Calorie burns are a load of old tosh aren't they?

Options
TwelveSticks
TwelveSticks Posts: 288 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
MapMyWalk/MapMyRun tells me I burn almost exactly 100 calories per km when running, and almost exactly 100 calories per 10 minutes when walking. Now, that means I burn the same when walking 1.17 km as I do when I run 1 km. That can't be right, can it? I certainly know which is more tiring!

Replies

  • cardinalsfootball
    cardinalsfootball Posts: 167 Member
    Options
    I don't know, that kind of makes sense to me. I know speed walking is more energy intensive than jogging, for example...

    So running is more energy efficient, by far, per meter traveled. It just feels more tiring because you are compressing all that energy output into a much tighter time window.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    MapMyWalk/MapMyRun tells me I burn almost exactly 100 calories per km when running, and almost exactly 100 calories per 10 minutes when walking. Now, that means I burn the same when walking 1.17 km as I do when I run 1 km. That can't be right, can it? I certainly know which is more tiring!

    In terms of gross calories, that's not far off. It's closer to 1.4km vs 1 km, but 1.2 is in the right ballpark, at least.

    However, for net calories it's a different story, as running nets roughly double the calorie burn for the same distance.

    net calories running = 0.6 * bodyweight in pounds * miles run
  • TwelveSticks
    TwelveSticks Posts: 288 Member
    Options
    I'm intrigued... What do you mean by gross calories and net calories?
  • Overcomer7737
    Overcomer7737 Posts: 21 Member
    Options
    12...I almost never read nor reply to posts....but you are amazing and so good at these details! I don't even want to know what 'Old Tosh' is! You rock my friend!
  • flumi_f
    flumi_f Posts: 1,888 Member
    Options
    My dear friend, if you want more accurate numbers, buy a good hrm ;-) That is one of a few reasons why my burns are so much lower than most of my mfp friends. All apps including mfp grossly overestimate my burn in comparison to my Garmin GPS forerunner 410.

    You've done well with your 1/2-2/3 rule. But if the odd numbers bug you, an hrm is the way to go.
  • TwelveSticks
    TwelveSticks Posts: 288 Member
    Options
    I do have an HRM, but it's a pain in the bum to use for running because it syncs with my iPhone and requires a little dongle to be connected to the phone - which then means it won't fit in the little arm strap that I use when running! I must find a way to get around this so that I can try out an HRM monitored run sometime...
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    I'm intrigued... What do you mean by gross calories and net calories?

    Net calories are gross calories minus the calories you would have burned just by being alive.
  • flumi_f
    flumi_f Posts: 1,888 Member
    Options
    I do have an HRM, but it's a pain in the bum to use for running because it syncs with my iPhone and requires a little dongle to be connected to the phone - which then means it won't fit in the little arm strap that I use when running! I must find a way to get around this so that I can try out an HRM monitored run sometime...

    Guess I'm old school....no Iphone and I run and exercise without music or earplugs.... I can hear the leaves in the wind and the birds in the trees though ;-) One reason why I still have a hrm-watch with a breast strap.
  • TwelveSticks
    TwelveSticks Posts: 288 Member
    Options
    Oh, no way I can run without music on - I hate to hear my own breathing. I become obsessed with it and end up getting out of breath - something which never happens when I can't hear it!

Categories