Slightly Confused

jpbgrad98CHANGED
jpbgrad98CHANGED Posts: 113
in Fitness and Exercise
So I have been walking and just recently added jogging I to the routine. I am confused as to the calories being burned. I know a lot of people are going to suggest getting a heart rate monitor for more accurate figures, but that is not in the budget at the moment. i am usi g the Runtastic app, and this is what I get:

8/30/13, Distance 3.29 miles, Duration 54:29, Ave Speed 3.62 mph, Calories Burned 240

8/31/13, Distance 2.56 miles, Duration 58:28, Ave Speed 2.62 mph, Calories Burned 257

9/01/13, Distance 3.22 miles, Duration 48:01, Ave Speed 4.02 mph, Calories Burned 211

I am walking/jogging the same path each time. It seems the faster and longer I endure, the less calories I burn? These are all of my past walks/jogs for August - http://runtastic.com/users/12260025

Thoughts/suggestions? Thanks for your time.

Replies

  • lesteidel
    lesteidel Posts: 229 Member
    My suggestion is to quit worrying about the amount of calories burned and exercise for the health benefits, not to be able to eat more.


    Figuring out how many calories you burn is complete guesswork, pretty much no matter how you do it.


    The general rule with running is .72x(your weight) per mile ran.
    There is one for waking but I forgot it since I do not count walking as exercise. (It's a personal choice based on my own experiences, does not mean it isn't exercise, it means I don't count it as such since it rarely, if ever, gets my heart rate up)

    You could get a heart rate monitor and go from there, or you could get a fitbit which is basically a pedometer that calculates how many calories you got in a day based on your overall steps and intensity.

    Keep in mind it's all guesswork though.

    The point of exercise is to either be doing something weight bearing long enough to gain benefits or to have your heart rate up for a certain amount of time.

    The calories will vary and really aren't that important. Unless you are running more than five miles a day (not counting walking), I don't really think it's worth figuring out how many calories exactly you burned.

    Unless it was a 90 minute or so exercise session, I don't bother with trying to track the calories, because your body isn't going to go into shock mode if you don't eat back the two or three hundred cals you get from a normal exercise program. It won't even notice, I promise, and might even help you to get to your goal quicker. (Unless it's adding bulk, then walking and running probably aren't your best bet anyways, not an hours worth anyways.)

    Also, keep on mind, the fitter you get, the smaller you get, and the less calories you will burn for the same actions. Just focus on exercising for exercises sake.
  • BeachIron
    BeachIron Posts: 6,490 Member
    So I have been walking and just recently added jogging I to the routine. I am confused as to the calories being burned. I know a lot of people are going to suggest getting a heart rate monitor for more accurate figures, but that is not in the budget at the moment. i am usi g the Runtastic app, and this is what I get:

    8/30/13, Distance 3.29 miles, Duration 54:29, Ave Speed 3.62 mph, Calories Burned 240

    8/31/13, Distance 2.56 miles, Duration 58:28, Ave Speed 2.62 mph, Calories Burned 257

    9/01/13, Distance 3.22 miles, Duration 48:01, Ave Speed 4.02 mph, Calories Burned 211

    I am walking/jogging the same path each time. It seems the faster and longer I endure, the less calories I burn? These are all of my past walks/jogs for August - http://runtastic.com/users/12260025

    Thoughts/suggestions? Thanks for your time.

    My thought is that those are all within the realm of reasonable possibility, and I would suggest that you accept that they are all estimates. Use those numbers, plug them into your MFP calorie counter, and see how you progress. We all, of course, also have the same estimating problem with the NEAT figure that MFP (or any other calculator) provides. Just go with it, track your progress, and if you lose too fast or two slowly, after a month or two, then adjust slightly. Again, adjust slightly (no more than 100 -200 calories either direction) and re-do that month to two month test.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    My thought is that those are all within the realm of reasonable possibility, and I would suggest that you accept that they are all estimates. Use those numbers, plug them into your MFP calorie counter, and see how you progress. We all, of course, also have the same estimating problem with the NEAT figure that MFP (or any other calculator) provides. Just go with it, track your progress, and if you lose too fast or two slowly, after a month or two, then adjust slightly. Again, adjust slightly (no more than 100 -200 calories either direction) and re-do that month to two month test.

    Agreed
  • brandon_2A
    brandon_2A Posts: 35
    Looks like the longest run (time-wise) burned the most calories and the shortest the least. Seems to make sense.
  • jpbgrad98CHANGED
    jpbgrad98CHANGED Posts: 113
    My suggestion is to quit worrying about the amount of calories burned and exercise for the health benefits, not to be able to eat more.

    I never said I wanted to eat more. I was just asking if anyone else had seen similar results. I understand estimating calories burned is all guesswork. It just seems odd that when I go FASTER I burn LESS.
    My thought is that those are all within the realm of reasonable possibility, and I would suggest that you accept that they are all estimates.

    I completely agree that they are all within reasonable possibility. I am happy that burn anything, but again this was not what I was inquiring about. I was asking if it seems odd that when I go faster I burn less and when I go slower I burn more.
    Looks like the longest run (time-wise) burned the most calories and the shortest the least. Seems to make sense.

    Time wise, yes. If I am doing more longer I expect to burn more, I guess I am looking at it from the perspective that if I am moving faster and keeping my heart rate up for a longer distance, I would expect to burn more than if I was going slower, with a slower heart rate.

    Anywho... Thanks for everyone input! I appreciate it.

Categories