Runners: calories burned....

1PatientBear
1PatientBear Posts: 2,089 Member
edited January 20 in Fitness and Exercise
I never believe the number MFP gives me so I've always gone with the 100 calories per mile run as my estimate (based on articles I've read in the past). I could get an HRM which I am well aware is the best measure but I already have enough crap that I run with. So, I found this on the Runner's World website and wanted to share:

http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator

I still think it's a little high on its estimate, but I'm curious how close it is to the number that you HRM people see on your little gadgets. Anyone care to be my guinea pig?

Replies

  • So_Much_Fab
    So_Much_Fab Posts: 1,146 Member
    I did a 7 mile run the other day - HRM told me 795.

    The website told me 731. Not too bad!
  • storm15918
    storm15918 Posts: 88 Member
    I use the same site for when I run outside. It's great since my phone doesn't have working GPS so it can't track my distance/calories burned. I'm always nervous about using it, and what the treadmill says, but I'm losing weight so I figure that even if it's wrong, it can't be that far off since it's not slowing down my progress. I would love to see a comparison with a HRM though!
  • bluefox9er
    bluefox9er Posts: 2,917 Member
    I did a 5 miler with effort as opposed to a relaxed state..HRM said 640 calories burnt, the website says 635...

    wow!

    I have pulled up my nike+ and compared various long runs, middle distance and short runs, this site V HRM and there is no more than a 10 calorie difference, this is pretty accurate!!!
  • majope
    majope Posts: 1,325 Member
    I put in last night's 10-miler, and it differed from my Garmin by about 200 calories. But my HR doesn't go as high as it used to for comparable runs, so I tend to trust the Garmin's lower number.

    EDIT: it was closer to 150 different, so still not too far off. With the same margin of error, a shorter run would be pretty close.
  • Chris99mu
    Chris99mu Posts: 352 Member
    But aren't your really interested in NET calories? Because if so, then it would probably be closer to about, say, 80 kcal per mile ran. Just a thought.
  • pobalita
    pobalita Posts: 741 Member
    I use BodyMedia and my 6 mile runs come in at about 590 calories. I get the same using MFP.
  • dsjohndrow
    dsjohndrow Posts: 1,820 Member
    I weigh about 210, 6' 1" and 55 years old. Mine says about 1000-1100 calories per hour running a 10 minute mile.
  • kaypat09
    kaypat09 Posts: 130 Member
    That website tells me that my 2mi run yesterday burned 270 calories, when in reality, my HRM (Polar FT4) told me I burned 464. I am a beginner and run at a slow pace, so maybe it's more accurate for experienced runners than people like me.


    17892839.png
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    801 vs 823 for my last run. My HRM was 801 AFTER I subtracted my BMR. So this was quite accurate.
  • paulajed
    paulajed Posts: 21
    My HRM is consistently telling me I have burned 50-100 calories MORE than MFP. I go with the lower value to document- I would rather underestimate, than overestimate.
  • dperich1968
    dperich1968 Posts: 235 Member
    My HRM calculates calories based on my weight and distance, I am a shorty (5'1") and average about 92cals per mile. My HRM is always less than MFP and per runnersworld I burn approx 96cal per mile.

    Pretty darn accurate.
  • CLFrancois
    CLFrancois Posts: 472 Member
    I run uphill both ways so it is inaccurate for me ;)
    really though, it seems pretty on if I was running on a flat surface at a 14 minute mile, which is more like a jog.
  • Melissa26point2
    Melissa26point2 Posts: 177 Member
    So glad to see all these positive replies. I use the Runners world calculator too and I've always wondered how accurate it is
  • Dom821
    Dom821 Posts: 27 Member
    Did 3.45km in 32 min yesterday.

    HRM=234cals Runkeeper=194cals and Runnersworld=224cals

    so not far off.
  • Runs4Wine
    Runs4Wine Posts: 416 Member
    I did a 4 miler (with a 5 min warm-up/cool down)...

    Website: 527
    HRM: 587

    FWIW - Runkeeper app said I burned 532.
  • majope
    majope Posts: 1,325 Member
    But aren't your really interested in NET calories? Because if so, then it would probably be closer to about, say, 80 kcal per mile ran. Just a thought.
    Nope. As long as I continue to drop weight as predicted (or, more usually, faster than predicted), I'll keep doing what I'm doing. Don't forget that for hours after vigorous exercise, people continue to burn calories at an accelerated rate. I'm guessing that more than makes up for the difference you're worried about.
  • 1PatientBear
    1PatientBear Posts: 2,089 Member
    Thanks for the feedback everyone. I'll definitely be bookmarking that website and using it to track my calories burned.
  • NakAttack
    NakAttack Posts: 64 Member
    I run about three days a week and anywhere from 2 to 5 miles and my "gadget" and MFP are normally within 20 to 30 calories of one another. To balance it out, I never track calories burned during my cool down walks!
  • kevin3344
    kevin3344 Posts: 702 Member
    I usually use the 1 mile = 100 calories (per 9 min mile) as well. So 5 miles = 500 cals, 10 miles = 1,000 cals, etc. At least I know how much I need to run when I want desert :)

    When I run faster it's a little more, slower a little less. Anyway, today's run was something like this:

    4 miles @ 9 min/mile
    MFP = 500 cals
    MapMyRun = 591

    I ran a half-marathon this past weekend at <8 mile and it came out at 1,492 calories for 13.1 miles...
  • simplyjustme
    simplyjustme Posts: 18 Member
    Interesting topic that's for sure. I use an HRM and mine was pretty close. I run every day. I checked my logged amounts and they were only a few off give or take. Very cool site! Thanks for sharing!
  • Froody2
    Froody2 Posts: 338 Member
    Mine's way off.

    Polar FT4 - 408cal
    Runkeeper - 523cal
    Runner's world - 615

    Run was for 5.35k in 49min at an average speed of 6.5k (yeah, I'm slow).
  • HSingMomto7Kids
    HSingMomto7Kids Posts: 345 Member
    I used to listen to MFP unless I googled a workout, and found the calories online. Whatever I found I realized for my body was high until I got my HRM. Now it is nice for it to be accurate unless I totally forget my HRM. lol
  • ashlinmarie
    ashlinmarie Posts: 1,263 Member
    I did 4.5 miles of walking/running today and had over 700 calories burned. I know when I used to just run MFP would underestimate by 200 calories or more. I use an HRM so I trust that more than something that doesn't take my height or heart rate into consideration.
  • Justkeepswimmin
    Justkeepswimmin Posts: 777 Member
    I wear an HRM. Polar FT40 I put in some values in that website it was a little high for me but not seriously high maybe 75-85% of that would have been accurate.

    Also my husband is 6'3'' and wears Polar FT40 and for a mile of running he'd burn more like 150-180 cals or so.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories