Burning Calories while running
danyleewell
Posts: 61 Member
Need help with figuring out calories burned. I am doing couch to 5K app so I jog for a bit then walk for bit. When I go in to journal my exercise there isn’t one for jog/walk so I normally just put it under jog. I bought a Sportline S7 Heart rate monitor watch and used it along with an app called Runkeeper. Now the run keeper that is in my phone straped to my arm said I ran 2.32 Miles for 32 minutes at an ave min/per mile of 13. Calories burned was 272. However the heart watch goes off my finger pulse and that said I burned 484. What sounds right?
0
Replies
-
Your HRM likely isn't all that accurate for running since it is tracking off of your finger pulse. If RunKeeper has your accurate weight and height in it, I'd go off that. Personally, I typically burn 200-300 calories for a 30 minute run/walk. 484 seems incredibly high unless you are really killing yourself during it.0
-
Thanks, the runkeeper doesn't use any of my personal information. You just hit start activity and it goes off the GPS to track your distance. Not sure how it tracks the calories. With the watch I didn't undertand that either as us stand still and take heart rate before you start, stop a few times during and take it again and then take it when you are finished. I thought over 400 was high. I have a hard time breathing while running so I push myself to where I walk more then run to catch my breath then I jog more.0
-
Need help with figuring out calories burned. I am doing couch to 5K app so I jog for a bit then walk for bit. When I go in to journal my exercise there isn’t one for jog/walk so I normally just put it under jog. I bought a Sportline S7 Heart rate monitor watch and used it along with an app called Runkeeper. Now the run keeper that is in my phone straped to my arm said I ran 2.32 Miles for 32 minutes at an ave min/per mile of 13. Calories burned was 272. However the heart watch goes off my finger pulse and that said I burned 484. What sounds right?
Runkeeper is definitely high compared to my polar4 readings. Guessing around 15% to high every time.
It depends on your weight also.. I'm 6'3" 215 lbs in pretty fit condition. When I sprint out for a short run(5K) in about 24 minutes I burn about 375 calories on average.
The 272 hb sounds closer not knowing you age, weight, and fitness level.0 -
Okay so here is another questions.... If Im not couning my calories burned and more calories to eat does it really matter? Like Im at 1400 calories, I stay there, I dont track my excerise until night time because I dont want to eat the calories I earned by running, so do I really need to journal excerise?0
-
I estimate about 100 cals per mile, so runkeeper might be a bit more accurate.0
-
Okay so here is another questions.... If Im not couning my calories burned and more calories to eat does it really matter? Like Im at 1400 calories, I stay there, I dont track my excerise until night time because I dont want to eat the calories I earned by running, so do I really need to journal excerise?
As a general rule, you should be eating back your exercise calories (or at least part of them!) I try to never dip below netting 1200 calories a day, but generally stay in the 1300-1400 range. There's a lot of debate about whether or not "starvation mode" is a real thing. But personally, I see better results when I'm fueling my body well instead of starving it.0 -
So I should eat more then my daily 1400 calories when I work out? I normally eat three meals a day with two snacks, I make sure I eat something every three hours but just thought if I burned 230 calories and still at my 1400 calories I would loss weight better.0
-
Need help with figuring out calories burned. I am doing couch to 5K app so I jog for a bit then walk for bit. When I go in to journal my exercise there isn’t one for jog/walk so I normally just put it under jog. I bought a Sportline S7 Heart rate monitor watch and used it along with an app called Runkeeper. Now the run keeper that is in my phone straped to my arm said I ran 2.32 Miles for 32 minutes at an ave min/per mile of 13. Calories burned was 272. However the heart watch goes off my finger pulse and that said I burned 484. What sounds right?
It's a crap shoot as to what is more correct, but knowing only what you posted, runkeeper's number sounds more reasonable to me.0 -
It really depends on your weight and fitness ability. To burn more than 400 calories in just over 2 miles, you'd need to be pushing 300 lbs. I have no idea if you are or not.
I burn about 75-80 calories per mile, depending on my speed and elevation. I'm 5'4, 125 lbs.
Something most people don't keep in mind is that you should track your net calories burned. If you burn say 300 calories on 35 minute run, you need to remember that mfp is already accounting for the calories you would have burned had you sat in a chair for those 35 minutes. It's likely your net burn would be more like 250-270 calories from the run. I always input fewer calories than my running apps and HRM tell me.0 -
I estimate about 100 cals per mile, so runkeeper might be a bit more accurate.
^^^ yep.... this is what I go by.0 -
Runkeeper does have your personal information (or at least it should). Go to settings and put in your weight at least. Then the calories burned will be more accurate. Based on your numbers, I think Runkeeper is probably more accurate than your HRM.Thanks, the runkeeper doesn't use any of my personal information. You just hit start activity and it goes off the GPS to track your distance. Not sure how it tracks the calories. With the watch I didn't undertand that either as us stand still and take heart rate before you start, stop a few times during and take it again and then take it when you are finished. I thought over 400 was high. I have a hard time breathing while running so I push myself to where I walk more then run to catch my breath then I jog more.So I should eat more then my daily 1400 calories when I work out? I normally eat three meals a day with two snacks, I make sure I eat something every three hours but just thought if I burned 230 calories and still at my 1400 calories I would loss weight better.
If you're eating 1400 calories and then burning 230, you're only netting 1170. That's really low.0 -
I'd probably go by the runkeeper calories to be on the conservative side. I'm not familiar with the app but someone else said you can imput your stats so definitely check that out to see if it'll give you a more accurate calorie count.
And you should definitely plan to eat those calories back. MFP already gives you a calorie deficit based on your personal stats, activity level and amount of weight you said you want to lose per week. Adding to that calorie deficit by not eating back burned calories could be detrimental to your health and weight loss efforts. Plus if you don't give your body enough fuel, it could make your workouts harder.
FYI on the lack of breath while running thing. Part of it is that you're new to running so you need to build up endurance but part may also be that you're trying to run too fast. It's a common mistake for new runners - I know I did it!0 -
OMG your right. I went into the settings and had to register but it now takes my personal information! Thank you. For the record, Im 5'6 and 180.0
-
*Deep breath, cracking knuckles*
Forgive me while I go into some some excruciatingly painful detail regarding this topic. I've done an exhaustive amount of research, on this, so I figure if it helps anyone, it may be worth the long read
My personal experience is that RunKeeper, while a great app, grossly overestimates calorie burn. It doesn't take heart rate into account (even if you're using it with a HRM), and goes with a very basic distance/speed/elevation equation.
The most accurate method you're going to get is with a device that can be configured with your full metabolic profile (including heart rate data, and all other manner of exercise statistics like VO2max, EPOC, etc) after undergoing a test on a treadmill, attached to an EKG and oxygen mask - there is a specific test I'm referring to, called New Leaf metabolic profiling, for this example
This method is probably overkill for most people. The next best (and probably cheaper) method with a dedicated HRM solution which integrates with a GPS-enabled device, like one of the Polar, Garmin or Suunto running watches/devices. The firmware/software of the device itself usually has some error correction and learning capability based on your age, max HR, resting heart rate, and an ability to learn trends over time.
After getting a Garmin FR610 with HRM, and using a multitude of tools which utilize heart rate variability calculations on top of basic beats-per-minute, and plugging this raw data into a program like FirstBeat Athlete, I found that RunKeeper over-estimates calorie burn from a 15-25%. I've run with both the Garmin/HRM combo, and RunKeeper on iPhone 4S, for a half marathon, and got the following discrepancies:
Garmin FR610/HRM: 1294c
RunKeeper/iPhone: 1593c
RunKeeper over-estimated this run by 19%. On shorter runs, I've found the over-estimation to be approaching 25%.
I'm not saying that the Garmin & HRM is perfect either, but based on the software & firmware it uses (from that company FirstBeat that I had mentioned, which specializes in metabolic profiling software), I'd believe that more than the basic distance/speed equation. I'm actually planning on doing a full metabolic workup using the New Leaf method, which I can enter into my Garmin to give me the most accurate numbers possible.
So this was probably too much detail for you. Sorry about that. I'm an engineer by trade and am held hostage by numbers. A safe, estimate generally 100 cals/mile for someone around 5'7" and in the 150-160 range. I'd ballpark knocking 10% off the calorie burn for each ~10 lbs under, and adding 10% to the burn for each 10 lbs over. As you improve your aerobic capacity, the calorie burn will drop (your body has to do less work as it gets better at running).0 -
*Deep breath, cracking knuckles*
Forgive me while I go into some some excruciatingly painful detail regarding this topic. I've done an exhaustive amount of research, on this, so I figure if it helps anyone, it may be worth the long read
My personal experience is that RunKeeper, while a great app, grossly overestimates calorie burn. It doesn't take heart rate into account (even if you're using it with a HRM), and goes with a very basic distance/speed/elevation equation.
The most accurate method you're going to get is with a device that can be configured with your full metabolic profile (including heart rate data, and all other manner of exercise statistics like VO2max, EPOC, etc) after undergoing a test on a treadmill, attached to an EKG and oxygen mask - there is a specific test I'm referring to, called New Leaf metabolic profiling, for this example
This method is probably overkill for most people. The next best (and probably cheaper) method with a dedicated HRM solution which integrates with a GPS-enabled device, like one of the Polar, Garmin or Suunto running watches/devices. The firmware/software of the device itself usually has some error correction and learning capability based on your age, max HR, resting heart rate, and an ability to learn trends over time.
After getting a Garmin FR610 with HRM, and using a multitude of tools which utilize heart rate variability calculations on top of basic beats-per-minute, and plugging this raw data into a program like FirstBeat Athlete, I found that RunKeeper over-estimates calorie burn from a 15-25%. I've run with both the Garmin/HRM combo, and RunKeeper on iPhone 4S, for a half marathon, and got the following discrepancies:
Garmin FR610/HRM: 1294c
RunKeeper/iPhone: 1593c
RunKeeper over-estimated this run by 19%. On shorter runs, I've found the over-estimation to be approaching 25%.
I'm not saying that the Garmin & HRM is perfect either, but based on the software & firmware it uses (from that company FirstBeat that I had mentioned, which specializes in metabolic profiling software), I'd believe that more than the basic distance/speed equation. I'm actually planning on doing a full metabolic workup using the New Leaf method, which I can enter into my Garmin to give me the most accurate numbers possible.
So this was probably too much detail for you. Sorry about that. I'm an engineer by trade and am held hostage by numbers. A safe, estimate generally 100 cals/mile for someone around 5'7" and in the 150-160 range. I'd ballpark knocking 10% off the calorie burn for each ~10 lbs under, and adding 10% to the burn for each 10 lbs over. As you improve your aerobic capacity, the calorie burn will drop (your body has to do less work as it gets better at running).
Do you believe that your experiences with runkeeper vs HRMs applies to everyone, regardless of weight, conditioning, experience, etc?0 -
Do you believe that your experiences with runkeeper vs HRMs applies to everyone, regardless of weight, conditioning, experience,
etc?
I can't say for sure, I've only done this for myself. That being said, the fact that RunKeeper itself doesn't use HRM data as part of it's calculation, would make me skeptical of it's calorie estimates for anyone.
Just going on record again - I like RunKeeper, I'm not trying to make this a witch hunt. Their site and advanced reporting tools are great, and I still use it with an Elite subscription. I just use the Garmin for the actual run data and import it to RK.0 -
Do you believe that your experiences with runkeeper vs HRMs applies to everyone, regardless of weight, conditioning, experience,
etc?
I can't say for sure, I've only done this for myself. That being said, the fact that RunKeeper itself doesn't use HRM data as part of it's calculation, would make me skeptical of it's calorie estimates for anyone.
Just going on record again - I like RunKeeper, I'm not trying to make this a witch hunt. Their site is great, reports and trends are solid, and I still use it with an Elite subscription. I just use the Garmin for the actual run data and import it to RK.
Just to further derail this thread, lol...
I've read (from pretty respectable sources) that calorie burn is largely irrelevant of HR. Calories are a unit/measure of energy, and energy basically comes down to the workload of the activity. To move a 150lb person across 3 miles will use the same amount of cals if they walk it in an hour or run it in 20 minutes. It all comes down to work = distance / time.
Thoughts?
And in case it's not clear, I'm genuinely asking. No sarcasm or anything intended.0 -
yeah, what Pete said!! but with that said here's a little chart with weight and speed that will give you a ballpark.
http://walking.about.com/cs/howtoloseweight/a/howcalburn.htm
Speed/Pounds 100 lb 120 lb 140 lb 160 lb 180 lb 200 lb 220 lb 250 lb 275 lb 300 lb
2.0mph 57 68 80 91 102 114 125 142 156 170
2.5mph 55 65 76 87 98 109 120 136 150 164
3.0mph 53 64 74 85 95 106 117 133 146 159
3.5mph 52 62 73 83 94 104 114 130 143 156
4.0mph 57 68 80 91 102 114 125 142 156 170
4.5mph 64 76 89 102 115 127 140 159 175 191
5.0mph 73 87 102 116 131 145 160 182 200 2180 -
And on another note, I use Cardio Trainer on my android phone and it gives me anywhere from 117-125 cal per mile walking and I weigh 220 depending on my average speed so it looks like it uses the averages above or something close to it.0
-
Just to further derail this thread, lol...
I've read (from pretty respectable sources) that calorie burn is largely irrelevant of HR. Calories are a unit/measure of energy, and energy basically comes down to the workload of the activity. To move a 150lb person across 3 miles will use the same amount of cals if they walk it in an hour or run it in 20 minutes. It all comes down to work = distance / time.
Thoughts?
And in case it's not clear, I'm genuinely asking. No sarcasm or anything intended.
The best measure of workload for a given person is measuring how hard that person's cardio-pulmonary system is working though, wouldn't you agree? As such, I believe a heart rate measurement as a percentage between a resting heart rate, and max heart rate, is a key piece of that measurement.
I'm not trying to push my opinion off as the end-all, be-all correct answer. Just trying to give an angle as someone who's done a lot of homework on this subject.0 -
Just to further derail this thread, lol...
I've read (from pretty respectable sources) that calorie burn is largely irrelevant of HR. Calories are a unit/measure of energy, and energy basically comes down to the workload of the activity. To move a 150lb person across 3 miles will use the same amount of cals if they walk it in an hour or run it in 20 minutes. It all comes down to work = distance / time.
Thoughts?
And in case it's not clear, I'm genuinely asking. No sarcasm or anything intended.
The best measure of workload for a given person is measuring how hard that person's cardio-pulmonary system is working though, wouldn't you agree? As such, I believe a heart rate measurement as a percentage between a resting heart rate, and max heart rate, is a key piece of that measurement.
I'm not trying to push my opinion off as the end-all, be-all correct answer. Just trying to give an angle as someone who's done a lot of homework on this subject.
yep, and I appreciate the insight. This is one of those topics that, just when I think I know what I'm talking about, I find some other angle to consider. You're pretty well researched, so your opinion is worth something to me, thus the questions.0 -
Well, apparently from everybody's responses here I've been calculating incorrectly... i use a heart rate monitor with a chest strap and log those numbers. Maybe I'll start cutting it back 10-20% when I log my exercise. Although, I do tend to push pretty hard when i workout so perhaps it's more accurate than I think..... ugh!0
-
Well, apparently from everybody's responses here I've been calculating incorrectly... i use a heart rate monitor with a chest strap and log those numbers. Maybe I'll start cutting it back 10-20% when I log my exercise. Although, I do tend to push pretty hard when i workout so perhaps it's more accurate than I think..... ugh!
Do your expected results line up fairly well with your actual results? If so, then you're logging is probably pretty good. If not, then considering changing things.
I wouldn't change what is ultimately a guesstimate based on something you read online posted by people who think they know a lot more than they really do.0 -
Well, apparently from everybody's responses here I've been calculating incorrectly... i use a heart rate monitor with a chest strap and log those numbers. Maybe I'll start cutting it back 10-20% when I log my exercise. Although, I do tend to push pretty hard when i workout so perhaps it's more accurate than I think..... ugh!
Do your expected results line up fairly well with your actual results? If so, then you're logging is probably pretty good. If not, then considering changing things.
I wouldn't change what is ultimately a guesstimate based on something you read online posted by people who think they know a lot more than they really do.
I've been on here for a while but just recently decided that I was going to get serious with the logging and working out... With the 4lb loss so far i think the way I'm doing things is working for me... and no, i dont plan on changing anything yet until i give what i'm doing now a chance to work...if nothing changes in about 2 months then ya, something will need to change0 -
Do you believe that your experiences with runkeeper vs HRMs applies to everyone, regardless of weight, conditioning, experience,
etc?
I can't say for sure, I've only done this for myself. That being said, the fact that RunKeeper itself doesn't use HRM data as part of it's calculation, would make me skeptical of it's calorie estimates for anyone.
Just going on record again - I like RunKeeper, I'm not trying to make this a witch hunt. Their site is great, reports and trends are solid, and I still use it with an Elite subscription. I just use the Garmin for the actual run data and import it to RK.
Just to further derail this thread, lol...
I've read (from pretty respectable sources) that calorie burn is largely irrelevant of HR. Calories are a unit/measure of energy, and energy basically comes down to the workload of the activity. To move a 150lb person across 3 miles will use the same amount of cals if they walk it in an hour or run it in 20 minutes. It all comes down to work = distance / time.
Thoughts?
And in case it's not clear, I'm genuinely asking. No sarcasm or anything intended.
Incorrect on both counts.
Hr is meaningless for calorie burn compared to other people. But assuming you are doing cardio and other variables are constant, (temp, not afraid, no medical conditions or drugs, etc) then hr compared vs yourself is very relevant.
And the faster you run, then the higher calorie burn per mile. This is because the body has different ways to make ATP. The more intense movement you do, the more energy intensive systems will contribute to making that ATP. Running can contribute around 50% more calories burned per mile compared to walking for example.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions