Burning Calories while running

jacksonpt

Just to further derail this thread, lol...

I've read (from pretty respectable sources) that calorie burn is largely irrelevant of HR. Calories are a unit/measure of energy, and energy basically comes down to the workload of the activity. To move a 150lb person across 3 miles will use the same amount of cals if they walk it in an hour or run it in 20 minutes. It all comes down to work = distance / time.

Thoughts?

And in case it's not clear, I'm genuinely asking. No sarcasm or anything intended.

The best measure of workload for a given person is measuring how hard that person's cardio-pulmonary system is working though, wouldn't you agree? As such, I believe a heart rate measurement as a percentage between a resting heart rate, and max heart rate, is a key piece of that measurement.

I'm not trying to push my opinion off as the end-all, be-all correct answer. Just trying to give an angle as someone who's done a lot of homework on this subject.

yep, and I appreciate the insight. This is one of those topics that, just when I think I know what I'm talking about, I find some other angle to consider. You're pretty well researched, so your opinion is worth something to me, thus the questions.

Fit_Fox88

Well, apparently from everybody's responses here I've been calculating incorrectly... i use a heart rate monitor with a chest strap and log those numbers. Maybe I'll start cutting it back 10-20% when I log my exercise. Although, I do tend to push pretty hard when i workout so perhaps it's more accurate than I think..... ugh!

jacksonpt

Well, apparently from everybody's responses here I've been calculating incorrectly... i use a heart rate monitor with a chest strap and log those numbers. Maybe I'll start cutting it back 10-20% when I log my exercise. Although, I do tend to push pretty hard when i workout so perhaps it's more accurate than I think..... ugh!

Do your expected results line up fairly well with your actual results? If so, then you're logging is probably pretty good. If not, then considering changing things.

I wouldn't change what is ultimately a guesstimate based on something you read online posted by people who think they know a lot more than they really do.

Fit_Fox88

Well, apparently from everybody's responses here I've been calculating incorrectly... i use a heart rate monitor with a chest strap and log those numbers. Maybe I'll start cutting it back 10-20% when I log my exercise. Although, I do tend to push pretty hard when i workout so perhaps it's more accurate than I think..... ugh!

Do your expected results line up fairly well with your actual results? If so, then you're logging is probably pretty good. If not, then considering changing things.

I wouldn't change what is ultimately a guesstimate based on something you read online posted by people who think they know a lot more than they really do.

I've been on here for a while but just recently decided that I was going to get serious with the logging and working out... With the 4lb loss so far i think the way I'm doing things is working for me... and no, i dont plan on changing anything yet until i give what i'm doing now a chance to work...if nothing changes in about 2 months then ya, something will need to change

phjorg1

Do you believe that your experiences with runkeeper vs HRMs applies to everyone, regardless of weight, conditioning, experience,
etc?

I can't say for sure, I've only done this for myself. That being said, the fact that RunKeeper itself doesn't use HRM data as part of it's calculation, would make me skeptical of it's calorie estimates for anyone.

Just going on record again - I like RunKeeper, I'm not trying to make this a witch hunt. Their site is great, reports and trends are solid, and I still use it with an Elite subscription. I just use the Garmin for the actual run data and import it to RK.

Just to further derail this thread, lol...

I've read (from pretty respectable sources) that calorie burn is largely irrelevant of HR. Calories are a unit/measure of energy, and energy basically comes down to the workload of the activity. To move a 150lb person across 3 miles will use the same amount of cals if they walk it in an hour or run it in 20 minutes. It all comes down to work = distance / time.

Thoughts?

And in case it's not clear, I'm genuinely asking. No sarcasm or anything intended.

Incorrect on both counts.

Hr is meaningless for calorie burn compared to other people. But assuming you are doing cardio and other variables are constant, (temp, not afraid, no medical conditions or drugs, etc) then hr compared vs yourself is very relevant.

And the faster you run, then the higher calorie burn per mile. This is because the body has different ways to make ATP. The more intense movement you do, the more energy intensive systems will contribute to making that ATP. Running can contribute around 50% more calories burned per mile compared to walking for example.