Calories walk 5k = Calories run 5k ???

2»

Replies

  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member


    I wear a heart rate monitor with chest strap - I also weight 222lbs, the heavier you are the harder your heart has to work when you put stress on your body such as running thus you burn more calories - the more I lose the more I see the max calories decrease. I average 1250 - 1500 calories for 5k. Walking it's only 900-1200 calories burned. I also took my HRM in to my trainer to make sure it was calibrated correctly. My heart rate tends to get up to 185-190 and stays there for 60-90mins.

    If you do a little digging you`ll find that there is not a direct correlation between heart rate and calories expended, a more experienced runner will realize some efficiencies but they`re not that significant.

    I`ve been looking back over my logs (I weighed about 235 at my heaviest) and in September 2010 my HRM recorded (gross) 517 calories expended for a 5K race I ran in 26:56 (I would have weighed about 210 to 215 then).

    It sounds like your HRM is using an unreliable algorithm (not that uncommon) that is significantly overestimating your caloric burn. Remember that energy = mass x distance (or mass x acceleration)
  • stumblinthrulife
    stumblinthrulife Posts: 2,558 Member
    The issue is easy enough to settle by observing actual vs. predicted results.

    If logging 1200 calories for the runs leads to actual results being in line with predicted results (based on calorie deficit), then carry on.

    If you lose less than predicted, or even gain, then adjust accordingly.

    What the figures say means approximately d!ck in comparison to observed reality. Even if it means the higher burn figure is just compensating for under logging food, or setting base activity levels too low. It all comes down to eating less than you burn - however you achieve it.
  • phjorg1
    phjorg1 Posts: 642 Member
    This thread is proof that hrms suck. One again, if you have a model that does not allow you to enter your independent tested hrmax and vo2max, then you are getting completely inaccurate calorie burn numbers. Which is evident by people thinking that they are burning 100%+ more calories in an hour then is biologically possible for them based upon exercise done because their hrm said so.

    Also, out of shape or in shape, doesn't matter. Your calorie burn will be similar. Your heart will beat faster though when your out of shape, but because your hrm does not know your vo2max it's giving you an inflated number. So you get the illusion that you burn less as you get fit.

    Also, hrms do not work for walking. At all. So using them in this discussion to give evidence of a difference is silly. L2 hrm properly. Cardio only in cardio zone is the only way they give somewhat accurate results. Assuming you have a model that allows proper variables.

    To answer the question, you burn more per mile running vs walking. The one study I read on it gave running as 50% more calorie burn per mile running vs walking.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    The issue is easy enough to settle by observing actual vs. predicted results.

    If logging 1200 calories for the runs leads to actual results being in line with predicted results (based on calorie deficit), then carry on.

    If you lose less than predicted, or even gain, then adjust accordingly.

    What the figures say means approximately d!ck in comparison to observed reality. Even if it means the higher burn figure is just compensating for under logging food, or setting base activity levels too low. It all comes down to eating less than you burn - however you achieve it.

    This^

    ...for all things eating/exercising/deficit related. Just do it consistently...where it is logging all of this stuff...and then tweak based on the results.

    That said, I'm still not buying the 5k burns...but it doesn't matter if the outcome is consistent with expected results.

    *sigh*



    Anyhow, in...

    ...because math.
  • ajm07
    ajm07 Posts: 32 Member
    5km flat would burn a lot less calories than 5km undulating hills.
  • MrGonzo05
    MrGonzo05 Posts: 1,120 Member
    I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.

    That is unlikely.
  • Sjenny5891
    Sjenny5891 Posts: 717 Member
    Do you burn the same calories running 5k or walking 5k.
    I say yes, they're equal calories. Right?

    Ignoring the side track the other posts have taken, The faster you go- the harder you work- the more calories you burn.

    Assuming you run faster than you walk, you would burn more calories running it than you would walking it.
  • nathalier71
    nathalier71 Posts: 570 Member
    I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.

    How on earth do you burn 500 calories running a 5k, let alone 500 MORE?

    Was wondering the same thing myself! Apparently I am doing it wrong!

    me too! =)
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.

    Your HRM is calibrated incorrectly.

    Read the poster's profile - her starting weight was 263 pounds. It's not impossible that her HRM is also calibrated wrong, but running at 263 pounds is going to burn a lot of Calories.
    Huh, that's an interesting point. I can see how that could be relevant, because a well-trained runner is pretty efficient at not losing energy in each bounce/step, your leg muscles basically act like springs and store the downward energy and use it to move upward on the next step. But if someone has a lot of excess weight which does not go along with these oscillations, it would require a lot of excess energy to keep pushing it up with every step.

    (Imagine carrying a barrel half full of water on your back, which would need to be lifted with every step, and then would crash down and splash all over and lose all of the energy instead of helping to lift you on the next step. Compare that to the same amount of weight on a spring that was tuned to bounce up and down cooperatively with your movements.)
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Do you burn the same calories running 5k or walking 5k.
    I say yes, they're equal calories. Right?

    Ignoring the side track the other posts have taken, The faster you go- the harder you work- the more calories you burn.

    Assuming you run faster than you walk, you would burn more calories running it than you would walking it.
    The part people miss in this equation is that if you go twice as fast, you also only spend half as much time doing it. So running would need to introduce an inefficiency somewhere (such as higher wind resistance or some other sort of friction) in order for it to require more calories in total.

    Granted, there is a difference in wind resistance between walking and running speed, but it's very small.
  • burlingtongrl
    burlingtongrl Posts: 327 Member
    I just want to say good for you for getting out there and running, no matter how many calories you are burning.:smile:
  • zorbaru
    zorbaru Posts: 1,077 Member
    you using more effort to run, but you are spending longer exercising when you walk.

    there would be some kind of bell curve i rekon where there would be a certain walk time and run time that would equal out.
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    you using more effort to run, but you are spending longer exercising when you walk.

    there would be some kind of bell curve i rekon where there would be a certain walk time and run time that would equal out.
    Curves describe nonlinear relationships. The curve on such a graph would be difficult to notice.
  • wilsoje74
    wilsoje74 Posts: 1,720 Member
    I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.
    Um, 500 MORE??? I burn about 280 total running a 5k
  • wilsoje74
    wilsoje74 Posts: 1,720 Member
    I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.

    How on earth do you burn 500 calories running a 5k, let alone 500 MORE?

    Was wondering the same thing myself! Apparently I am doing it wrong!

    I wear a heart rate monitor with chest strap - I also weight 222lbs, the heavier you are the harder your heart has to work when you put stress on your body such as running thus you burn more calories - the more I lose the more I see the max calories decrease. I average 1250 - 1500 calories for 5k. Walking it's only 900-1200 calories burned. I also took my HRM in to my trainer to make sure it was calibrated correctly. My heart rate tends to get up to 185-190 and stays there for 60-90mins.

    These calorie burns seem very high even at a higher weight.

Categories