Looking for website with running burns, including net calories
Options
Replies
-
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Assuming you mean a heart rate monitor: a HRM is not useful for estimating calorie burns as HR is not related to calorie expenditure. The results get even worse if one doesn't know his or her maxHR. Plus HR gets influenced by so many things such as temperature, general feeling of that day, my asthma medication raises my HR, yet I doubt I burn more calories.
I'm looking for a very specific website someone posted here once.
And all of those factors are accounted for by a website estimate?
LOL! No kidding. A HRM is plenty accurate, and surely more so that a website.
The website is based on a study where they hooked runners up to equipment to as precisely as possible measure their energy expenditure. It's pretty accurate. Not perfect, there are other factors as mentioned up-thread.
Using an HRM, on the other hand doesn't even give you net cals. At least, I've not seen one that does. And it won't account for cardiac drift - your heart rate starts a steady increase about 5min in that continues throughout the run without any increase in pace or incline. Additionally, If you don't fall in the 'norm' for max HR (>30% of people fall one or more standard deviations outside) and you don't or can't calibrate your HRM then it will be off.
For some people, way off. I'm well outside of the norm for max HR. My HRM (that can't be calibrated) reports that I burn 900+ cals for a 6mi run. I weigh 116-118 lbs and run on pretty level trails. Actual burn for that distance as verified through long-term weight management is a bit over 400 cals. As it happens, the equation referenced earlier and the website hit that number pretty much on the nose.
This! My max HR is a smidgeon high. I also think while it does a good job at estimating my level of effort, I'm just not that convinced it ALWAYS equates directly to calorie burn. Sometimes I am running on low sleep and my heart rate is higher. Does that mean I burn more calories? My heart rate also tends to be higher on hot days. Does that mean I really burned more calories than on a cool run?
In general the equations are more accurate than you think. It takes a certain amount of energy to drag weight a certain distance, that's just physics. If someone is brand new at running and their HR goes really high really quickly when they get their mile in, do they really burn more calories than someone who is fit but the same weight? The fit person will have a lower average HR for the same mile ran, but why would we assume a fit person burns fewer calories? So I think it can be inflated if you are out of shape, or your HR is off the typical predicted, and it also relies on plugging your HR into an equation to calculate calorie burn. That's not necessarily more accurate than any other equation.0 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Assuming you mean a heart rate monitor: a HRM is not useful for estimating calorie burns as HR is not related to calorie expenditure. The results get even worse if one doesn't know his or her maxHR. Plus HR gets influenced by so many things such as temperature, general feeling of that day, my asthma medication raises my HR, yet I doubt I burn more calories.
I'm looking for a very specific website someone posted here once.
And all of those factors are accounted for by a website estimate?
LOL! No kidding. A HRM is plenty accurate, and surely more so that a website.
The website is based on a study where they hooked runners up to equipment to as precisely as possible measure their energy expenditure. It's pretty accurate. Not perfect, there are other factors as mentioned up-thread.
Using an HRM, on the other hand doesn't even give you net cals. At least, I've not seen one that does. And it won't account for cardiac drift - your heart rate starts a steady increase about 5min in that continues throughout the run without any increase in pace or incline. Additionally, If you don't fall in the 'norm' for max HR (>30% of people fall one or more standard deviations outside) and you don't or can't calibrate your HRM then it will be off.
For some people, way off. I'm well outside of the norm for max HR. My HRM (that can't be calibrated) reports that I burn 900+ cals for a 6mi run. I weigh 116-118 lbs and run on pretty level trails. Actual burn for that distance as verified through long-term weight management is a bit over 400 cals. As it happens, the equation referenced earlier and the website hit that number pretty much on the nose.
Absolutely thumbs up for your HRM explanation. I had a 9km or 5.6 miles run yesterday and my running app gave me 886kcal, which is ridiculous! The website I upload the data to still gave me 596kcal. Also highly exaggerated. This is despite entering my maxHR to both. The equation posted above gives me around 440, which sounds much more realistic to be honest.
Oh, and why calorie burn via HRM are rubbish: I slept a few times with mine to figure out my minHR, which came back at 45, with an average of 50. Based on that I burned about 250kcal while sleeping (what about BMR? It's certainly not THAT low). I did another test while being on asthma medication and the minimum was at around 55 with an average above 60. I suddenly burned 700kcal all night while sleeping. This is completely off as well. And no, I didn't burn more calories apart from maybe a handful from waking up a few times.
0 -
compendium of physical activities.0
-
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Assuming you mean a heart rate monitor: a HRM is not useful for estimating calorie burns as HR is not related to calorie expenditure. The results get even worse if one doesn't know his or her maxHR. Plus HR gets influenced by so many things such as temperature, general feeling of that day, my asthma medication raises my HR, yet I doubt I burn more calories.
I'm looking for a very specific website someone posted here once.
And all of those factors are accounted for by a website estimate?
LOL! No kidding. A HRM is plenty accurate, and surely more so that a website.
No, a HRM measure time and heart-rate, nothing else.
Many HRMS are grossly inaccurate as their algorithm directly correlates heart rate with caloric expenditure, a correlation that does not exist (2 runners of the same weight but differing fitness levels will have different heart rates but would expend a similar amount of energy running he same distance, all other things being equal, yet most HRMs would incorrectly ascribe a higher expenditure to the less fit runner......your statement is incorrect....)0 -
@yirara
Possibly this one?
exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
Based on the ACSM prediction model, but it doesn't adjust for speeds. Probably close enough for most normal paced runners. The study the Runners World article references also states that the ASCM model is fairly accurate, and also just calculated those percentages they used based on that single speed for running, which was a little quicker than a 6 MPH pace.
Both the calculator and Runners World article are somewhat flawed, as they base results on a given speed, and don't account for variations in BMR when calculating gross calorie burn. The actual study also shows that body composition had impact on the calorie burn, with the males in the study burning more calories due to being leaner. Once adjusted for fat free mass the numbers were essentially even. In that study the men tested were fairly lean, around 12% body fat IIRC. The women were closer to average for females, in the 24-25% range.
As for HRM's.... no thanks. A great tool to see training improvements, but I'll avoid them for any calorie burn calculations. Without a great deal of "calibration" specific to an individual, they have too much margin for error. True measures of power will always be more accurate IMO.
Having trained on a machine with a true power measure, I'd bet money I could skew an HRM calorie burn either direction intentionally on that machine simply by adjusting the resistance and cadence towards either torque induced power or rpm induced power. The two are grossly different, and have different impacts on heart rate. Not all work is created equal.0 -
@robertw486 yay, that's the one! Thanks a lot. Hmm.. though the outcome is quite a bit higher than the weight*distance*0.63 equation.
Actually, for my weight I find that if I log my runs as 'Walking, 8 mins per km, very, very brisk pace' that gives me a calorie burn very similar to the equation above, and just a bit under. I've been using that one for ages as it fits quite well with my general calorie maintenance and expenditure calculations.0 -
Btw, for those prefering metric the equation
distance(miles)*weight(lbs)*0.63
turns to
distance(km)*weight(kg)*0.86 (or 0.8628417
) 0 -
And the walking equation in metric turns into
distance(km)*weight(kg)*0.410 -
And the walking equation in metric turns into
distance(km)*weight(kg)*0.4110 -
@robertw486 yay, that's the one! Thanks a lot. Hmm.. though the outcome is quite a bit higher than the weight*distance*0.63 equation.
Actually, for my weight I find that if I log my runs as 'Walking, 8 mins per km, very, very brisk pace' that gives me a calorie burn very similar to the equation above, and just a bit under. I've been using that one for ages as it fits quite well with my general calorie maintenance and expenditure calculations.
Just keep in mind that none of them are perfect, including the study that many people use. The study used a rather strange mix of fitness levels men vs women, and them came up with an average number. In reality it varies some person to person, and also varies with speed.
I'm surprised on that calculator that they don't factor for speed, as they do reference it with the below link....
exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html
.... but then they also make the mistake of not stating how the chart shows gross calorie burn averages. I think the real important thing is to just try to get close, and with apps that show variances that are huge, it's no wonder people get so confused as to where the reality might be.0 -
I know. Nothing is perfect. I built a spread sheet that compared METs with this net equation in metric and then use a database entry here that gives me a similar number. I do wonder if speed really plays a role as in its most basic form movement is just mass moved over a certain distance (if we ignore friction, gradients and such). If any then it would probably be a very small difference. If you look at the Compendium of Physical Exercise and look up the Met values for various running speeds then you get rather similar distances. Thus speed might be factored in my means of distance.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions