Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Running App that tracks Intensity over time

TimothyIvoryTimothyIvory Posts: 12Member Member Posts: 12Member Member
I like to run for an hour with variable speeds. I usually jog at 5 miles per hour but every once in a while I get flooded with energy and go supercharge as fast as I can 10-12 miles an hour (more?).

I'd like to track this to see how on a chart the rate of intensity increase so I can track how long I'm in this state and get an more accurate calorie burned estimator. Apps and fitness trackers welcome.
«1

Replies

  • Silent_SoliloquySilent_Soliloquy Posts: 237Member Member Posts: 237Member Member
    ^^ you will not find a better expert than dewd.

    If all you care about is calories burned, don't bother with adjustments for pace.

    But as a second measure of fitness ... how many calories per hour you can burn is deeply complex, involving vO2 max and lactic thresholds... and the strength of your parasympathetic system as a whole. And i do think it's worth training your body to be able to burn a LOT of calories for, say, 10 minutes.

    Slight tangent...but i would assert that of all the fitness stuff we do, nothing is more likely to save your life more than being capable of a huge sudden expenditure of energy.

    What are your fitness goals ?
    edited May 15
  • firef1y72firef1y72 Posts: 1,333Member Member Posts: 1,333Member Member
    I like to run for an hour with variable speeds. I usually jog at 5 miles per hour but every once in a while I get flooded with energy and go supercharge as fast as I can 10-12 miles an hour (more?).

    I'd like to track this to see how on a chart the rate of intensity increase so I can track how long I'm in this state and get an more accurate calorie burned estimator. Apps and fitness trackers welcome.

    A running watch with gps linked to Strava will be able to give you a reasonable look at your varying pace over a run, and one with a hr monitor will give you a look at how your hr responds to the varying pace.
    It really doesn't make that much difference how fast you run a mile to how many Calories you buurn, you just burn them quicker if you run faster.

    I do find it interesting to look at how my hr reacts to changes in pace/intensity/incline, but it's worth noting that it takes your hr time to catch up with whatever you're doing, so if I'm doing short sprint intervals, it usually doesn't peak until the end of the interval (and sometimes not until part way through recovery). I'm more interested in how quickly I recover (too quickly now in my case, I'm so jealous of people that don't have to half kill themselves to get/keep the hr up)
  • TimothyIvoryTimothyIvory Posts: 12Member Member Posts: 12Member Member
    Awesome! Learning lots ;)

    Increasing my pace doesn't mean I burn more calories when the total distance is the same. Okay!

    I can't help it. I get a flood of energy and just go at it for about a minute, sometimes more. It feels amazing, a state of ecstasy. I do want to make sure I don't injure myself so having a plan seems like a good idea. Is there good youtube channel to learn these things, or a book, or even a few tidbits of info to keep me out there and not injure myself?

    My fitness goals are to burn 5-7 lbs of fat around my stomach. I'm lean/muscular besides this area and its driving me f***ing crazy. I'm doing fasting cardio everyday in the morning, it seems to be slowly going away, but I'm noticing an equivalent, or perhaps, even greater amount of gains being lost (muscles). I work out too! It's a bummer to see months of gains dissapear like that, but I'm not sure what else to do.

    I try to maintain a positive nitrogen balance that will allow fat loss AND muscle gain. Maybe I should try HARDER!!! to make sure I'm getting enough protein. Will see.

    Thinking of getting a sportwatch to track my shi*, but really? Anyone do any research how accurate that is? I'll have a 30-80 percent margin of accuracy. I'd imagine an apple watch would be at 30 percent, a 100-150 dollar watch around 50%++. So, I'm hesitant, what am I missing?
    edited May 26
  • FaebertFaebert Posts: 1,086Member Member Posts: 1,086Member Member
    My Garmin forerunner 935 gives me the following data for a run:

    - distance
    - Time
    - Elevation
    - Calories burned
    - average pace per mile
    - Best pace per mile
    - Average speed
    - Max speed
    - Split times per km
    - average heart rate
    - Max heart rate
    - average cadence
    - max cadence
    - Stride length
    - Time in heart rate zones
    - training effect

    It also calculates my VO2 max although I’m not sure how accurate this is.

    So quite a lot of data. This also then contributes to a tally of intensity minutes and steps which can be tracked daily/weekly/monthly etc.

    Might not be exactly what you’re looking for and not sure on accuracy but it is at least something you can use to get a little more insight.

    Hope that helps
  • MPDeanMPDean Posts: 60Member Member Posts: 60Member Member
    The kinetic energy equation I learnt said that velocity was very important, so much so it was squared.

    Pace, velocity, speed or whatever you call it IS important in calories burnt.
  • dewd2dewd2 Posts: 2,116Member Member Posts: 2,116Member Member
    MPDean wrote: »
    The kinetic energy equation I learnt said that velocity was very important, so much so it was squared.

    Pace, velocity, speed or whatever you call it IS important in calories burnt.

    Think about it this way. I can burn 300 calories in under 20 by running 6:30 miles or I can burn 300 calories in 30 minutes running 8:30 miles. So you're right, 'velocity' does has something to do with how quickly I can burn the calories. HOWEVER, when running 6:30 miles I can't go much past 3. Running 8:30 miles I can go on forever (or at least 30 as I have done that before). And, how fast I run makes very little difference to the calories I burn over the course of a mile.

  • MPDeanMPDean Posts: 60Member Member Posts: 60Member Member
    I can run 10 miles in 1h 20 and burn an estimated 1200 calories or I can run 10 miles in 1h 40 and burn an estimated 1000 calories. Similar route profile and wind speed for both.

    Faster runs always have a higher calorie burn per mile for me.

    Speed IS important.
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 8,968Member Member Posts: 8,968Member Member
    MPDean wrote: »
    The kinetic energy equation I learnt said that velocity was very important, so much so it was squared.

    Pace, velocity, speed or whatever you call it IS important in calories burnt.

    It's true. Pace is important for calories burned. To double your speed takes four (or eight? can't remember) times as many calories per second. Because it's not just mass over distance, it's air resistance as well.

    But here's the thing. I run around 9 minutes per mile. If I'm having a really good day take 10 seconds off of that. To double my speed would mean 4:30 miles and put me in the Olympics. The difference between a 9 mile and an 8:50 mile in terms of air resistance is very small. I haven't calculated the forces, but we're talking like a calorie over the course of a 10k.

    So that's why people say pace doesn't matter. For practical purposes, it doesn't (for walking and running).
  • dewd2dewd2 Posts: 2,116Member Member Posts: 2,116Member Member
    MPDean wrote: »
    I can run 10 miles in 1h 20 and burn an estimated 1200 calories or I can run 10 miles in 1h 40 and burn an estimated 1000 calories. Similar route profile and wind speed for both.

    Faster runs always have a higher calorie burn per mile for me.

    Speed IS important.

    And this has been verified how?
  • MPDeanMPDean Posts: 60Member Member Posts: 60Member Member
    My pace can vary depending on the purpose of the run.
    A run with OH and children on bikes 9-10 minute miles. About 100 calories per mile.
    A training run on my own around 8 minute miles. About 120 calories per mile.
    A race around 7.30 minute miles. About 130 calories per mile.

    These are Garmin estimates. Over the last year I have eaten back all exercise calories and lost at or slightly faster than expected.

    Calories per mile are at current weight, they were higher when I was heavier.
  • MeanderingMammalMeanderingMammal Posts: 7,860Member Member Posts: 7,860Member Member
    MPDean wrote: »
    The kinetic energy equation I learnt said that velocity was very important, so much so it was squared.

    Pace, velocity, speed or whatever you call it IS important in calories burnt.

    When you're talking about variation in running pace, the contribution is dwarfed by running mechanics and body mass. For the purposes of this question pace isn't relevant.
  • heybalesheybales Posts: 16,875Member Member Posts: 16,875Member Member
    This is a reminder to go dig up my last VO2max test and use some actual tested figures for calorie burn at different paces so MPDean can see not estimated but actual differences between paces.
  • MPDeanMPDean Posts: 60Member Member Posts: 60Member Member
    This is analogous to all eating back exercise calories. All exercise calories are estimates, when someone suggests not eating any back they are rightly told they have chosen the only amount that must be wrong.

    Physics tells us pace DOES affect energy usage. To choose not to include that in the estimate is a sure way to get the wrong result.
  • MPDeanMPDean Posts: 60Member Member Posts: 60Member Member
    BTW I do get for many people this is an unnecessary level of detail.
  • heybalesheybales Posts: 16,875Member Member Posts: 16,875Member Member
    Yes there is a difference, it's just you have to have a bit of variance for it to matter.

    https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp

    Energy Expenditure (Calories / 1 mile / 100 lbs)

    (see if that chart does a nice copy/paste) - ETA - nope - removed
    edited May 27
  • sijomialsijomial Posts: 15,050Member Member Posts: 15,050Member Member
    MPDean wrote: »
    The kinetic energy equation I learnt said that velocity was very important, so much so it was squared.

    Pace, velocity, speed or whatever you call it IS important in calories burnt.

    It's true. Pace is important for calories burned. To double your speed takes four (or eight? can't remember) times as many calories per second. Because it's not just mass over distance, it's air resistance as well.

    But here's the thing. I run around 9 minutes per mile. If I'm having a really good day take 10 seconds off of that. To double my speed would mean 4:30 miles and put me in the Olympics. The difference between a 9 mile and an 8:50 mile in terms of air resistance is very small. I haven't calculated the forces, but we're talking like a calorie over the course of a 10k.

    So that's why people say pace doesn't matter. For practical purposes, it doesn't (for walking and running).

    @NorthCascades

    If I remember my physics correctly air resistance increases at the square of the increase in velocity but the power (and hence calorie expenditure) to overcome that drags increases at the cube of the increase in velocity.
    That's significant for cycling (which is why we spend so much effort on drag reductions) but not for relatively low speed running.
    If it were significant for running we would see all elite marathon runners in tight fitting aero tops instead of baggy vests.

    Not really clear what precise aspect of physics @MPDean is referring to though.
  • dewd2dewd2 Posts: 2,116Member Member Posts: 2,116Member Member
    I am sticking to my original comment. How fast I run makes "very little" difference to the calories I burn over the same distance. If the difference of 20-50 calories makes or breaks your day, then perhaps you should pay closer attention to it. However, getting the exact number is not really possible without a lab (plus getting the input side correct at this level is also very, very hard to do). Plus, the main point I am (and was) trying to make is you can run faster and burn slightly more calories per mile but you can't run as long doing that way. If I was running to lose weight (I'm not and it is a HORRIBLE idea), then I'd rather run farther to get the most calories burned I could get with this exercise.
  • dewd2dewd2 Posts: 2,116Member Member Posts: 2,116Member Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    MPDean wrote: »
    The kinetic energy equation I learnt said that velocity was very important, so much so it was squared.

    Pace, velocity, speed or whatever you call it IS important in calories burnt.

    It's true. Pace is important for calories burned. To double your speed takes four (or eight? can't remember) times as many calories per second. Because it's not just mass over distance, it's air resistance as well.

    But here's the thing. I run around 9 minutes per mile. If I'm having a really good day take 10 seconds off of that. To double my speed would mean 4:30 miles and put me in the Olympics. The difference between a 9 mile and an 8:50 mile in terms of air resistance is very small. I haven't calculated the forces, but we're talking like a calorie over the course of a 10k.

    So that's why people say pace doesn't matter. For practical purposes, it doesn't (for walking and running).

    @NorthCascades

    If I remember my physics correctly air resistance increases at the square of the increase in velocity but the power (and hence calorie expenditure) to overcome that drags increases at the cube of the increase in velocity.
    That's significant for cycling (which is why we spend so much effort on drag reductions) but not for relatively low speed running.
    If it were significant for running we would see all elite marathon runners in tight fitting aero tops instead of baggy vests.

    Not really clear what precise aspect of physics @MPDean is referring to though.

    In the Breaking 2 experiment Nike did try to make the runners more aerodynamic with the clothing and the shoes. Check out the shape of many of Nike's new shoes to see some of this tech that has made it to the common runner.

    But (and this is big), Nike was doing everything they could to shave milliseconds off the elite runners time. It has little to do with us mere mortals.
  • sijomialsijomial Posts: 15,050Member Member Posts: 15,050Member Member
    dewd2 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    MPDean wrote: »
    The kinetic energy equation I learnt said that velocity was very important, so much so it was squared.

    Pace, velocity, speed or whatever you call it IS important in calories burnt.

    It's true. Pace is important for calories burned. To double your speed takes four (or eight? can't remember) times as many calories per second. Because it's not just mass over distance, it's air resistance as well.

    But here's the thing. I run around 9 minutes per mile. If I'm having a really good day take 10 seconds off of that. To double my speed would mean 4:30 miles and put me in the Olympics. The difference between a 9 mile and an 8:50 mile in terms of air resistance is very small. I haven't calculated the forces, but we're talking like a calorie over the course of a 10k.

    So that's why people say pace doesn't matter. For practical purposes, it doesn't (for walking and running).

    @NorthCascades

    If I remember my physics correctly air resistance increases at the square of the increase in velocity but the power (and hence calorie expenditure) to overcome that drags increases at the cube of the increase in velocity.
    That's significant for cycling (which is why we spend so much effort on drag reductions) but not for relatively low speed running.
    If it were significant for running we would see all elite marathon runners in tight fitting aero tops instead of baggy vests.

    Not really clear what precise aspect of physics @MPDean is referring to though.

    In the Breaking 2 experiment Nike did try to make the runners more aerodynamic with the clothing and the shoes. Check out the shape of many of Nike's new shoes to see some of this tech that has made it to the common runner.

    But (and this is big), Nike was doing everything they could to shave milliseconds off the elite runners time. It has little to do with us mere mortals.

    Agreed.

    Personally I like the Specialized wind tunnel experiments into the leg shaving performance impact for cyclists.
    a.k.a. The Chewbacca Scale. :smiley:
Sign In or Register to comment.