calories per mile run?

Hi all. I am a regular runner using a garmin 610 with HRM to record my runs and estimate my calorie burn (so I can eat more!). I usually find the watch says about 50 calories per km (80 per mile) but sometimes, particularly the first couple of km it tells me as low as 10 calories for a km. Surely this can't be right? I can compare two runs, both on same route, same speed, same average heart rate but a huge difference in supposed calorie burn. Should I assume the really low reports are wrong and just some sort of malfunction of the watch? Even 50 calories per km seems fairly low (I'm 57kg/126lb maybe a little less) and I run at about 4.20min/km (7min mile) pace. Any advice on a realistic calorie burn for this sort of run? I eat my exercise calories so don't want to overestimate, but do want to be able eat as much as I am allowed!

Replies

  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Even 50 calories per km seems fairly low (I'm 57kg/126lb maybe a little less)

    That's about right, c80-85 cals per mile
  • LCD_80
    LCD_80 Posts: 26 Member
    Yes, I meant at the low end of the usual estimates not that I didn't believe it. But 10 calories for a km is nonsense, right?!
  • saphin
    saphin Posts: 246 Member
    I just checked in sports nutrition for endurance athletes (by Monique Ryan) and the per minute calorie burn for your weight and speed is listed at about 13 calories a minute
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Runners World suggests .63 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) for net calories expended

  • __Di__
    __Di__ Posts: 1,658 Member
    Runners World suggests .63 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) for net calories expended

    That's an interesting calculation, I just worked some of my runs out using this and they seem about right.
  • Heatherthecyclist
    Heatherthecyclist Posts: 41 Member
    I've had mine properly measured at a sports clinic and I burn on average 71 per mile
  • lemonychild
    lemonychild Posts: 654 Member
    Runners World suggests .63 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) for net calories expended

    can this be used on a treadmill
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Runners World suggests .63 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) for net calories expended

    can this be used on a treadmill

    Yes but will be slightly low if you're running at a higher incline (walking can use the same formula but substitute .30 as the factor)
  • Fursian
    Fursian Posts: 543 Member
    Runners World suggests .63 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) for net calories expended

    Hi, @BrianSharpe :) Is the distance not in km, rather than miles? On a calc, do we just use "x 1" or "x 2" for 1 or 2 miles? So it would be .63 x lbs x 1 = (for 1 mile)

    I'm not the sharpest with numbers, lol, so thank you advance (or anyone reading!) for the help!
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Fursian wrote: »
    Runners World suggests .63 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) for net calories expended

    Hi, @BrianSharpe :) Is the distance not in km, rather than miles? On a calc, do we just use "x 1" or "x 2" for 1 or 2 miles? So it would be .63 x lbs x 1 = (for 1 mile)

    I'm not the sharpest with numbers, lol, so thank you advance (or anyone reading!) for the help!

    The distance is in miles ..... (distance in miles) x (weight in pounds) x .63 = approximate net calories from running.

    (distance in miles) x (weight in pounds) x .3= approximate net calories from walking
  • This content has been removed.
  • Fursian
    Fursian Posts: 543 Member
    edited December 2015
    @brianpperkins, and @GuitarJerry, thank you both! :)

    With the formula for walking, I get 41, for 1 mile.
  • LCD_80
    LCD_80 Posts: 26 Member
    So the consensus is that my watch is a bit defective! I wonder why that happens, surely it just does a calculation based on my weight, time run, speed (?) and average heart rate, so how does it get it wrong?!
  • strong_curves
    strong_curves Posts: 2,229 Member
    So the consensus is that my watch is a bit defective! I wonder why that happens, surely it just does a calculation based on my weight, time run, speed (?) and average heart rate, so how does it get it wrong?!

    No, your watch is giving you it's best estimate. HRM's aren't 100% accurate.
  • LCD_80
    LCD_80 Posts: 26 Member
    But why would it use the same data and get totally different answers?
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Yes, I meant at the low end of the usual estimates not that I didn't believe it. But 10 calories for a km is nonsense, right?!

    Do you mean that you're using the calorie count display on the watch?

    Ignore it. The watch doesn't have enough data to have a reliable conclusion. It's meaningless as a training input.
  • Madison_LH
    Madison_LH Posts: 28 Member
    Does that running/walking formula transfer over at all to the elliptical?
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Madison_LH wrote: »
    Does that running/walking formula transfer over at all to the elliptical?

    No since the eliptical is neither and no two models provide the same level of resistance.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    So the consensus is that my watch is a bit defective! I wonder why that happens, surely it just does a calculation based on my weight, time run, speed (?) and average heart rate, so how does it get it wrong?!

    Keep in mind also that this formula is for net calories expended (ie additional calories attributed to exercise) many HRMs estimate gross calories expended which includes BMR. A big part of the problem is that all they have to go on is time and heart rate and there's not a linear relationship between HR and calories expended. My Garmin, which also tracks distance and vertical rise, gives me results that are slightly higher than this formula but much lower than my old HRM used to estimate.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    So the consensus is that my watch is a bit defective! I wonder why that happens, surely it just does a calculation based on my weight, time run, speed (?) and average heart rate, so how does it get it wrong?!

    Keep in mind also that this formula is for net calories expended (ie additional calories attributed to exercise) many HRMs estimate gross calories expended which includes BMR. A big part of the problem is that all they have to go on is time and heart rate and there's not a linear relationship between HR and calories expended. My Garmin, which also tracks distance and vertical rise, gives me results that are slightly higher than this formula but much lower than my old HRM used to estimate.

    I thought that newer Garmins used the HRM to confirm the calorie estimates given by the pace/distance/elevation estimate or vice versa.
  • gdyment
    gdyment Posts: 299 Member
    edited December 2015

    Hi, @BrianSharpe :) Is the distance not in km, rather than miles? On a calc, do we just use "x 1" or "x 2" for 1 or 2 miles? So it would be .63 x lbs x 1 = (for 1 mile)

    I'm not the sharpest with numbers, lol, so thank you advance (or anyone reading!) for the help!

    The distance is in miles ..... (distance in miles) x (weight in pounds) x .63 = approximate net calories from running.

    (distance in miles) x (weight in pounds) x .3= approximate net calories from walking

    As with most things, it's easier in metric. 1 cal for every kg of weight for every KM run. 72kg person gets 72 cals per km. 720 for running a 10k. Close enough.
  • brianlundlarsen
    brianlundlarsen Posts: 49 Member
    edited December 2015
    Garmin takes HR into account. How is your HR loiking for that 10 kcal mile? My guess is the strap didn't pick it up right from the beginning of the run, but once you start sweating, the conduction improves and the estimate goes up. If you don't already, then try wetting the electrodes befofe you put the HR strap on.
  • Fursian
    Fursian Posts: 543 Member
    gdyment wrote: »

    Hi, @BrianSharpe :) Is the distance not in km, rather than miles? On a calc, do we just use "x 1" or "x 2" for 1 or 2 miles? So it would be .63 x lbs x 1 = (for 1 mile)

    I'm not the sharpest with numbers, lol, so thank you advance (or anyone reading!) for the help!

    The distance is in miles ..... (distance in miles) x (weight in pounds) x .63 = approximate net calories from running.

    (distance in miles) x (weight in pounds) x .3= approximate net calories from walking

    As with most things, it's easier in metric. 1 cal for every kg of weight for every KM run. 72kg person gets 72 cals per km. 720 for running a 10k. Close enough.

    I'm still learning kilograms. For the longest time, I only really understood stones (I'm in the UK), but a few months ago, at the start of my "journey", got the hang of working with pounds.

    Just to double check here, with the formula up-thread, I get 41 calories per mile for walking. I walk 6 miles per day, and using the .30 formula it adds up to 246 calories, Is this number safe to put into MFP? Many thanks to anyone for the help!

    @LisaDoyle80, I gave up on my HRM watch. I fed it all my stats, and even on the most sedentary of fitness levels, it was giving me, what I understand now to be too high of a calorie burn. Even the expensive Fitbits and the like apparently can give inflated burns.
  • LCD_80
    LCD_80 Posts: 26 Member
    Garmin takes HR into account. How is your HR loiking for that 10 kcal mile? My guess is the strap didn't pick it up right from the beginning of the run, but once you start sweating, the conduction improves and the estimate goes up. If you don't already, then try wetting the electrodes befofe you put the HR strap on.

    That would make sense, but the average HR says it is much the same as any other km where I get 45 calories (normal for first km), that's what confuses me.
  • beemerphile1
    beemerphile1 Posts: 1,710 Member
    Runners World suggests .63 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) for net calories expended

    That is the formula I use. It appears that most apps and fitness trackers use gross calories and are highly inaccurate at that.

    We don't want to record gross calories because that number includes the calories you burn just being alive. The net calories is the amount burned in addition to your base metabolism.