Calories walk 5k = Calories run 5k ???
Options
Replies
-
Wait, are you saying it takes you an hour and 15 minutes to run or walk a 5k?0
-
I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.
How on earth do you burn 500 calories running a 5k, let alone 500 MORE?
Was wondering the same thing myself! Apparently I am doing it wrong!
I wear a heart rate monitor with chest strap - I also weight 222lbs, the heavier you are the harder your heart has to work when you put stress on your body such as running thus you burn more calories - the more I lose the more I see the max calories decrease. I average 1250 - 1500 calories for 5k. Walking it's only 900-1200 calories burned. I also took my HRM in to my trainer to make sure it was calibrated correctly. My heart rate tends to get up to 185-190 and stays there for 60-90mins.
Sorry to also burst your bubble (even though you don't seem to be listening) but those figures are way inflated. The reason is clear, your heart rate is artificially inflated. Maybe due to medication or medical condition? Perhaps a crappy heart rate monitor? Thus the extreme calorie burn given by your HRM, which is unfortunately inflated due to your oddly high heart rate. Given your age, 185-190 heart rate should be 100% maximum exertion. There is no way you are sustaining maximum exertion for 75 minutes. Not even the most elite athletes in the world can do that.
It's no big deal (though I'd probably get that heart rate checked out by a doc to make sure you don't have a medical problem). The only other problem would be is if you're eating back all those calories - you will most certainly not be losing weight as a result.
If you ARE eating back your calories (and you should, if you're following MFP's model), then calculate 400-500 for your 5k run and you should be pretty much dead on. And no, being fat and/or taking a long time to run 5k isn't going to affect things THAT much. A fit person might burn something more like 300 calories in a 5k, my 400-500 calorie estimation is already allowing for your present situation.0 -
To the OP: yes you will burn more by running than walking, but as you have seen in the responses, you should get a good heart rate monitor if you would like to get your acurate number of calories burned.0
-
Do you burn the same calories running 5k or walking 5k.
I say yes, they're equal calories. Right?
Nope! Depending on whether you're looking at net or gross calories, running burns 40% to 100% more calories than walking the same distance.
Takes way less time, too.0 -
I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.
How on earth do you burn 500 calories running a 5k, let alone 500 MORE?
If you weigh around 220 pounds, you'll burn about 500 calories in 5km. To get to "500 more" calories, you need to weigh around 450 pounds.0 -
Do you burn the same calories running 5k or walking 5k.
I say yes, they're equal calories. Right?
Nope! Depending on whether you're looking at net or gross calories, running burns 40% to 100% more calories than walking the same distance.
Takes way less time, too.
Here's a little math for you.....
Net calories running .63 x your body weigh in lbs x distance in miles
Net calories walking .30 x your body weigh in lbs x distance in miles
(source Runners World)
in terms of net calories expended (additional calories burned that can be attributed to the exercise) just over double running vs walking0 -
I would also like to point out it takes me a lot longer than most people to run that far - It takes me about an hour and 15 mins. My area is also very hilly.
It doesn't matter (much) how long it takes, what matters is the distance, and the weight. What your HRM is really telling you is that you are very out of shape - or as the other poster might put it, the HRM is calibrated for a fitness level you will one day get to, but aren't at yet.
At 5k, you're going to burn about 500 calories, using the 1000 calorie figure is only going to lead to frustration.0 -
Here's a little math for you.....
Net calories running .63 x your body weigh in lbs x distance in miles
Net calories walking .30 x your body weigh in lbs x distance in miles
Yep, those numbers are solid, and what go into the calculators at sites like Strava, etc.0 -
I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.
How on earth do you burn 500 calories running a 5k, let alone 500 MORE?
Was wondering the same thing myself! Apparently I am doing it wrong!
I wear a heart rate monitor with chest strap - I also weight 222lbs, the heavier you are the harder your heart has to work when you put stress on your body such as running thus you burn more calories - the more I lose the more I see the max calories decrease. I average 1250 - 1500 calories for 5k. Walking it's only 900-1200 calories burned. I also took my HRM in to my trainer to make sure it was calibrated correctly. My heart rate tends to get up to 185-190 and stays there for 60-90mins.
Those numbers aren't possible. I'm not trying to be mean, but it's a disservice to yourself and your plan to figure 1250-1500 calories for 3.1 miles of running.
I would also like to point out it takes me a lot longer than most people to run that far - It takes me about an hour and 15 mins. My area is also very hilly.
When I weighed 220 lbs and ran I was burning about 600-700 for 5k (35 min, flat) - so it is possible that your HRM is monitoring a burn of 2x that for a run that is actually 3x the time and very very hilly. But only take into consideration 70-80% of that burn because with a run of 90 minutes you should really subtract the 200-300 cals which would be the base if you did nothing.
However, I would also consider that your HR is giving you the wrong calc - do you consider that 90 minutes for 5 km is going out hard? If not, your HR is going up more than usual and giving you these higher than usual readings.0 -
I weight 220 and burn approx 465 for a 50 min 5k... 1200 seems ridiculously high...0
-
I wear a heart rate monitor with chest strap - I also weight 222lbs, the heavier you are the harder your heart has to work when you put stress on your body such as running thus you burn more calories - the more I lose the more I see the max calories decrease. I average 1250 - 1500 calories for 5k. Walking it's only 900-1200 calories burned. I also took my HRM in to my trainer to make sure it was calibrated correctly. My heart rate tends to get up to 185-190 and stays there for 60-90mins.
If you do a little digging you`ll find that there is not a direct correlation between heart rate and calories expended, a more experienced runner will realize some efficiencies but they`re not that significant.
I`ve been looking back over my logs (I weighed about 235 at my heaviest) and in September 2010 my HRM recorded (gross) 517 calories expended for a 5K race I ran in 26:56 (I would have weighed about 210 to 215 then).
It sounds like your HRM is using an unreliable algorithm (not that uncommon) that is significantly overestimating your caloric burn. Remember that energy = mass x distance (or mass x acceleration)0 -
The issue is easy enough to settle by observing actual vs. predicted results.
If logging 1200 calories for the runs leads to actual results being in line with predicted results (based on calorie deficit), then carry on.
If you lose less than predicted, or even gain, then adjust accordingly.
What the figures say means approximately d!ck in comparison to observed reality. Even if it means the higher burn figure is just compensating for under logging food, or setting base activity levels too low. It all comes down to eating less than you burn - however you achieve it.0 -
This thread is proof that hrms suck. One again, if you have a model that does not allow you to enter your independent tested hrmax and vo2max, then you are getting completely inaccurate calorie burn numbers. Which is evident by people thinking that they are burning 100%+ more calories in an hour then is biologically possible for them based upon exercise done because their hrm said so.
Also, out of shape or in shape, doesn't matter. Your calorie burn will be similar. Your heart will beat faster though when your out of shape, but because your hrm does not know your vo2max it's giving you an inflated number. So you get the illusion that you burn less as you get fit.
Also, hrms do not work for walking. At all. So using them in this discussion to give evidence of a difference is silly. L2 hrm properly. Cardio only in cardio zone is the only way they give somewhat accurate results. Assuming you have a model that allows proper variables.
To answer the question, you burn more per mile running vs walking. The one study I read on it gave running as 50% more calorie burn per mile running vs walking.0 -
The issue is easy enough to settle by observing actual vs. predicted results.
If logging 1200 calories for the runs leads to actual results being in line with predicted results (based on calorie deficit), then carry on.
If you lose less than predicted, or even gain, then adjust accordingly.
What the figures say means approximately d!ck in comparison to observed reality. Even if it means the higher burn figure is just compensating for under logging food, or setting base activity levels too low. It all comes down to eating less than you burn - however you achieve it.
This^
...for all things eating/exercising/deficit related. Just do it consistently...where it is logging all of this stuff...and then tweak based on the results.
That said, I'm still not buying the 5k burns...but it doesn't matter if the outcome is consistent with expected results.
*sigh*
Anyhow, in...
...because math.0 -
5km flat would burn a lot less calories than 5km undulating hills.0
-
I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.
That is unlikely.0 -
Do you burn the same calories running 5k or walking 5k.
I say yes, they're equal calories. Right?
Ignoring the side track the other posts have taken, The faster you go- the harder you work- the more calories you burn.
Assuming you run faster than you walk, you would burn more calories running it than you would walking it.0 -
I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.
How on earth do you burn 500 calories running a 5k, let alone 500 MORE?
Was wondering the same thing myself! Apparently I am doing it wrong!
me too!
0 -
Huh, that's an interesting point. I can see how that could be relevant, because a well-trained runner is pretty efficient at not losing energy in each bounce/step, your leg muscles basically act like springs and store the downward energy and use it to move upward on the next step. But if someone has a lot of excess weight which does not go along with these oscillations, it would require a lot of excess energy to keep pushing it up with every step.I know from my experience just starting out with 5k's and I use a heart rate monitor - I burn 500 more calories when I run the 5k vs when I walk it. Running is going to get your heart rate up faster and for longer than running thus burning more calories.
Your HRM is calibrated incorrectly.
Read the poster's profile - her starting weight was 263 pounds. It's not impossible that her HRM is also calibrated wrong, but running at 263 pounds is going to burn a lot of Calories.
(Imagine carrying a barrel half full of water on your back, which would need to be lifted with every step, and then would crash down and splash all over and lose all of the energy instead of helping to lift you on the next step. Compare that to the same amount of weight on a spring that was tuned to bounce up and down cooperatively with your movements.)0 -
The part people miss in this equation is that if you go twice as fast, you also only spend half as much time doing it. So running would need to introduce an inefficiency somewhere (such as higher wind resistance or some other sort of friction) in order for it to require more calories in total.Do you burn the same calories running 5k or walking 5k.
I say yes, they're equal calories. Right?
Ignoring the side track the other posts have taken, The faster you go- the harder you work- the more calories you burn.
Assuming you run faster than you walk, you would burn more calories running it than you would walking it.
Granted, there is a difference in wind resistance between walking and running speed, but it's very small.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions