Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Exercise calories

RUNucbarRUNucbar Posts: 159Member Member Posts: 159Member Member
When I go for a run, I use my Garmin as this allows me to follow pre-set programs.

After said run, it gives me the calories I've just burned, along with the distance / time / speed. I plug the same information into MFP which gives me a drasticly different calorie count. It has been as much as 80-100 calories different, which given I'm only running 2 miles is a bit of a difference. I've checked and MFP and Garmin both think my weight and height are the same so, simply, who to trust?

I know, for reference, you'll want my height and weight but if I do a very different run / lose a few more pounds, the calorie count will be different anyway so is there some basic formula I can use instead of you all telling me what I burned for this specific run?

Replies

  • ElizabethKalmbachElizabethKalmbach Posts: 1,118Member Member Posts: 1,118Member Member
    The difference is likely the 60-100 calories you would burn *anyway* just from like... breathing and circulating blood. MFP has already accounted for that, so what it gives you is *just the difference* between the run and what you'd have burned sitting around, watching TV. The Garmin is likely giving you the gross number for both the *existing* and the extra effort of *running.*
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 9,381Member Member Posts: 9,381Member Member
    Net calories from running ~= 1/3 your weight in pounds per mile.
  • middlehaitchmiddlehaitch Posts: 8,150Member Member Posts: 8,150Member Member
    Net calories from running ~= 1/3 your weight in pounds per mile.

    Oops, isn’t that the walking?
    Running 2/3 your weight in lbs per mile.

    Cheers, h.
  • ShortgirlrunningShortgirlrunning Posts: 326Member Member Posts: 326Member Member
    I synched my Garmin with MFP so it automatically puts my runs into MFP so I always go by its calorie counts. I’ve been eating back all those calories and still am averaging a 1.5 lbs weight loss per week so it can’t be too far off.
  • heybalesheybales Posts: 17,096Member Member Posts: 17,096Member Member
    RUNucbar wrote: »
    When I go for a run, I use my Garmin as this allows me to follow pre-set programs.

    After said run, it gives me the calories I've just burned, along with the distance / time / speed. I plug the same information into MFP which gives me a drasticly different calorie count. It has been as much as 80-100 calories different, which given I'm only running 2 miles is a bit of a difference. I've checked and MFP and Garmin both think my weight and height are the same so, simply, who to trust?

    I know, for reference, you'll want my height and weight but if I do a very different run / lose a few more pounds, the calorie count will be different anyway so is there some basic formula I can use instead of you all telling me what I burned for this specific run?

    MFP database entry is based on studies and is very accurate - more accurate than a HRM actually.

    Is that what your Garmin is using too - HRM?

    Now, the kicker with the database entry is the fact it's a range, but the calorie burn is for right in the middle.
    If you were actually on the very edge of the pace, then it would matter if you did a long time running.
    But not 2 miles.

    Was your Garmin, if using HRM, higher than MFP?
    If still a tad out of shape, with increased HR, calorie burn would be higher.

    You didn't mention which was higher, I'm just guessing Garmin if it has HRM.
  • sijomialsijomial Posts: 15,525Member Member Posts: 15,525Member Member
    Net calorie estimate for a flat run is bodyweight in pounds X miles x 0.63
    Mass moved over distance multiplied by a typical efficiency ratio is the physics of estimating energy expended.
    Which of the Garmin or MFP estimates is closer?

    Using a physiological indicator such as heartrate will give very varied results across a sample of people depending on their personal exercise HR.

    MFP is giving you a gross calorie estimate (1 MET too high), not that significant for a short run / short time period.

    If an outdoors run your Garmin will at least know the terrain.

    Your height isn't significant, your speed isn't very significant until you get to the outer edges of pace.
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 9,381Member Member Posts: 9,381Member Member
    Net calories from running ~= 1/3 your weight in pounds per mile.

    Oops, isn’t that the walking?
    Running 2/3 your weight in lbs per mile.

    Cheers, h.

    You're right, thanks for catching that. It's too late for me to be able to edit that. 😕
Sign In or Register to comment.