Running calorie burn

Cat_A_89

Accourding to my fitbit my 30 min run burned 429 calories. Does that seem accurate?
Im 5'2 188 pounds female

Hannahwalksfar

I always halve it. I think it’s set for elite level people really pushing it

emmamcgarity

I’m pretty sure the Fitbit is showing your BMR calories plus extra from the exercise over that time period. I just let Fitbit and MFP talk to each other and adjust my eating if I’m not losing at the expected rate.

pierinifitness

For what it's worth, I ran 60 minutes yesterday covering 6.6 miles. I'm a male age 64 and current weigh 170 lbs. Garmin reported I burned 792 calories. This seems reasonable to me.

Cat_A_89

Well accourding to mfp i have over 700 exercise calories lol. I dont log exercise I just use what my fitbit sends to mfp

Duck_Puddle

emmamcgarity wrote: »

I’m pretty sure the Fitbit is showing your BMR calories plus extra from the exercise over that time period. I just let Fitbit and MFP talk to each other and adjust my eating if I’m not losing at the expected rate.

This.

The calorie burn displayed on your Fitbit includes everything from when you hit start until when you hit stop. So that’s the calories you burned from running plus calories you would have burned had you been sitting on the couch.

So Fitbit isn’t telling you that you burned 429 calories from your run, it’s telling you that you burned 429 calories during that 1/2 hour.

Depending on how far you went, that burn seems reasonable.

The exercise calories showing up in mfp will be all the calories your Fitbit has recorded that are greater than what mfp expects you to burn. So that includes the run, plus puttering around the house, plus running to the store, plus walking to and from your coworkers desk 16090 times, plus doing the dishes and chasing toddlers or whatever else you did all day that just happened to burn more than whatever mfp expected for your activity level.

Give it 4-6 weeks and if you’re not losing as expected-then review.

NorthCascades

Calories burned running each mile ~= 2/3 your body weight in pounds.

scorpio516

Cat_A_89 wrote: »

Accourding to my fitbit my 30 min run burned 429 calories. Does that seem accurate?
Im 5'2 188 pounds female

How far did you run? 3.75 miles? Cause 188*0.62*3.75 = about 430 kcal

Cat_A_89

scorpio516 wrote: »

Cat_A_89 wrote: »

Accourding to my fitbit my 30 min run burned 429 calories. Does that seem accurate?
Im 5'2 188 pounds female

How far did you run? 3.75 miles? Cause 188*0.62*3.75 = about 430 kcal

2.1 miles with short water breaks now and then. Ive just gotten back into running after many years so still building up cardio

ROBOTFOOD

That sounds right.
I’m 5’ 11 165 and I usually get 145cal/mi. I can raise it to over 200/mi if I’m doing hard hill runs. Highest I’ve seen yet was 1,180 for 6mi hill tempo.

firef1y72

I've always found fitbit overestimates.
I did 6miles yesterday, weigh in at 148lb (5'2") and burnt 620 Calories (there was one tough hill otherwise I tend to run at about 100Cal/mile)

Azdak

Cat_A_89 wrote: »

scorpio516 wrote: »

Cat_A_89 wrote: »

Accourding to my fitbit my 30 min run burned 429 calories. Does that seem accurate?
Im 5'2 188 pounds female

How far did you run? 3.75 miles? Cause 188*0.62*3.75 = about 430 kcal

2.1 miles with short water breaks now and then. Ive just gotten back into running after many years so still building up cardio

At that pace with breaks, calorie burn is more like 250 for 30 min. If the Fitbit is using your HR as a guide, it is overestimating because your either have a higher than average HR response to exercise (perfectly normal), or because the higher intensity of running is causing an exaggerated HR response because you haven’t adapted to it yet.

At your weight you would have to run constantly and under a 10min/mile pace to burn 429 cals in 30 min.

lorrpb

Since you’re just getting back into running, consider a structured program like C25k. It will help you build a good base gradually without injury then you can move on up c210k if you want more distance.