Did I seriously only burn 72 calories?

3dogsrunning

Whether you run or walk, you generally lose the same calories for one mile, so don't push yourself so hard! Maybe come up with a mile goal and do it at a pace that will keep you interested but not so hard you will quit.

You actually don't, but even if you did, liek I said, a reasonable estimate for running 1 mile is about 100 calories at her weight. Not too far off the 72 even if we go with that.

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

denisec226

No I hate it but I have a four year old and watch a two year old so doing most stuff is out. I can get in maybe an hr before the two year old comes to my house. Plus it's freakin freezing out.
I wanna do more but I can only stay on 30 min at a time before I loose my mind...so bored. I'd go faster but I can't do it (physically) at this point. 3.5 is top speed for me. I can do 2.5 with a 5 incline but like I said, switching it up or inclines are really hard to log

I do bodyweight exercises with a four year old and a two year old. We all love headstands.

What is that?

cwolfman13

It's hard to log inclines and some jogging cause mfp doesn't really give the option. I'm 150lbs, and it's what mfp and a few other sites gave me, around 72-80. One said 200, figured that was wrong

Your calorie burn is going to largely be a bi-product of the distance you cover. Yes, intensity will play a roll as will inclines and elevations and what not...but by and large, the vast majority of that burn is going to be a bi-product of distance covered combined with your weight that has to be moved that distance. For example, someone running 1 mile vs walking 1 mile with roughly equivalent stats is going to burn about the same amount of calories...slightly more for running, but not substantially so...the difference is actually pretty negligible until you really start talking about a lot of miles.

There are a number of calculations you can use, but 72-80 calories for a mile sounds just about right to me. I'm 183 and burn around 90-100 calories per mile walking, regardless of pace. A faster pace is just going to accomplish the task faster, not necessarily burn a whole lot more calories.

This is ultimately why it is far more efficient to build your calorie deficit into your diet (as per MFP) and simply exercise for the sake of fitness rather than calorie burn.

GillianMcK

Sorry, won't let me edit my response, there's a calculator online (not convinced about how accurate it is but makes you think)
http://blog.spartanrace.com/burpee-equivalents-understanding-junk-food/

It shows how many burpees the average 130lb or 180lb person would need to do to burn off fast foods

i.e. 1 large french fries (approx 500cal) is the equivalent of 349 burpees for the heavier person, 1 creme egg is 64 burpees!!!

I haven't touched a creme egg since, they're nice but they're not worth 124 burpees!!!

Even if it isn't accurate it shows how much effort we have to put into burning the calories we consume and how easy it is to consume large numbers of calories without even realising it until you write it all down!!

With the best will in the world the only way to improve is to push yourself, if someone had told me 18mnths ago I would be training for a marathon I would have laughed in their face, a lot of running is mental, it's your mind you have to convince that you can run for a minute, it's your mind that will make your legs do it.

Mr_Bad_Example

No I hate it but I have a four year old and watch a two year old so doing most stuff is out. I can get in maybe an hr before the two year old comes to my house. Plus it's freakin freezing out.
I wanna do more but I can only stay on 30 min at a time before I loose my mind...so bored. I'd go faster but I can't do it (physically) at this point. 3.5 is top speed for me. I can do 2.5 with a 5 incline but like I said, switching it up or inclines are really hard to log

I do bodyweight exercises with a four year old and a two year old. We all love headstands.

What is that?

But seriously, look at this to start.

http://greatist.com/fitness/50-bodyweight-exercises-you-can-do-anywhere

BrianSharpe

Whether you run or walk, you generally lose the same calories for one mile, so don't push yourself so hard! Maybe come up with a mile goal and do it at a pace that will keep you interested but not so hard you will quit.

no, no, no, no, no...........

Running burns approximately double the net calories as walking does (unless you're race / speed walking which doesn't apply to most people going 3.5 to 4 mph)

Walking: .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

Running: .63 x weight(in lbs) x distance (in miles)


source: http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

Please note ......these are net caloric expenditures ie additional calories expended as a direct result of the activity (gross calories include BMR - you'd be burning that portion lying in bed)

To the OP It would be reasonable to assume that a steeper incline would result in a higher caloric expenditure but 72 cal for 1 mile for a 150lb person would be high for a level surface.

thomaszabel

If you are using a treadmill, most estimate how many calories you burned. They take into account speed, your weight (if you type it in), and incline. Then once you are done, write down or remember the minutes and calories so you can enter them into MFP. As soon as I enter the minutes into MFP, it gives me the MFP calculation, based on the minutes and what general speed I selected. But I always overwrite the calories with what the treadmill says.

If you are wanting to up your calories, simply add in a bit of jogging. Don't go all out. Just try a quarter mile, and stick with it for a week. So if you usually walk 1.25 miles in your 20 minute treadmill session, try walking for 0.25 miles, then jog at a decent pace (6 mph) for 0.25 miles, then walk the remaining 0.75. Repeat this for 3-4 days of workouts, and then try adding on by replacing another quarter mile walk with a quarter mile run.

That's how I got back into running after being a couch potato. Quarter mile walk, quarter mile run, quarter mile walk, quarter mile run, etc. etc. Then I started going quarter mile walk, half mile run, quarter mile walk, half mile run, etc. After a few months of this, you'll find that you are running 2 - 3 miles a day, and still keeping your exercise time between 20-30 minutes.

michellekicks

Whether you run or walk, you generally lose the same calories for one mile, so don't push yourself so hard! Maybe come up with a mile goal and do it at a pace that will keep you interested but not so hard you will quit.

You actually don't, but even if you did, liek I said, a reasonable estimate for running 1 mile is about 100 calories at her weight. Not too far off the 72 even if we go with that.

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

^ This. And here's the follow-up article:
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn

It is just not true that running and walking 1 mile burn the same number of calories. You burn much higher running. It is far more taxing to lift yourself off the ground between every step than it is to leave your body weight on one foot at a time.

dfeinblum

Yeah; that sounds about right.

michellekicks

Whether you run or walk, you generally lose the same calories for one mile, so don't push yourself so hard! Maybe come up with a mile goal and do it at a pace that will keep you interested but not so hard you will quit.

no, no, no, no, no...........

Running burns approximately double the net calories as walking does (unless you're race / speed walking which doesn't apply to most people going 3.5 to 4 mph)

Walking: .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

Running: .63 x weight(in lbs) x distance (in miles)


source: http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

Please note ......these are net caloric expenditures ie additional calories expended as a direct result of the activity (gross calories include BMR - you'd be burning that portion lying in bed)

To the OP It would be reasonable to assume that a steeper incline would result in a higher caloric expenditure but 72 cal for 1 mile for a 150lb person would be high for a level surface.

Beat me to it.

ils_1231

in terms of doing more -- i have roughly (??) the same stats -- 5'3 and 149 lbs. I'm trying to get back into running, and at the moment I run for a song and then I walk for a song on my ipod.

I'll walk at around 3.5/3.7 and then jog at 5.5. Sometimes I find that if I'm a bit more winded from one of the songs I'll then walk for 2 songs, and then jog for the next song. I'm finding that I don't have to do that as often anymore. I also make sure that the songs I have on my playlist have some really pumpy (?? is that a word??) songs. If I'm jogging to a song that doesn't do it for me I find that I actually can't go as fast!!! So get yourself a good playlist!!!

Bounce4

'Sweat is just fat crying' so the more you sweat the better!!!

Hahahaha. I've never heard that, lol. I love it !!

For the OP, I would suggest either setting a time or distance goal (which ever is easiest for you personally) and keep doing it. It really does get easier with time. When I started I was sooooo out of shape. I do a 20 minute DVD (30DS) and when I started I could not do half that stuff and needed to take breaks through out it. I am still out of shape but in 7 weeks I'm WAY better than when I started. I can actually get through the entire thing without breaks, use the weights, and only modify a few things - mostly due to knee pain and I can't do a regular push up :P

Don't worry about the calories burned. You are doing something, which is more than you were doing last month, and you'll do even more next month. It is PROGRESS. You start where you stand - that is just the way it is but progress builds on itself. Once you are in a little better shape other activities will seem attainable.

RoseTears143

No I hate it but I have a four year old and watch a two year old so doing most stuff is out. I can get in maybe an hr before the two year old comes to my house. Plus it's freakin freezing out.
I wanna do more but I can only stay on 30 min at a time before I loose my mind...so bored. I'd go faster but I can't do it (physically) at this point. 3.5 is top speed for me. I can do 2.5 with a 5 incline but like I said, switching it up or inclines are really hard to log

Walking slower at an incline will burn more calories than walking a bit faster and being flat. Get a HRM, I have a feeling you burned more than 72 calories.

ElliottTN

Why are ya mad at your bodies energy efficiency? Without it your ancestors may have been screwed and you could cease to exist today

ils_1231

Whether you run or walk, you generally lose the same calories for one mile, so don't push yourself so hard! Maybe come up with a mile goal and do it at a pace that will keep you interested but not so hard you will quit.

no, no, no, no, no...........

Running burns approximately double the net calories as walking does (unless you're race / speed walking which doesn't apply to most people going 3.5 to 4 mph)

Walking: .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

Running: .63 x weight(in lbs) x distance (in miles)


source: http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

Please note ......these are net caloric expenditures ie additional calories expended as a direct result of the activity (gross calories include BMR - you'd be burning that portion lying in bed)

To the OP It would be reasonable to assume that a steeper incline would result in a higher caloric expenditure but 72 cal for 1 mile for a 150lb person would be high for a level surface.

solid gold! thank you for this info-- i usually just input the mfp stuff but as is im going at a lower speed ( in case of mfp error)

3dogsrunning

No I hate it but I have a four year old and watch a two year old so doing most stuff is out. I can get in maybe an hr before the two year old comes to my house. Plus it's freakin freezing out.
I wanna do more but I can only stay on 30 min at a time before I loose my mind...so bored. I'd go faster but I can't do it (physically) at this point. 3.5 is top speed for me. I can do 2.5 with a 5 incline but like I said, switching it up or inclines are really hard to log

Walking slower at an incline will burn more calories than walking a bit faster and being flat. Get a HRM, I have a feeling you burned more than 72 calories.

Keep in mind that all bets are off if you start holding on. A common mistake that people make.

Why do you think she burned more than 72 calories?

arrrrjt

Sweating is GOOD! I routinely get to about 160-170 at a jog around 4.3 mph. I think if you're doing your best and it's hard for you at 17 mph, don't worry about the calories THAT much, and just worry about getting more efficient.

Mr_Knight

For example, someone running 1 mile vs walking 1 mile with roughly equivalent stats is going to burn about the same amount of calories...slightly more for running, but not substantially so...

Running approximately doubles the net burn. It is a much different biomechanical motion, because you are working much harder against gravity.

For a 180 pounder, figure 100 net calories/mile running, 50 calories/mile walking.

Most calculators etc don't do net calories, so the difference between the two appears to shrink dramatically when BMR/RMR is included.

husseycd

I'm 130 lbs, and I burn about 4-5 cal/min walking and about 8 cal/min jogging. All according to my Bodymedia...

Mr_Knight

Inclines add about 1 calorie per metre elevation change per 100kg body weight.

So a 5% incline over 1 mile for 200 pound person would add....

(0.05 * 1600) * 1 * 1 -> 80 calories due to the incline.

The steeper the incline, the less it matters whether the physical activity is running or walking.