Running calorie question and heart rate monitors

FL_Hiker

Hi ya'll,
I have a couple questions! I've seen this formula thrown around for calculating calories burned while running , bodyweight in lbs X 0.63 X distance in miles = calories burned running. And I have also heard for those who do other exercises, like aerobics, weight lifting, etc. (I don't really know the specifics?) these people usually only eat back half of their calories burned. My first question is using that formula is running the same way? Would you only eat back half of those calories? Or....??? My second question is for those of you that use heart rate monitors to track your runs and calculate calorie burns (I've heard this is the most accurate way to track), however what happens if you have a heart condition like say bradycardia where you heart rate is unusually SLOW... how accurate would that heart rate monitor be then? Wouldn't you target zones be different from someone with a normal heart rate? Sorry for the random questions, they just popped in my head lol!
Thanks

sijomial

The running formula is for net calories and the intention is that someone would eat them all back as it's pretty accurate for normal speed running.

The cut by 50% suggestion is a mathematical abomination based on guesswork and is often unfortunately parroted without thought or context. The database has a range of accuracy/inaccuracy for different entries, it's not uniformly double reality. Two different people's exercise selections can be wildly different and may need small or large adjustment or none at all.

No HRMs are not the best, they have an enormous range of inaccuracy based on the person and the exercise. They may be better than some other methods (for some people doing some exercise) but they can also be a really poor choice especially for inappropriate exercise. Remember energy cannot be counted by heartbeats.
Your exercise heart rate could be vastly different to another person the same weight/age/gender doing exactly the same exercise.

Pick methods appropriate to yourself, try to validate/calibrate against good methods, adjust based on results.

FL_Hiker

sijomial wrote: »

The running formula is for net calories and the intention is that someone would eat them all back as it's pretty accurate for normal speed running.

The cut by 50% suggestion is a mathematical abomination based on guesswork and is often unfortunately parroted without thought or context. The database has a range of accuracy/inaccuracy for different entries, it's not uniformly double reality. Two different people's exercise selections can be wildly different and may need small or large adjustment or none at all.

No HRMs are not the best, they have an enormous range of inaccuracy based on the person and the exercise. They may be better than some other methods (for some people doing some exercise) but they can also be a really poor choice especially for inappropriate exercise. Remember energy cannot be counted by heartbeats.
Your exercise heart rate could be vastly different to another person the same weight/age/gender doing exactly the same exercise.

Pick methods appropriate to yourself, try to validate/calibrate against good methods, adjust based on results.

Thank you for the explaination that makes a lot of sense!

NorthCascades

The running formula will be more accurate than an HRM. It takes a specific amount of energy to move a certain weight over whatever distance. There are variables like how much bounce you have in your step, but overall it's better to go by what you did, than how your responded to doing it.

You should eat 100% of those calories.

spiriteagle99

I eat back all the calories I get from running and walking. If anything, the numbers are a bit low for me, because I do hills regularly, but it is close enough.

dewd2

HRMs can be useful for training. They're not really useful for calorie count (although Garmin's formula works pretty well for me, YMM(and probably will)V.

I eat back all of my calories each week. I do not try to eat back all that I burn after a 20 mile run in a single day. I make up for it over the next couple days (and I can go over if I'm not careful #runger).

AnnPT77

This is excellent and useful information about HRMs:

https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

I highly recommend reading it.

VUA21

For true steady state cardio, calories burned is fairly accurate. For something that's isn't steady state, knowing actual calories burned is a lot more difficult.

The 50-75% a lot of people use to eat back calories, is when they are going by MFP - MFP is notorious for overestimating calories burned. My treadmill (I upload all my stats) and my Garmin, and the general formula for calories burned are within 10% of each other - so I trust them a lot more. Today, my Garmin and my treadmill both tracked my calories burned at about 200 - I just checked by logging, then deleting using MFP database, same workout - 316 calories. Many people do not have a second or third way to track calories burned and only use the MFP database, that's where the 50-75% comes in. If you're using a device that's better at truly monitoring your expenditure, eat back all your calories, you've earned them!