Calories burned running with hills

HappyHope0123

I upped my run tonight from 3.31 miles to 3.91. There are 3 hills on this route with varying elevations. Of course I burned more calories running the farther route, but what about the hills? WHen I calculate calories burned, it doesn't consider the hills, does it? I use mapmyrun to calculate my run and calories.

According to mapmyrun, I burned 614 calories running tonight.
According to Runner'sWorld, I burned 503 ( http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator )


I know a HRM would be most accurate, but of these two, which is more accurate? (I weigh 170, 5'4)

PaytraB

From my experience, I burn fewer calories when I run up a hill. I think it's because I'm running a bit slower than normal. The hilly route (about 2.5K of uphills) takes me about 3-4 minutes longer to complete my mileage than the same mileage does on level ground.
I can burn more calories running the same distance on level ground than when going uphill. I use a Garmin watch and use its calorie count.

Someone told me not long ago that the Runner's World calculators give a higher calorie burn than one actually burns. When I tried it, it did give me more calories burned than my Garmin watch did.

In general, (this is a close but still not accurate estimate) a 150 lb. person will burn about 100 calories per mile. That'll give you a basic figure to go with.

beckytcy

Sounds like a great run! I personally would choose the lower burn. I used MapMyRun today when walking, and I thought its calorie estimate was way too high.

HappyHope0123

Thanks much! So the faster I run, the more I burn? I had it backwards. I was thinking the hills were harder work so much be more calories burned. I should run a flat area to see what my time is on it. I ran the 3.91 in 50 minutes, makes it a 12:47 mile...nothing remarkable, but it's a start! I've conquered the hills, and extended my run in the past month.

The hills would be good for what then (other than making me feel like Rocky Balboa!)

pikselinka

In general, (this is a close but still not accurate estimate) a 150 lb. person will burn about 100 calories per mile. That'll give you a basic figure to go with.

Not true, 150lbs person burns around 60 calories per mile, from HRM statistics and Runmeter, both of which are most accurate out there.

edack72

Get a heart rate monitor and you don't have to spend alot I got one on clearance from Olympia and it has served me very well and I feel it is very accurate ( I had a friend who had one of the real pricey ones with chest strap) mine has survived 3 mudruns and numerous amounts of hikes water and bugspray

thavoice

In general, (this is a close but still not accurate estimate) a 150 lb. person will burn about 100 calories per mile. That'll give you a basic figure to go with.

Not true, 150lbs person burns around 60 calories per mile, from HRM statistics and Runmeter, both of which are most accurate out there.

Not sure where you get 60 calories per mile running.
"In "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," published last December in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, a group of Syracuse University researchers measured the actual calorie burn of 12 men and 12 women while running and walking 1,600 meters (roughly a mile) on a treadmill. Result: The men burned an average of 124 calories while running, and just 88 while walking; the women burned 105 and 74. (The men burned more than the women because they weighed more.)
"

Here is a calculator to help determine:
http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator




How Many Calories Do You Burn Running a Mile?

The short answer is….it depends. The key factor affecting calories burned running a mile is your weight, with a lesser impacting factor of the speed, the greater your weight the more energy required for you to run a particular distance. A 150 pound person running a mile will burn between 100 – 120 calories, where as a 200 pound person running a mile will burn 135 – 155 calories. Running speed does have a slight impact on the calories burned while running, but it’s pretty negligible. If you are running to lose weight concentrate on covering the distance rather than your speed. Covering a greater distance has much higher impact on the running calories you burn rather than the speed you do it in



Most literature out there will tell you that a 150lb dude running a ten minute mile, burns around 110-120 calories per mile.


For simplicity, I calculate it at 100 calories per mile ran so I usually underestimate.

Frood42

Depends if they use elevation data or not I guess.

I use Strava for my cycling and running, and while it is only an estimate, they do use elevation and estimated power, which when I look at the figures seem a bit more realistic than, say, Endomondo.

https://strava.zendesk.com/entries/20959327-Calorie-Calculation

.

CallMeRuPaul

those numbers seem way high to me. everyone's burn rate is different. I walked 3.15 miles yesterday and my HRM said I burned 307 calories. the routes I take are a bit hilly. you need to get a HRM ASAP for accurate numbers for your weight and fitness level. good luck.

astralweeks82

I would personally think you burn a bit more on hills too, not for any other reason than your heart rate goes up, but I could be wrong. I have a HRM that I keep an eye on, and my HR shoots up quite a bit when I'm going up a hill. Your results may vary, of course

brianpperkins

http://jap.physiology.org/content/93/3/1039.full

Energy expenditure running up hill is greater than that on flat ground. How much greater depends on the slope. Of course, most of us run down a hill if we climb one and there is less energy expended on the descent than on flat.

criticaltodd

I would personally think you burn a bit more on hills too, not for any other reason than your heart rate goes up, but I could be wrong. I have a HRM that I keep an eye on, and my HR shoots up quite a bit when I'm going up a hill. Your results may vary, of course

Mine as well. I don't usually run but walk and I can look at the HR charting afterwards and know where the ascents are from how my heart rate spikes.

To the OP, definitely use a HRM to get an accurate view of your calories burned. I often use Runmeter in addition to an HRM and the calorie outputs can vary sometimes. Sometimes they're very close, other times not so much. Of course, YMMV.

HappyHope0123

I hope to get a HRM in a few weeks.

Thanks for all the info! So I should focus on distance, not hills? I tend to run down the hills at a faster rate than when I'm on a plateau, due to the momentum of it.

brianpperkins

I hope to get a HRM in a few weeks.

Thanks for all the info! So I should focus on distance, not hills? I tend to run down the hills at a faster rate than when I'm on a plateau, due to the momentum of it.

You burn more going up than on level, less going down ... not a complete balancing of the ledger sheet but enough that it mitigates any huge burn numbers from rolling hills. Hills have their place in training. Learning how to use hills to improve leg strength, form, and speed on level ground makes your all around running more efficient.

The issue with the HRM is that it depends on just one data point, your pulse, to determine caloric burn. When your heart rate remains elevated but your exertion level drops (intervals, after cresting a hill, etc) it can't tell the difference resulting in an inflated burn until your heart rate drops to match your exertion.


OP .. one question ... which formula did you use from Runner's World, net or total calories?

HappyHope0123

I believe it was the net. The one that subtracts the calories needed for living (I can't find that exact page now . )