Running Faster = Less Calories Burned???

DanOhh
DanOhh Posts: 1,806 Member
edited September 21 in Fitness and Exercise
I really need to look into getting a quality HRM. I LOVE MFP but this needs to be a mistake. At a 9 min. mile pace MFP calculates I burned 630 cal. and at the 8.5 min. mile pace it says I only burned 465 cal. What?! So, if I go faster I burn less?

Replies

  • bethrs
    bethrs Posts: 664 Member
    hmmm...worked out to be more (meaning faster = more calories) for me. Maybe this is a silly question, but did you make a typo when entering the time?
  • jamie1888
    jamie1888 Posts: 1,704 Member
    agree with above.... are you looking at MPH or min/per mile?? because MPH goes higher the faster you go, and minutes per mile goes lower. So, maybe you are looking at them backwards??

    And make sure you are comparing the exact same number of minutes that you ran!
  • gambitsgal45
    gambitsgal45 Posts: 9
    Are you running the same amount of time, or are you running the same distance? My guess would be if you're running the same distance, you're not running as long, hence less calories burned. If you ran at the two different paces for the same amount of time, then you should get a greater calorie burn at the faster pace. Just my guess...
  • metco89
    metco89 Posts: 578 Member
    i don't know about the running but i did notice that swimming at a leisurely pace shows more calories burned then a moderate or vigorous pace. was really wondering about this myself. maybe Mike can check into the counts, i am going to send him a message.
  • LittleSpy
    LittleSpy Posts: 6,754 Member
    MFP estimates I'll burn more in the same amount of time at the faster speed. Look up 30 minutes of running 7mph vs. running 30 minutes of running 8.5mph. For me 30 minutes at 7.5mph (8 minute mile) = 544 calories burned/ 30 minutes at 6.7mph (9 minute mile) = 478 burned. Could it be you crossed the "mph" with the "min mile" numbers(and looked up like 9mph instead of 9 minute mile?)?

    This seems silly to bring up, but...
    If I run a mile in 10 minutes, I'm running 6mph but I'm exercising for 10 minutes.
    If I run a mile in 6 minutes, I'm running much faster, but I'm exercising for 40% less time, so I may burn less in the mile even though I'm burning MORE per minute.
    Except... I think with running it's estimated you pretty much burn the same amount of calories per mile no matter how fast you're going (so, if you're running faster, you burn more in less time).
  • jamie1888
    jamie1888 Posts: 1,704 Member
    I posted this on metco89's message to MFP. But, I will also post here too......



    The calories burned are just estimates... the way to get accurate (or atleast close to accurate) counts is to get a heart rate monitor!

    The counts will be different for everyone depending on your weight and fitness level. For example, 1 person may burn 130 calories walking at a moderate pace for 30 minutes. However, someone that is more fit, may only burn 80 calories in that same time period.
  • DanOhh
    DanOhh Posts: 1,806 Member
    hmmm...worked out to be more (meaning faster = more calories) for me. Maybe this is a silly question, but did you make a typo when entering the time?

    A 9min. mile is not as fast as an 8.5min mile. This is my pace. not my MPH. 9min. mile = 6.5mph. 8.5min. mile = 7mph. I'm running faster at the same distance. Back when I went from a 10min. mile to a 9min. mile there was a large increase in my cal. count now the cals. burned are going the other direction.
  • iplayoutside19
    iplayoutside19 Posts: 2,304 Member
    I really need to look into getting a quality HRM. I LOVE MFP but this needs to be a mistake. At a 9 min. mile pace MFP calculates I burned 630 cal. and at the 8.5 min. mile pace it says I only burned 465 cal. What?! So, if I go faster I burn less?

    HRM is the only way to go. MFP will give an esitmate based on the sizes you entered. HRM measures...well, your HR.

    I hate to bring up algebra and physics here, but that's what this is. Calories is energy. It takes a certain amount of energy to do something. It's doubtful you held a constant speed during the time you ran (why you need an HRM), but for what I'm trying to say we'll go with it.

    So, for example: You burned 630 Kcal, @ 6.6 MPH, for let's say 30 minutes. .5 Hrs * 6.6 = 3.3 miles covered. You have roughly 191 Kcal per mile.

    But now, you say you at an 8.5 Min mile pace. 7.05 mph. This requires more energy. If everything else is constant you HAVE to burn more calories, mathimatical and physical LAW, you can't even take it to the Supreme Court. In this case you covered more distance 3.52 miles as opposed to 3.3. Assuming the first equation is correct you burned 673 Kcal.

    Clearly there is a glitch in the system.
  • canstey
    canstey Posts: 118
    The calories burned are just estimates... the way to get accurate (or atleast close to accurate) counts is to get a heart rate monitor!

    The counts will be different for everyone depending on your weight and fitness level. For example, 1 person may burn 130 calories walking at a moderate pace for 30 minutes. However, someone that is more fit, may only burn 80 calories in that same time period.

    I am quite sure this is incorrect if the two people weigh the same amount. Being in better shape does not increase mechanical advantage such that you can do the same work with fewer calories. It just becomes easier to do. You would have to improve your exercise technique to one that is more efficient but that is separate from fitness. It is like a car with an 80hp engine vs. a 240hp engine. Even though the 240hp engine does not have to work as hard (relative to maximum) to drive 65 down the highway, it doesn't get better mileage because its maximum effort burns way more fuel per second than the 80hp engine and they are both doing the same mechanical work (assuming both put into the same vehicle).
  • LittleSpy
    LittleSpy Posts: 6,754 Member
    hmmm...worked out to be more (meaning faster = more calories) for me. Maybe this is a silly question, but did you make a typo when entering the time?

    A 9min. mile is not as fast as an 8.5min mile. This is my pace. not my MPH. 9min. mile = 6.5mph. 8.5min. mile = 7mph. I'm running faster at the same distance. Back when I went from a 10min. mile to a 9min. mile there was a large increase in my cal. count now the cals. burned are going the other direction.

    Just curious -- have you gone back and carefully compared the numbers again? Because it seems like the calorie counts MFP is giving are logical for the rest of us. And another silly thing to mention (I really don't want you to think I think you're stupid or anything! :laugh: I'm just trying to cover basics that maybe not everyone would consider), I'm sure you know the less you weigh, the fewer cals you burn. So, you can't compare today's cals burned with the cals you burned a month ago at the slower speed because you were at a higher weight then.

    Okay. so basically if you're running the same distance, you should be burning the same amount of calories REGARDLESS of how fast you're running (assuming you're the same weight). If I run 3 miles, MFP tells me I'm going to burn 435 calories whether it takes me 20 minutes (9mph/6.5min mile) or 30 minutes (6mph/10 min mile). I just don't understand how it could be different for you (obviously the cals will be different but the equation MFP uses would be the same and should yield the same equal results).
  • DanOhh
    DanOhh Posts: 1,806 Member
    LET THE DEBATE END! Just like the majority of computer problems, it was an user error.:blushing: I was comparing the differences but I must have made a typing error, after re-checking. I see the mistake is mine. So I'll go sit in the 'time out' corner.:embarassed:
  • jamie1888
    jamie1888 Posts: 1,704 Member
    The calories burned are just estimates... the way to get accurate (or atleast close to accurate) counts is to get a heart rate monitor!

    The counts will be different for everyone depending on your weight and fitness level. For example, 1 person may burn 130 calories walking at a moderate pace for 30 minutes. However, someone that is more fit, may only burn 80 calories in that same time period.

    I am quite sure this is incorrect if the two people weigh the same amount. Being in better shape does not increase mechanical advantage such that you can do the same work with fewer calories. It just becomes easier to do. You would have to improve your exercise technique to one that is more efficient but that is separate from fitness. It is like a car with an 80hp engine vs. a 240hp engine. Even though the 240hp engine does not have to work as hard (relative to maximum) to drive 65 down the highway, it doesn't get better mileage because its maximum effort burns way more fuel per second than the 80hp engine and they are both doing the same mechanical work (assuming both put into the same vehicle).

    Agree or disagree doesn't matter.... the FACT is that counts on any calorie counter are estimates. The only way to get an accurate count of calories being burned is to get a heart rate monitor and know how your body is responding to the exercise.
  • jamie1888
    jamie1888 Posts: 1,704 Member
    LET THE DEBATE END! Just like the majority of computer problems, it was an user error.:blushing: I was comparing the differences but I must have made a typing error, after re-checking. I see the mistake is mine. So I'll go sit in the 'time out' corner.:embarassed:

    :laugh: No worries!! :flowerforyou:
  • LittleSpy
    LittleSpy Posts: 6,754 Member
    LET THE DEBATE END! Just like the majority of computer problems, it was an user error.:blushing: I was comparing the differences but I must have made a typing error, after re-checking. I see the mistake is mine. So I'll go sit in the 'time out' corner.:embarassed:

    Yay!!

    How big of you to come back and admit it. :laugh: :flowerforyou:
  • LittleSpy
    LittleSpy Posts: 6,754 Member
    The calories burned are just estimates... the way to get accurate (or atleast close to accurate) counts is to get a heart rate monitor!

    The counts will be different for everyone depending on your weight and fitness level. For example, 1 person may burn 130 calories walking at a moderate pace for 30 minutes. However, someone that is more fit, may only burn 80 calories in that same time period.

    I am quite sure this is incorrect if the two people weigh the same amount. Being in better shape does not increase mechanical advantage such that you can do the same work with fewer calories. It just becomes easier to do. You would have to improve your exercise technique to one that is more efficient but that is separate from fitness. It is like a car with an 80hp engine vs. a 240hp engine. Even though the 240hp engine does not have to work as hard (relative to maximum) to drive 65 down the highway, it doesn't get better mileage because its maximum effort burns way more fuel per second than the 80hp engine and they are both doing the same mechanical work (assuming both put into the same vehicle).

    Agree or disagree doesn't matter.... the FACT is that counts on any calorie counter are estimates. The only way to get an accurate count of calories being burned is to get a heart rate monitor and know how your body is responding to the exercise.

    One last thing -- HRMs are still estimates. They're just estimates that take a little more information into account. I will *never* believe that I burn as many calories running as my HRM says I do. Until I test it out while trying to maintain weight, I guess. :tongue:
  • canstey
    canstey Posts: 118
    I am quite sure this is incorrect if the two people weigh the same amount. Being in better shape does not increase mechanical advantage such that you can do the same work with fewer calories. It just becomes easier to do. You would have to improve your exercise technique to one that is more efficient but that is separate from fitness. It is like a car with an 80hp engine vs. a 240hp engine. Even though the 240hp engine does not have to work as hard (relative to maximum) to drive 65 down the highway, it doesn't get better mileage because its maximum effort burns way more fuel per second than the 80hp engine and they are both doing the same mechanical work (assuming both put into the same vehicle).

    Agree or disagree doesn't matter.... the FACT is that counts on any calorie counter are estimates. The only way to get an accurate count of calories being burned is to get a heart rate monitor and know how your body is responding to the exercise.
    You missed the point. One way to gauge whether your HRM is set correctly to give an accurate estimate is to use additional information for a sanity check. If two people of about the same weight go for a walk together and one HRM says 250 calories and the other 500, at least one of them is wrong. Your view is they must both be right because they are HRMs and by their very nature are more accurate than anything else and that would be incorrect.

    Exercise machines have the advantage that if they know the user's weight, they do know how much mechanical work was performed (walk 3 miles) and therefore can get a very good estimate of calories burned because all people of that weight burn about the same amount walking those 3 miles regardless of fitness level. HRMs compute in reverse by taking its estimate of your fitness, measuring effort by %MaxHR and then conclude you must have burned this many calories doing whatever you did. The HRM must have a very accurate estimate of fitness level so that two people of equal weight and very different amounts of effort doing the identical exercise calculate reasonably close to the same calories burned. Otherwise the HRM is just reporting a number that is at least consistent for the user but could be significantly and consistently over/under estimating the actual number of calories burned.
  • jamie1888
    jamie1888 Posts: 1,704 Member
    I am quite sure this is incorrect if the two people weigh the same amount. Being in better shape does not increase mechanical advantage such that you can do the same work with fewer calories. It just becomes easier to do. You would have to improve your exercise technique to one that is more efficient but that is separate from fitness. It is like a car with an 80hp engine vs. a 240hp engine. Even though the 240hp engine does not have to work as hard (relative to maximum) to drive 65 down the highway, it doesn't get better mileage because its maximum effort burns way more fuel per second than the 80hp engine and they are both doing the same mechanical work (assuming both put into the same vehicle).

    Agree or disagree doesn't matter.... the FACT is that counts on any calorie counter are estimates. The only way to get an accurate count of calories being burned is to get a heart rate monitor and know how your body is responding to the exercise.
    You missed the point. One way to gauge whether your HRM is set correctly to give an accurate estimate is to use additional information for a sanity check. If two people of about the same weight go for a walk together and one HRM says 250 calories and the other 500, at least one of them is wrong. Your view is they must both be right because they are HRMs and by their very nature are more accurate than anything else and that would be incorrect.

    Exercise machines have the advantage that if they know the user's weight, they do know how much mechanical work was performed (walk 3 miles) and therefore can get a very good estimate of calories burned because all people of that weight burn about the same amount walking those 3 miles regardless of fitness level. HRMs compute in reverse by taking its estimate of your fitness, measuring effort by %MaxHR and then conclude you must have burned this many calories doing whatever you did. The HRM must have a very accurate estimate of fitness level so that two people of equal weight and very different amounts of effort doing the identical exercise calculate reasonably close to the same calories burned. Otherwise the HRM is just reporting a number that is at least consistent for the user but could be significantly and consistently over/under estimating the actual number of calories burned.

    HRM's, at least the model I have, you enter your height, weight and age as well.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories