calories per mile run?
LCD_80
Posts: 26 Member
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!
0
Replies
-
LisaDoyle80 wrote: »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
0 -
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?!0
-
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 minute0
-
Runners World suggests .63 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) for net calories expended
0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »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.0 -
I've had mine properly measured at a sports clinic and I burn on average 71 per mile0
-
BrianSharpe wrote: »Runners World suggests .63 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) for net calories expended
can this be used on a treadmill
0 -
lemonychild wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »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)0 -
BrianSharpe 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!
0 -
BrianSharpe 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 walking0 -
This content has been removed.
-
@brianpperkins, and @GuitarJerry, thank you both!
With the formula for walking, I get 41, for 1 mile.
0 -
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?!0
-
LisaDoyle80 wrote: »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.
0 -
But why would it use the same data and get totally different answers?0
-
LisaDoyle80 wrote: »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.0 -
Does that running/walking formula transfer over at all to the elliptical?0
-
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.0 -
LisaDoyle80 wrote: »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.0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »LisaDoyle80 wrote: »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.0 -
brianpperkins 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.
0 -
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.0
-
brianpperkins 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.0 -
brianlundlarsen wrote: »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.0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 420 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions