A tale of calories burned

Options
fast_eddie_72
fast_eddie_72 Posts: 719 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Just an anecdote. Might give some insight to why some people are conservative in counting calories burned.

I had a great run this morning. 5 miles in 46:30. Map My Run says that burned 964 calories. MFP says 815. Runner's world calculator says 711.

I always used to go with the estimate 100 calories a mile, assuming it was a tic more for me since I'm still kind heavy at 187 lbs. I'll call it 500 - 600 calories. That's a colossal difference in estimates.

Replies

  • DancingMoosie
    DancingMoosie Posts: 8,613 Member
    Options
    I use running ahead, and it calculates very closely to mfp. Just make sure you input your weight correctly. I burn under 100 calories/mile unless I use incline on the treadmill. Also, RA does not take into account the incline, not sure if runner's world does. If you were outside, there might be an increase in calorie burn when you factor in the incline of the street, if there were hills. Maybe that's where the calculations are off. Maybe Map my Run takes incline into account, since it is actually a map of the area?
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    I believe mapmyrun includes elevation changes. The problem with that is that they can calculate uphill running, but I don't think there is any consistent way to calculate downhill running. I have no idea what MFP uses.

    The Runners World number most closely matches the ACSM prediction equation in this case, and I suspect it is likely the more accurate one.

Categories