Calories Burned - with HRM

Still_Fluffy

Ok, I've been running for about 6 years now. I recently got HRM and it says I burn around 210 calories per mile at a 10 minute mile. I know that sounds like a lot. I'm 6' and weight 260. I still thought it was high so I went online and I have found ranges from 165 to 225 calories burned. I want to be as accurate as possible since I'm training for my 5th marathon. I run a lot over 1,750 miles last year so I have to think my body is pretty efficient at it by now, and I worried my HRM is a bit high on its calculations. So what should I put for calories burned per mile?

DavPul

i gotta ask, you've been running for 6 years and you've completed your 4th marathon (hats off to you as that's amazing), so what difference could it possibly make how many alories you're burning at this stage of the game? Why do you need an exact number? If you think 200 is high, then use 180. or 160. Or 250 for that matter. Use whatever number you feel comfortable with, track your weight once a week, and if it's moving in the wrong direction then make adjustments in your eating plan.

3dogsrunning

i gotta ask, you've been running for 6 years and you've completed your 4th marathon (hats off to you as that's amazing), so what difference could it possibly make how many alories you're burning at this stage of the game? Why do you need an exact number? If you think 200 is high, then use 180. or 160. Or 250 for that matter. Use whatever number you feel comfortable with, track your weight once a week, and if it's moving in the wrong direction then make adjustments in your eating plan.

I totally agree but since you asked you may want to check out these

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/750920-spreadsheet-for-bmr-tdee-deficit-macro-calcs-hrm-zones?page=1
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

Still_Fluffy

I'm still trying to lose weight. I've lost 130, and I would like to drop anouther 40 pounds. I want to be accurate in my calories burned since I need to eat alot after running 10+ miles.

daj150

Why do you need to eat a lot after running 10 miles? When I run 10+ I eat a normal meal afterwards, but it's just packed with complex carbs and a good amount of protein. Immediately after the run I will have a recovery meal or drink that has a 4:1 carb/protein ratio. Then I eat my regular meal...whether it be breakfast, lunch or dinner depending on when I ran that day.

DavidMartinez2

I burn about 1,000 calories an hour when I run so that number sounds reasonable. That said I usually round down whatever number Garmin comes up with. Eating to much after a long run is a trap a lot of runners fall in, it sounds like you have a plan to avoid it.

hilldiggity

Ok, I've been running for about 6 years now. I recently got HRM and it says I burn around 210 calories per mile at a 10 minute mile. I know that sounds like a lot. I'm 6' and weight 260. I still thought it was high so I went online and I have found ranges from 165 to 225 calories burned. I want to be as accurate as possible since I'm training for my 5th marathon. I run a lot over 1,750 miles last year so I have to think my body is pretty efficient at it by now, and I worried my HRM is a bit high on its calculations. So what should I put for calories burned per mile?

Your HRM lands between what you've found online. Why did you buy a HRM if you don't think you can trust it? I think you can.

jacksonpt

Ok, I've been running for about 6 years now. I recently got HRM and it says I burn around 210 calories per mile at a 10 minute mile. I know that sounds like a lot. I'm 6' and weight 260. I still thought it was high so I went online and I have found ranges from 165 to 225 calories burned. I want to be as accurate as possible since I'm training for my 5th marathon. I run a lot over 1,750 miles last year so I have to think my body is pretty efficient at it by now, and I worried my HRM is a bit high on its calculations. So what should I put for calories burned per mile?

If I'm reading this right, it's calculating 210 cals per 10 minutes, right? Which is ~21 cals per minute, which is near impossible to hit, never mind maintain. I read somewhere (I think in one of Lyle Mcdonald's arcticles) that 10 cals per minute is pretty good for most people, and 15cals per minute is pretty elite.

So I'd be inclined to agree that your HRM is estimating pretty high.

At the end of teh day though, they are just estimates. PIck something you think is reasonable (10 cals/minute, 15 cals/minute, whatever) and log that way consistently for a month. Then evaluate your results. If you are estimating a deficit and thus should be losing weight, but are actually gaining, then your estimates are off (eating more than you think and/or burning less than you think) and you can reevaluate.

Someone else said this in another thread the other day, and I really like it.

Are you losing weight? Yes --> Is your performance being affected? No --> keep doing what you're doing
Are you losing weight? Yes --> Is your performance affected? Yes --> eat a little more
Are you losing weight? No --> is your performance affected? No --> eat a little less
Are you losing weight? No -- Is your performance affected? Yes -- sucks to be you

The point? lets the results be your guide, not the numbers.

cwolfman13

I knock off about 20% from my HRM to account for BMR calories. Seems to work for me.

daj150

I knock off about 20% from my HRM to account for BMR calories. Seems to work for me.

Don't forget, a HRM calorie count also does not take into account how many calories you would have burned if you had sat on the couch. So, if you ran for 60 minutes, and you burned say 400 calories, and in 60 minutes of sitting on a couch based on your weight loss plan you would have burned 65 calories, then the calories you record should be be 335. Although, I have read that you should subtract the maintenance calories for that 60 minutes if you were sitting on the couch. For me personally, that difference is really small.

jacksonpt

I knock off about 20% from my HRM to account for BMR calories. Seems to work for me.

Don't forget, a HRM calorie count also does not take into account how many calories you would have burned if you had sat on the couch. So, if you ran for 60 minutes, and you burned say 400 calories, and in 60 minutes of sitting on a couch based on your weight loss plan you would have burned 65 calories, then the calories you record should be be 335. Although, I have read that you should subtract the maintenance calories for that 60 minutes if you were sitting on the couch. For me personally, that difference is really small.

While technically this is probably true, that 65 calories isn't going to be the make or break point for most people. Hell, most people mis-estimate by at least that much when cooking their own meals.

viajera99

The short answer is that for someone of your weight running at 6 mph, ~200 kcal/mile is about right.