Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Run/Walk Intervals: Best Method to Estimate Calories?

2»

Replies

• Posts: 598Member Member
I would use a fitness tracker and base the calories on the average pace. For example if you jog at a 10:00 pace and walk at a 18:00 pace maybe your average is an 11:30 pace (don’t judge me - didn’t do the math). Base your calories on that 11:30 pace.

Only because you said "don't judge me":

It's really hard to prove or disprove your math, without a few more variables - like how many minutes at each pace.

Thanks for not judging, lol.
Today is a good example of what I was getting at... I ran 5 miles and used a 4:1 run walk interval. My running pace varied between 9:00 and 9:30 min/mile. I walk at 18:00 to 20:00 min/mile. Of course there’s crossing streets, headwind, tailwind, etc.. My Garmin app calculated the entire event averaged a 10:30 min/mile pace. I was suggesting he let his smart device do the math.
These are the kinds of things that are easy to overthink anyway. As one member here puts it whatever our devices calculate is a “gaudy fictitious” number of calories anyway - just an estimate.
• Posts: 402Member Member
Just a quick update, I was at the gym yesterday so did my intervals on the treadmill. It made it pretty easy to monitor the distance and compute based on the proportion of walking vs. running.

My usual habit on the treadmill is to do 65 minutes of walking which gets me to a total of about 4.8 miles. This works out to about 310 calories for me using the "weight x distance x 0.3" formula.

Yesterday in those same 65 minutes I ran a total of 2.25 miles and walked 3.03 miles (5.28 miles). Using the 2 formulas for walking and running it worked out to about 490 calories.

Those extra calories got me a latte instead of a caffe misto from Starbucks and a bigger protein snack. Loving it!
• Posts: 12,388Member Member
Kalex1975 wrote: »
Just a quick update, I was at the gym yesterday so did my intervals on the treadmill. It made it pretty easy to monitor the distance and compute based on the proportion of walking vs. running.

My usual habit on the treadmill is to do 65 minutes of walking which gets me to a total of about 4.8 miles. This works out to about 310 calories for me using the "weight x distance x 0.3" formula.

Yesterday in those same 65 minutes I ran a total of 2.25 miles and walked 3.03 miles (5.28 miles). Using the 2 formulas for walking and running it worked out to about 490 calories.

Those extra calories got me a latte instead of a caffe misto from Starbucks and a bigger protein snack. Loving it!

Out of curiosity, what did the treadmill say for cals burned over the 5.28 miles?
• Posts: 402Member Member
erickirb wrote: »
Kalex1975 wrote: »
Just a quick update, I was at the gym yesterday so did my intervals on the treadmill. It made it pretty easy to monitor the distance and compute based on the proportion of walking vs. running.

My usual habit on the treadmill is to do 65 minutes of walking which gets me to a total of about 4.8 miles. This works out to about 310 calories for me using the "weight x distance x 0.3" formula.

Yesterday in those same 65 minutes I ran a total of 2.25 miles and walked 3.03 miles (5.28 miles). Using the 2 formulas for walking and running it worked out to about 490 calories.

Those extra calories got me a latte instead of a caffe misto from Starbucks and a bigger protein snack. Loving it!

Out of curiosity, what did the treadmill say for cals burned over the 5.28 miles?

Sorry, I don't remember exactly... think it was around 800. I did track it in MapMyWalk which gave me 920 calories!
• Posts: 12,388Member Member
Kalex1975 wrote: »
erickirb wrote: »
Kalex1975 wrote: »
Just a quick update, I was at the gym yesterday so did my intervals on the treadmill. It made it pretty easy to monitor the distance and compute based on the proportion of walking vs. running.

My usual habit on the treadmill is to do 65 minutes of walking which gets me to a total of about 4.8 miles. This works out to about 310 calories for me using the "weight x distance x 0.3" formula.

Yesterday in those same 65 minutes I ran a total of 2.25 miles and walked 3.03 miles (5.28 miles). Using the 2 formulas for walking and running it worked out to about 490 calories.

Those extra calories got me a latte instead of a caffe misto from Starbucks and a bigger protein snack. Loving it!

Out of curiosity, what did the treadmill say for cals burned over the 5.28 miles?

Sorry, I don't remember exactly... think it was around 800. I did track it in MapMyWalk which gave me 920 calories!

Wow, big differences in cals... usually treadmills are pretty accurate if it allows you to enter your weight. the only thing that it may seem to overestimate is that it includes total cals burned during that period of time, not just the calories due to the exercise... in other words, it includes your maintenance cals, with are typically in the 1-1.75 cals/minute, but that would only account for 100 ish cals over 65 mins, so 700ish vs the 490 your calculation gave you
• Posts: 402Member Member
erickirb wrote: »
Wow, big differences in cals... usually treadmills are pretty accurate if it allows you to enter your weight. the only thing that it may seem to overestimate is that it includes total cals burned during that period of time, not just the calories due to the exercise... in other words, it includes your maintenance cals, with are typically in the 1-1.75 cals/minute, but that would only account for 100 ish cals over 65 mins, so 700ish vs the 490 your calculation gave you

Yeah, I did enter my weight on the machine. My guess may have been off. I know I'm going to hit the treadmill again tomorrow - I'll be sure to check the number for sure then.
• Posts: 402Member Member
Kalex1975 wrote: »
erickirb wrote: »
Wow, big differences in cals... usually treadmills are pretty accurate if it allows you to enter your weight. the only thing that it may seem to overestimate is that it includes total cals burned during that period of time, not just the calories due to the exercise... in other words, it includes your maintenance cals, with are typically in the 1-1.75 cals/minute, but that would only account for 100 ish cals over 65 mins, so 700ish vs the 490 your calculation gave you

Yeah, I did enter my weight on the machine. My guess may have been off. I know I'm going to hit the treadmill again tomorrow - I'll be sure to check the number for sure then.

@erickirb

Just got back from the gym. Ran 2.5 miles and walked 2.9 miles which totals about 520 calories using the formulas.

Treadmill showed 924 calories and MapMyWalk showed 966 calories.

Quite the difference!

• Posts: 12,388Member Member
Kalex1975 wrote: »
Kalex1975 wrote: »
erickirb wrote: »
Wow, big differences in cals... usually treadmills are pretty accurate if it allows you to enter your weight. the only thing that it may seem to overestimate is that it includes total cals burned during that period of time, not just the calories due to the exercise... in other words, it includes your maintenance cals, with are typically in the 1-1.75 cals/minute, but that would only account for 100 ish cals over 65 mins, so 700ish vs the 490 your calculation gave you

Yeah, I did enter my weight on the machine. My guess may have been off. I know I'm going to hit the treadmill again tomorrow - I'll be sure to check the number for sure then.

@erickirb

Just got back from the gym. Ran 2.5 miles and walked 2.9 miles which totals about 520 calories using the formulas.

Treadmill showed 924 calories and MapMyWalk showed 966 calories.

Quite the difference!

Maybe the treadmill uses the formula fro runnjng, regardless the speed??
• Posts: 2,478Member Member
If you are following C25k, you know how many minutes you are running and how many minutes you are walking. MFP seems to use time rather than distance for its walking and running computations, so I would put in 15 minutes walking at x pace (4mph) and 15 minutes running if that's what you are doing.
• Posts: 402Member Member
erickirb wrote: »
Maybe the treadmill uses the formula fro runnjng, regardless the speed??

Thanks - I bet you are right!

5.9 x 212.6 x 0.63 = 723 plus the 100 or so from the difference between net and gross would put it very close.