Training for 50K - How many calories would you eat back?

steph268

Hi everyone,

I have successfully lost 9 pounds and went from 31.4 to 26.4% body fat over the past 3 months. I was dunked in a water tank in March and again today. I am 5'3 and weigh 135. I would like to get down to 24 to 25% body fat, but I have also just signed up for a 50k, and I am doing some half-marathon trail runs now too. I found it easier to track calories and macros when I was on a steady workout regiment. I just don't know how many calories to eat back when I am doing longer runs. For this weight loss I have been at 1500 calories with a goal of 40% carbs, 30 protein, and 30 fat.

for you longer distance runners, when and how many calories would you eat back for a 6 or 7 mile run and for the long run of 12 to 20 miles? I know I can't stick to the 1500, and I am super hungry too.

angelb1983

1500 will be too low. Do you have a fitbit? That has been a life saver for me on my higher burning days....btw...did you mean to put 50k? I have never heard of one but that sounds like a lot, if so.

cwolfman13

A good estimate of calories burned for running is (.61 X BW X Distance)...you can eat all of them back assuming your current calorie target doesn't include deliberate exercise isn't included in your activity level.

steph268

Yes, I do have a fitbit. I guess, after being on a pretty strict 1500 calories, I am hesitant to have fitbit tell me how many calories to eat. I do, though, for my longer runs stay at a steady HR, so I know fitbit is pretty accurate when it comes to my steady long runs.

Yes, I did say 50K. It does sound like a lot. I have finally come back from an Achilles injury, and am looking for a goal. You usually will find 50k's in trail runs and no road runs.

Thanks for the calculation.

lynn_glenmont

FYI - I'm pretty sure that calculation (.61 X BW X Distance) is for BW in pounds and distance in miles -- it would be off by a rough factor of 2 if you use kilograms and kilometers (that is, you would be undercounting burns more than 50% if you plugged metric figures into that equation). Not assuming you do, as units for race distances are independent of the units of measurements used by participants for every-day life, but just wanted you to be aware of that.


ETA -- oops, I used the .61 when doing the calculation for pounds and miles and then left it out when doing the calculation with kgs and kms -- you would actually be undercounting by about 75% if you used metric measurements.

steph268

I didn't use metric measurement. I used miles and pounds when I did the calculation.

reginakarl

steph268 wrote: »

Hi everyone,



for you longer distance runners, when and how many calories would you eat back for a 6 or 7 mile run and for the long run of 12 to 20 miles? I know I can't stick to the 1500, and I am super hungry too.

I admire your discipline. After 6 to 10 miles, I'm ready to eat all the food. I need to figure your question out also.

bikecheryl

As someone who's run a 50k..... I would seriously talk to other ultra marathoners..... it's a different kind of run, especially if it's on a trail as opposed to street running.

I found the training for it different too

mbaker566

i have my garmin synced. so i do what it tells me and eat about 75% of my calories back. when i am heavy running, i eat heavier on the carbs.
but i just do 13 miles

on the running thread we have a few ultra runners who would be able to give better info

DX2JX2

It depends on your goals. Start with 50% if you want to continue to lose weight. Target 100% or very close to it if you'd rather make sure you can maximize your performance.

I tend to eat back all of my running calories but I use fairly conservative estimates for calories burned. I ignore my fitness tracker since it tends to overestimate.

I've had success just sticking with the 0.63 body weight times mileage formula. At 135 pounds, this would translate to about 500 calories for a 10K or about 1100 calories for a HM.

I still lose weight using this method but it's at a really slow rate and it's easy to adjust up or down (something on order of <0.5 pounds per week, all else equal).

CarvedTones

Training for a 50k, you are going to have a lot of opportunity to tweak. I would start with the calculation above and just see how it goes. Use a weight trending app.

steph268

Thanks all. I like this formula and the thought of starting with eating 50% back. When I up my mileage to 8 or more miles, I really feel the hunger come on. I do have a lot of ultra runner friends (which is how I have gotten sucked into this desire to run this distance), but none of them are trying to lose weight.

I am also all about the slow weight loss, and I really only have 1 or 2 percent more body fat I want to lose.

steph268

reginakarl wrote: »

steph268 wrote: »

Hi everyone,





I admire your discipline. After 6 to 10 miles, I'm ready to eat all the food. I need to figure your question out also.

This is my problem. I do want to eat all the food!

cwolfman13

steph268 wrote: »

Thanks all. I like this formula and the thought of starting with eating 50% back. When I up my mileage to 8 or more miles, I really feel the hunger come on. I do have a lot of ultra runner friends (which is how I have gotten sucked into this desire to run this distance), but none of them are trying to lose weight.

I am also all about the slow weight loss, and I really only have 1 or 2 percent more body fat I want to lose.

That formula is pretty accurate...you don't need to start with 50%...you're training, you need to fuel that. You can eat 100% of the calories from that formula. It's not perfect, but it's highly accurate. People who do the whole 50% thing are doing so because they have no accurate measure of expenditure.

stanmann571

cwolfman13 wrote: »

steph268 wrote: »

Thanks all. I like this formula and the thought of starting with eating 50% back. When I up my mileage to 8 or more miles, I really feel the hunger come on. I do have a lot of ultra runner friends (which is how I have gotten sucked into this desire to run this distance), but none of them are trying to lose weight.

I am also all about the slow weight loss, and I really only have 1 or 2 percent more body fat I want to lose.

That formula is pretty accurate...you don't need to start with 50%...you're training, you need to fuel that. You can eat 100% of the calories from that formula. It's not perfect, but it's highly accurate. People who do the whole 50% thing are doing so because they have no accurate measure of expenditure.

If you use a solid formula you absolutely should eat all the calories. And whether you use the .61 or .63 or .72 formula, you're going to be close enough to eat 99%+ of those calories.

Just be careful if you've also got a fitness device linked, because they can throw wacky numbers into the mix.

steph268

I do have a fitness device, but the numbers on this calculation for calories burned is less than what the calculation gave me for 14 miles. I will always go with the least amount burned. I just have to be comfortable in eating all those calories back.

cwolfman13

steph268 wrote: »

I do have a fitness device, but the numbers on this calculation for calories burned is less than what the calculation gave me for 14 miles. I will always go with the least amount burned. I just have to be comfortable in eating all those calories back.

Are you saying the calculation gave you fewer calories than your device? That would be pretty normal. That calculation comes from Runners World and is very well supported.

TavistockToad

I eat every single one of my exercise calories back. I also can't lose weight when my long runs get into double figures... the runger is too real!