Thoughts on the calorie burn formula from Runners World

initialsdeebee

So running and walking are my main/fave exercises aside from bike commuting. I'm always hearing on this site about how MFP way over estimates calorie burn or doesn't account for weight, age, this, that, etc. I recently read a Runners World article that explains running v walking, sites some research and offers a formula for net calories burned running and walking. They say .63xweightxmiles for running, .30xweightxmiles for walking. They say the running is for a roughly 10 min. mile (which is about what I run), but that speed variations don't make a really significant difference unless you're like either Usane Bolt or Great Grandma (extremely fast or slow). Anyway, I've been using this cause it seems reasonable and gives a lower number than MFP (which did surprise me as high when I started) yet it's still more than half of what MFP suggests. The whole counting only half calories thing doesn't really cut it for me and I find I feel drained and low energy. Anyway I feel comfortable with this, but curious since I haven't seen it mentioned much--does anyone else have insight on this? experience? read either supporting or debunking information?

Mr_Knight

I use those numbers, as well.

TavistockToad

I actually found MFP numbers to be pretty accurate (in that I maintained/lost by eating back exercise cals).

I have a Garmin FR 225 now which actually puts my calorie burn a bit higher than MFP for my runs.

litsy3

I think the MFP running calories are plausible too (in that I also lost while eating them back). It's only about 15 cals/mile different from the RW estimate for me anyway, and less than other online estimates. I do think the MFP calorie burns are a bit generous for other exercises, but the running ones seem realistic.

DavPul

The whole "eat half your exercise calories" thing on MFP is a totally made up thing with no basis in reality.

msf74

Sounds legit.

initialsdeebee

I'm not sure if MFP accounts for weight, but I weigh about 123, so the formula seems to have a larger gap between it and the estimates on this site. I guess it just feels better to use something that I'm certain accounts for a specific weight. But yeah I've also had success losing based on eating back all or most of the calories, except now I'm at a smaller deficit so figure I'd be on the safe side with the formula. Especially for walking. I feel I can't be burning nearly 300 calories walking for an hour. Haha.

cheshirecatastrophe

initialsdeebee wrote: »

I'm not sure if MFP accounts for weight, but I weigh about 123, so the formula seems to have a larger gap between it and the estimates on this site. I guess it just feels better to use something that I'm certain accounts for a specific weight. But yeah I've also had success losing based on eating back all or most of the calories, except now I'm at a smaller deficit so figure I'd be on the safe side with the formula. Especially for walking. I feel I can't be burning nearly 300 calories walking for an hour. Haha.

I find the tables on Jonathan Savage's ultrarunning wiki (fellrnr) are pretty accurate. The default is 150 pounds, but you can enter your weight and change the numbers accordingly. It covers running and walking on different inclines. (Here's the Science on walking.)

MaryJane_8810002

I just use my heart rate monitor...

omma_to_3

That formula is pretty close to both MFP and my HRM for me. Running and walking are one of the most studied activities for calorie burn so you're getting pretty close to reality.