Did I really burn that much running?

bbylaura22
bbylaura22 Posts: 18
in Fitness and Exercise
So I ran for 40 minutes outside, up hill and downhill and flat places and I logged it and it said I burned over 400 calories!

I was definitely short of breath most of the time, and I was running at a pace that I could barelyyyy talk if I wanted to.

I logged it as running a 11.5 minute mile.

Does running really burn that many calories?!

Replies

  • shrewd1983
    shrewd1983 Posts: 23
    +/- 100, sure, that seems reasonable.

    http://nutritiondata.self.com/tools/calories-burned

    The above is worth a look.
  • _Zardoz_
    _Zardoz_ Posts: 3,987 Member
    Sounds OK to me it will depend on your weight etc.
  • ThickMcRunFast
    ThickMcRunFast Posts: 22,511 Member
    net burn usually = weight x miles ran x 0.63; give or take a few calories.
  • lisalsd1
    lisalsd1 Posts: 1,519 Member
    Could be. I just ran on my home treadmill for 45 mins. It said I burned 615 cals. Now, this I don't believe. MFP estimated 391; and the gym treadmill is usually pretty close to the MFP estimate. The home treadmill doesn't ask for my weight, which the gym does. I think the gym/MFP is more accurate.
  • davert123
    davert123 Posts: 1,568 Member
    It depends on your weight. I burn about 100 cals per km at the moment and weigh 200. This number is very similar from MFP, Runners world and runtatstic. Your numbers sound very reasonable though.
  • arc918
    arc918 Posts: 2,037 Member
    FWIW - I find the burns for running on MFP to be right in line with what I get on my Garmin and the RunnersWorld calculator.

    You just need to use an accurate weight and pace.

    The real question is how far did you go? 11.5 minute pace x 3.5 miles = ~ 40 minutes.

    Any way to measure your distance?
  • theoneandonlybrookie
    theoneandonlybrookie Posts: 341 Member
    net burn usually = weight x miles ran x 0.63; give or take a few calories.

    I agree that this is a good starting point. I also have found that almost all of the estimates on websites like MFP grossly overestimate burn. The machines are even worse. Get a decent heart rate monitor and that will help you better estimate your caloric burn.
  • davert123
    davert123 Posts: 1,568 Member
    Could be. I just ran on my home treadmill for 45 mins. It said I burned 615 cals. Now, this I don't believe. MFP estimated 391; and the gym treadmill is usually pretty close to the MFP estimate. The home treadmill doesn't ask for my weight, which the gym does. I think the gym/MFP is more accurate.

    running is very dependent on weight. Without entering weight the number is just going to be random and not worth thinking about :-(
  • l0v3ly11
    l0v3ly11 Posts: 2
    Download the Lorna Jane app to your phone - it uses gps signals to determine how fast/far you're walking/cycling/running and then tells you the calories burnt :)
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    Yep that sounds about right.
  • DanaHerro
    DanaHerro Posts: 186 Member
    net burn usually = weight x miles ran x 0.63; give or take a few calories.

    I agree that this is a good starting point. I also have found that almost all of the estimates on websites like MFP grossly overestimate burn. The machines are even worse. Get a decent heart rate monitor and that will help you better estimate your caloric burn.

    Yeah a HR monitor would be your best bet. I'm at 150 and if I run 3 miles at a 10:15 pace I burn about 340, so that equation above is off for me. My HR stays generally in the 165-170 zone for my runs and I tend to burn 12-13 cal/minute
  • arc918
    arc918 Posts: 2,037 Member
    This should get you pretty close. If you're running on a dreadmill, the distance may be off if it hasn't been calibrated.

    http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator
  • scottyg70
    scottyg70 Posts: 388 Member
    The "rule of thumb" is usually 100 calories per mile. Probably the formula above makes it even more accurate, but that was probably in the ball park. There are other factors like weight, pace etc.. of course.
  • nshort315
    nshort315 Posts: 1 Member
    I think that sounds reasonable. If you are really wanting to get a more accurate calorie count you should get a heart rate monitor. I have a Polar FT4 and I love it. I ran for 30 minutes today and it said I burned 330 calories. I usually average a little over 100 calories every 10 minutes at 10:30/mile pace.. I weight 170 lbs.
  • Granville_Cocteau
    Granville_Cocteau Posts: 209 Member
    Depends on your heart rate. height, and weight. If you say you were out of breath most of the time, running 45 minutes would put you around 400.

    I've found the freedieting.com estimates hit fairly close to what my HRM tells me.
    http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calories_burned.htm
  • michellekicks
    michellekicks Posts: 3,624 Member
    I burn about 700/hr running about 9-10 min/mi. I'm 160 lbs or so.
  • cassy_runs
    cassy_runs Posts: 94
    It all depends on your heart rate. Personally, I can burn about 500 calories in 2.5 miles of running because my heart rate gets high quickly and stays elevated until I cool down and stop. As mentioned before, your best bet is to purchase a HRM if possible, the chest strap & watch kind is what I use. They may not be accurate down to the calorie, but I've lost weight at the expected rate based on the deficits I calculate for myself every day.

    Good work!
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    It all depends on your heart rate. Personally, I can burn about 500 calories in 2.5 miles of running because my heart rate gets high quickly and stays elevated until I cool down and stop. As mentioned before, your best bet is to purchase a HRM if possible, the chest strap & watch kind is what I use. They may not be accurate down to the calorie, but I've lost weight at the expected rate based on the deficits I calculate for myself every day.

    Good work!

    Ehhhh.....it sort of depends on your heart rate.....but actually it doesn't much. It really comes down to bodyweight over a distance for running. If your HR is really elevated it doesn't really mean you're burning a ton more calories than someone the exact same size as you running the exact same distance in the same time with a lower HR, it just means your HRM needs to be recalibrated to your real VO2max.
  • fleetzz
    fleetzz Posts: 962 Member
    Maybe. I burn about 80 kcal per mile per my HRM. Per Runtastic I burn 100 Kcals a mile. I would rather eat what runtastic gives me, but I am stuck believing my HRM. I weigh 125, am 45, and am a really slow runner. Today I ran an average of 11:34 min mile. Maybe if I can ever pick up the pace my calories burned will go up????

Categories