Does running add a significant amount of calories?
BootsDBA
Posts: 11 Member
I started C25k and I'm on week 3. So I'm not running a lot, just like 9 minutes of running total 3 days of the week. Not much, but my Fitbit has basically no difference between C25k days and normal days. All days I get at least 10k steps which include the running, and all days average the same amount of steps pretty much, which is why I thought there might be a small difference on running days.
So my question is, this is pretty accurate, right? I shouldn't see more of a burn anyway because A) it's not that much running and B ) I probably don't burn that much more at my painfully slow (3.7mph) jog than I do walking, right?
So my question is, this is pretty accurate, right? I shouldn't see more of a burn anyway because A) it's not that much running and B ) I probably don't burn that much more at my painfully slow (3.7mph) jog than I do walking, right?
0
Replies
-
Way I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.0
-
Depends on how much mass you are moving, at what pace, and for how long.
Use the Gross option for total calories during the time for comparison to anything else, use Net option on MFP for logging and eat back as to what you burned above resting calorie burn.
Compare walking and jogging. For the workout - just average the whole thing and that'll be close enough.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
What the Fitbit is likely showing you is that when you do the workout, you are taking time away from something that was already decently active - so not a great addition of steps/calories.
Or you are more sedentary after the workout and totally balance out the calorie burn.
But exercise is for heart health and body improvements.
Diet is for weight loss.
Though the exercise can make you burn more daily, and therefore the diet might be high enough in calories that you'll adhere better, and make those body improvements.0 -
Thank you both! I think I was wishfully thinking because I felt like working harder that 30min deserved more food, but I'm glad I asked because clearly it doesn't, haha.0
-
Way I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.
That's incorrect, you burn more the faster you move. Energy equals mass times velocity squared.
0 -
Way I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.
Quick example, using me and mfp:
I walk for 30 minutes, I burn 141 calories
I run for 30 minutes, I burn 381 calories
Running is awesome for calorie burning. It's also awesome for increasing hunger past the point of compensating those calories, so strict logging is even more important.0 -
Thank you both! I think I was wishfully thinking because I felt like working harder that 30min deserved more food, but I'm glad I asked because clearly it doesn't, haha.
It doesn't much, but if you keep going and get to the point where you can run easily, you'll be able to do more and burn loads of calories. Running burns loads of calories when you get fit enough to do plenty of it (and it will eventually feel like less effort too
) 0 -
-
Way I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.
Sorry, no. Walking a mile burns about half of running per mile*.
It has to do with gait. Running is a series of one-legged hops with periods of having no foot on the ground. Walking is a smooth transition from one foot to the other, no hops. The hops make all the difference (energy to push to leave the ground, energy to land).
*Exception for speed-walking. Walking is inefficient at high speeds. It is equal in calorie burn to running for the same distance once you reach 12:30 min/mi and will burn more than running per mile at faster speeds.0 -
My understanding is that running is about the most efficient method for burning calories, short of cross-country skiing.0
-
Way I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.
Wrong, walking burns less than half the calories that running does (30 cal per mile per 100lbs of body weight vs 63 cal per mile per 100lbs of body weight) unless you're race walking at more than 5mph.0 -
The last I knew, you had to have an increased activity level for 10 min straight to get extra credit in Fitbit. Since c25k breaks up the intense periods, you won't see the increased cals for awhile. Good work on the running! I'm starting c25k as soon as I ditch this nasty cold!0
-
I doesn't burn as much as you think it might - my weekly parkrun of 5km (3 miles) which I can do in under 30 mins, burns around 300 cal.0
-
Thank you both! I think I was wishfully thinking because I felt like working harder that 30min deserved more food, but I'm glad I asked because clearly it doesn't, haha.
It doesn't much, but if you keep going and get to the point where you can run easily, you'll be able to do more and burn loads of calories. Running burns loads of calories when you get fit enough to do plenty of it (and it will eventually feel like less effort too )
I think this is the most helpful response. Yes running burns more, but the difference isn't staggering. If you can walk for an hour but run only for a half hour, you're burning about the same. The good burn from running comes when you can do a lot of it. Keep at it!0 -
Way I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.
Quick example, using me and mfp:
I walk for 30 minutes, I burn 141 calories
I run for 30 minutes, I burn 381 calories
Running is awesome for calorie burning. It's also awesome for increasing hunger past the point of compensating those calories, so strict logging is even more important.
Even with this example though, "running" is relative to the person. 3.7 MPH is what I would consider a walk, but if OP puts it in as running it may be overstating the burn.
Totally agree that running makes me WAY more hungry.0 -
I'mWay I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.
Sorry, no. Walking a mile burns about half of running per mile*.
It has to do with gait. Running is a series of one-legged hops with periods of having no foot on the ground. Walking is a smooth transition from one foot to the other, no hops. The hops make all the difference (energy to push to leave the ground, energy to land).
*Exception for speed-walking. Walking is inefficient at high speeds. It is equal in calorie burn to running for the same distance once you reach 12:30 min/mi and will burn more than running per mile at faster speeds.
Hi
I have a question. I've been running my 5k at a certain speed for a couple of years, and my race pace is 600cals per hour.
I'm easing back in from injury and wondering if I burn the same amount of calories on a 21 minute 5k as I do on a 27minute one?
The hopping thing is interesting. I always wondered if walking the same distance burned the same calories. I had walking down at 200 cals an hour, not taking any risks to overestimate.
0 -
Springfield1970 wrote: »I'mWay I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.
Sorry, no. Walking a mile burns about half of running per mile*.
It has to do with gait. Running is a series of one-legged hops with periods of having no foot on the ground. Walking is a smooth transition from one foot to the other, no hops. The hops make all the difference (energy to push to leave the ground, energy to land).
*Exception for speed-walking. Walking is inefficient at high speeds. It is equal in calorie burn to running for the same distance once you reach 12:30 min/mi and will burn more than running per mile at faster speeds.
Hi
I have a question. I've been running my 5k at a certain speed for a couple of years, and my race pace is 600cals per hour.
I'm easing back in from injury and wondering if I burn the same amount of calories on a 21 minute 5k as I do on a 27minute one?
The hopping thing is interesting. I always wondered if walking the same distance burned the same calories. I had walking down at 200 cals an hour, not taking any risks to overestimate.
The difference is probably so small that it isn't worth noting or caring about.0 -
Springfield1970 wrote: »I'mWay I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.
Sorry, no. Walking a mile burns about half of running per mile*.
It has to do with gait. Running is a series of one-legged hops with periods of having no foot on the ground. Walking is a smooth transition from one foot to the other, no hops. The hops make all the difference (energy to push to leave the ground, energy to land).
*Exception for speed-walking. Walking is inefficient at high speeds. It is equal in calorie burn to running for the same distance once you reach 12:30 min/mi and will burn more than running per mile at faster speeds.
Hi
I have a question. I've been running my 5k at a certain speed for a couple of years, and my race pace is 600cals per hour.
I'm easing back in from injury and wondering if I burn the same amount of calories on a 21 minute 5k as I do on a 27minute one?
The hopping thing is interesting. I always wondered if walking the same distance burned the same calories. I had walking down at 200 cals an hour, not taking any risks to overestimate.
Generally, you do tend to burn the same amount no matter how fast your run, assuming you are running aerobically. However, if you're running anaerobically (an all-out sprint), it takes far more glucose to produce the same amount of ATP, so you would be burning more, but the question is...how much?
A study of men running 3k races showed that they were about 14% anaerobic, but women were only 6% anaerobic. for so you can increase your cal burn by about that much...but it doesn't make that much of a difference.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/161949760 -
I started C25k and I'm on week 3. So I'm not running a lot, just like 9 minutes of running total 3 days of the week. Not much, but my Fitbit has basically no difference between C25k days and normal days. All days I get at least 10k steps which include the running, and all days average the same amount of steps pretty much, which is why I thought there might be a small difference on running days.
So my question is, this is pretty accurate, right? I shouldn't see more of a burn anyway because A) it's not that much running and B ) I probably don't burn that much more at my painfully slow (3.7mph) jog than I do walking, right?
If you're in week 3, I think you'll get to really start seeing the differences in in weeks 4 and 5 when you start to have 5 and 8 minute running intervals. You'll feel it !!!0 -
Everyone already answered but I WISH. I run 3 miles about 3x a week, and I don't get to eat nearly as much as I feel like I deserve from it.
0 -
Way I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.
Sorry, no. Walking a mile burns about half of running per mile*.
It has to do with gait. Running is a series of one-legged hops with periods of having no foot on the ground. Walking is a smooth transition from one foot to the other, no hops. The hops make all the difference (energy to push to leave the ground, energy to land).
*Exception for speed-walking. Walking is inefficient at high speeds. It is equal in calorie burn to running for the same distance once you reach 12:30 min/mi and will burn more than running per mile at faster speeds.
I need to take up speed walking then...0 -
Everyone already answered but I WISH. I run 3 miles about 3x a week, and I don't get to eat nearly as much as I feel like I deserve from it.
Start running more. Add a 4th day. Get in a long run of 4 or 5 miles and start working your way up!
I feel you though. I am walking 3 miles 5 days a week for that reason in addition to 4 days a week of running ~3 miles. 12 miles a week just isn't enough to really do what I want it to do. So I have to make sure I get all that walking in as well.0 -
Way I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.
Sorry, no. Walking a mile burns about half of running per mile*.
It has to do with gait. Running is a series of one-legged hops with periods of having no foot on the ground. Walking is a smooth transition from one foot to the other, no hops. The hops make all the difference (energy to push to leave the ground, energy to land).
*Exception for speed-walking. Walking is inefficient at high speeds. It is equal in calorie burn to running for the same distance once you reach 12:30 min/mi and will burn more than running per mile at faster speeds.
Well - that's not true either - it's not that big a difference per MILE.
Per time obviously different.
http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html
While the often used claim walking burns the same per mile as running is wrong, it's at least closer than your claim in accuracy.0 -
The last I knew, you had to have an increased activity level for 10 min straight to get extra credit in Fitbit. Since c25k breaks up the intense periods, you won't see the increased cals for awhile. Good work on the running! I'm starting c25k as soon as I ditch this nasty cold!
Actually - for the step based trackers- it'll change the calorie burn per step if there is enough variance between how you step - it's instant change of calorie burn.
The HR-based trackers will also use HR-based calorie burn if the HR goes up enough along with steps to indicate exercise is being done - hitting the button to start an activity record also does the per second HR logging and calorie burn estimate. And I'm sure the HR in this case is high enough the whole time to count.
There is no 10 min requirement to see extra calories.0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »Way I see it, walking and running a mile burn the same amount of Cal. However, walking that mile takes 1 hour and running it takes 20 min. So 10000 steps, whether you walk or run those 10000 steps, will always burn the same amount, one way is just faster.
Wrong, walking burns less than half the calories that running does (30 cal per mile per 100lbs of body weight vs 63 cal per mile per 100lbs of body weight) unless you're race walking at more than 5mph.
See science reference in post above. It's no where near half.0 -
Just keep on doing what you're doing regardless. You'll be developing larger muscles which will raise your metabolism even at rest and improving your health generally. FitBit is pretty good at evening out your calories on here. Much better than MFPs calculators I find.0
-
I'm with @heybales (and science). My own experience is that running a mile burns a little more than walking a mile, but not as much as I'd like! I aim for 10k steps day and whether I walk it all or run part of it, my FitBit records my burn for the day as relatively similar. So if I walk 10k steps per day and run a few times a week in addition, I can pretty much eat what I like, as it really boosts my burn. Also second @litsy3 and @ASKyle - I've just moved up from 5k to 10k and the burn and the hunger are huge!0
-
FWIW I walk a lot , 2-300 miles of exercise walking per month and have done so for a couple of years and come up with ( unscientific) 50 cals per mile and have stuck with that.
The general consensus is that running will burn more cals but not as many as people think. Running uses more and different muscles ( I'd imagine) and should burn your calories a lot faster. Of course there are a great many more variables , weight , gait , leg length... etc etc
0 -
Depends on how much mass you are moving, at what pace, and for how long.
Use the Gross option for total calories during the time for comparison to anything else, use Net option on MFP for logging and eat back as to what you burned above resting calorie burn.
Compare walking and jogging. For the workout - just average the whole thing and that'll be close enough.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
What the Fitbit is likely showing you is that when you do the workout, you are taking time away from something that was already decently active - so not a great addition of steps/calories.
Or you are more sedentary after the workout and totally balance out the calorie burn.
But exercise is for heart health and body improvements.
Diet is for weight loss.
Though the exercise can make you burn more daily, and therefore the diet might be high enough in calories that you'll adhere better, and make those body improvements.
So how realistic is this calculator? For a 7.5km/h run of 60 minutes at 57kg it gives me 427 net kcal. If I chose Gross the MET number goes up and it gives me 487 kcal. This is in line with my approximate BMI over 60 minutes. But still the net number of calories look rather high. What I mean is: if I do one of my weekly equally slow 2 hour runs then I'd be dropping weight big time, which just isn't the case.0 -
Depends on how much mass you are moving, at what pace, and for how long.
Use the Gross option for total calories during the time for comparison to anything else, use Net option on MFP for logging and eat back as to what you burned above resting calorie burn.
Compare walking and jogging. For the workout - just average the whole thing and that'll be close enough.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
What the Fitbit is likely showing you is that when you do the workout, you are taking time away from something that was already decently active - so not a great addition of steps/calories.
Or you are more sedentary after the workout and totally balance out the calorie burn.
But exercise is for heart health and body improvements.
Diet is for weight loss.
Though the exercise can make you burn more daily, and therefore the diet might be high enough in calories that you'll adhere better, and make those body improvements.
So how realistic is this calculator? For a 7.5km/h run of 60 minutes at 57kg it gives me 427 net kcal. If I chose Gross the MET number goes up and it gives me 487 kcal. This is in line with my approximate BMI over 60 minutes. But still the net number of calories look rather high. What I mean is: if I do one of my weekly equally slow 2 hour runs then I'd be dropping weight big time, which just isn't the case.
It's more accurate than HRM.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/774337/how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is/p1
The difference between Gross and Net is about BMR level burn, not sure what you mean by BMI.
Realistically, you probably wouldn't be sleeping if not running - so the true Net is between the run calorie burn and whatever you would have been doing - which could have been very active anyway.
So the number of calories the running is adding to your day above normal activity level, especially a long slow run, could easily be wiped out by being more tired even outside the run, sitting around more later on recovering.
That effect isn't a great gain of calories to the day - if any.
And when using MFP and accounting for calories and extra calories - what you were already accounted to burn every minute of the day isn't BMR level burn, but rather your activity level burn.
Say your average activity level outside exercise is Lightly Active per MFP definition, and that's what you selected.
So MFP estimates you'll burn 2400 calories daily, and your eating level is based on that, so say 500 deficit makes 1900 eating goal to lose 1 lb weekly.
2400 calories / 24 hrs = 100 cal an hour.
Your described run burns 487 in total - but 100 has already been accounted for - so only 387 is truly calorie burn above and beyond what was expected and used in the math.
That would be the actual correct way to do MFP exercise logging and eat back.
And considering MFP has all the needed numbers - they could do this so easily when you manually log a workout - besides keeping the database in the original METS format for better accuracy.
Of course using activity trackers handles this correctly anyway - but still.
But even with above correction of 387 cal/hr - if you are not Lightly Active for rest of the day like normal because wiped out - now the math is off for that reason too.
Many reasons why calculated values could be very accurate - but in actual usage could appear to be very wrong.
Replace your long slow run with a long slow walk and now you see why many think the database is badly exaggerated - because now 100 cal off stated exercise could be upwards of 50% of the value.0 -
Yes, of course, that makes sense. However, I'm not big and heavy, hence my TDEE isn't so much higher than my BMR, I'd guess about 1750 per 24 hours. Thus over a 1 hour run it's just 73kcal for existing and sitting on the sofa and watching tv or surfing the net. That's what I mean with the numbers from the calculator looking a bit high.
Note: BMI = wanted to write BMR. sorry for the confusion.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions