min huffing and puffing--way more exertion and it logged 350. The row was actually way harder than the run. Just seems off.

I've used ~100 calories per mile and it seems to work well for walking and jogging. So your 40 minute run would be about 350 calories, give or take.

Without knowing the OP's weight, how can you assess how many calories they might burn based on distance?

Running nets about twice as many calories per mile as walking. 100 net calories per mile is close for an approximately 150 pound person running ... or for a 300 pound person walking.

http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator

1 mile, 20 minutes (slow walk), 150 lbs: 113 calories burned = about 100
1 mile, 8 minutes (runnin'), 150 lbs: 133 calories burned = about 100 (but it takes way less time)
For a 200 lb person, same thing, only 151 calories/mile aka.. = about 100. OP only has a few lbs left to lose. Really doubt he weighs so much more than that to make it more than about 100 calories.

MeanderingMammal

leggup wrote: »

For a 200 lb person, same thing, only 151 calories/mile aka.. = about 100.

So a 50% error?

It's ok Officer, I was only doing 45mph, that's nearly 30mph isn't it...?

rmitchell239

I weigh 212 down from 225. Changed my goal to 200. I really wanted to try to close the calorie gap, I've just been subtracting 5 minutes from my cardio.

rmitchell239

rmitchell239 wrote: »

I weigh 212 down from 225. Changed my goal to 200. I really wanted to try to close the calorie gap, I've just been subtracting 5 minutes from my cardio.

For calorie counting purposes.

Mr_Knight

leggup wrote: »

http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator

1 mile, 20 minutes (slow walk), 150 lbs: 113 calories burned = about 100
1 mile, 8 minutes (runnin'), 150 lbs: 133 calories burned = about 100 (but it takes way less time)
For a 200 lb person, same thing, only 151 calories/mile aka.. = about 100. OP only has a few lbs left to lose. Really doubt he weighs so much more than that to make it more than about 100 calories.

Those aren't net calories.

running ~= bodyweight in pounds * miles run * 0.6
walking ~= bodyweight in pounds * miles walked * 0.3

1 mile walk @ 150 lbs is about net 50 calories.

mwyvr

rmitchell239 wrote: »

Net calorie burn is .63 x body weight in lbs. Thus the run burned about 467 calories. Seems more reasonable. Thoughts anyone?

I've seen that same article. Seems reasonable.

My experience, in order of most conservative to least:

- Garmin Forerunner watch feeding Garmin Connect which directly feeds MFP
- MFP
- Strava, which takes Garmin data and inflates calories burned; can feed MFP.

For running I use Garmin's numbers. For cycling I use what ever is lowest ACD if the cycling was more casual I radically reduce the estimate.

rmitchell239

mwyvr wrote: »

rmitchell239 wrote: »

Net calorie burn is .63 x body weight in lbs. Thus the run burned about 467 calories. Seems more reasonable. Thoughts anyone?

I've seen that same article. Seems reasonable.

My experience, in order of most conservative to least:

- Garmin Forerunner watch feeding Garmin Connect which directly feeds MFP
- MFP
- Strava, which takes Garmin data and inflates calories burned; can feed MFP.

For running I use Garmin's numbers. For cycling I use what ever is lowest ACD if the cycling was more casual I radically reduce the estimate.

Thanks mw

barryplumber

I find this very close the first calculator gives the net loss then read the paragraph under the calculator it has a link to convert to your gross loss

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/running-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

yirara

Hmm.. that calculator gives me 285kcal for a 5km run, provided I use an age of 1 (adjusted their HRmax eqation to my actual HRmax). Sounds like a lot to be honest.