Tracking Interval Running

Options
jenner4545
jenner4545 Posts: 7 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hey Everyone,

I've started running in intervals (1 min. run/1 min. walk). I'm not sure what the most accurate way to enter that into MFP is. I've looked for interval options for cardio and can't find any. What I've been doing is tracking myself with Runkeeper and entering the burned calories it reports into MFP even if the times don't match up.

Any suggestions?

Replies

  • SonicDeathMonkey80
    SonicDeathMonkey80 Posts: 4,489 Member
    Options
    I would log it through RunKeeper and skim 20% off the top for over-reporting (MFP, and all the running apps over-report cals burned).
  • davemunger
    davemunger Posts: 1,139 Member
    Options
    Or just log it as two separate workouts. Say you went for 30 minutes. Log 15 minutes of walking and 15 minutes of running.
  • JTick
    JTick Posts: 2,131 Member
    Options
    You can sync Runkeeper with MFP, and it will upload those calories automatically (not sure if that's what you're already doing). Then you can just adjust as ^^Doug said....I'd take 20%ish off to account for error.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    davemunger wrote: »
    Or just log it as two separate workouts. Say you went for 30 minutes. Log 15 minutes of walking and 15 minutes of running.

    I agree with this line of thinking. Personally, if I did that type of workout (1 min on, 1 min off) for 30 minutes, I'd log a 15 minute workout and only count the "on" time.
  • _MG_
    _MG_ Posts: 453 Member
    Options
    Silly question but have you linked Runkeeper and MFP to let it report automatically, without you having to log it? I've not seen an issue with Runkeeper messing the times up. I do a 3:1 run/walk and it's close enough for me - but I'm not super specific on my burned/eaten calories. It will list the pace (or speed) wrong, but seems close enough on the calories.

    As for logging separately - I don't know jack but I would think it would overestimate as you're not seeing the sustained HR you'd get with 15 mins straight running. But that's just pulling a guess out of my tuckus.


  • davemunger
    davemunger Posts: 1,139 Member
    Options
    _MG_ wrote: »
    As for logging separately - I don't know jack but I would think it would overestimate as you're not seeing the sustained HR you'd get with 15 mins straight running. But that's just pulling a guess out of my tuckus.

    Again, speaking from relative ignorance, I'd say you actually sustain the elevated HR into the walking portion, so if anything it probably underestimates a bit (but that is from MFP's already-elevated burns). I take 30% off of the MFP estimate for workouts.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    davemunger wrote: »
    _MG_ wrote: »
    As for logging separately - I don't know jack but I would think it would overestimate as you're not seeing the sustained HR you'd get with 15 mins straight running. But that's just pulling a guess out of my tuckus.

    Again, speaking from relative ignorance, I'd say you actually sustain the elevated HR into the walking portion

    This is true.

    The question I always come back to is this:

    While my HR may still be elevated, the actual work I'm doing is still just walking. So calories as a measure of energy, and energy as a measure of work... the work variable is pretty fixed when it comes to walking... so is the calorie burn higher when walking simply because my HR is up from the run interval?

  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    HRMs produce elevated readings after transitioning from a run to walk portion of the interval. The HR remains up, which is what the device plugs into the formula ... while the actual calorie expenditure drops in conjunction with the activity and effort changes.
  • davemunger
    davemunger Posts: 1,139 Member
    Options
    jacksonpt wrote: »
    While my HR may still be elevated, the actual work I'm doing is still just walking. So calories as a measure of energy, and energy as a measure of work... the work variable is pretty fixed when it comes to walking... so is the calorie burn higher when walking simply because my HR is up from the run interval?

    But you were running at a faster pace than you could sustain. The reason people run intervals is to run for a longer time than they could otherwise at a given pace. So you burn more than what you would if you just ran for 15 minutes in a row at a slower pace. But I believe all of this is dwarfed by the amount MFP overestimates for pretty much any workout.
  • sweetNsassy2584
    sweetNsassy2584 Posts: 515 Member
    Options
    I use my HRM
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    davemunger wrote: »
    jacksonpt wrote: »
    While my HR may still be elevated, the actual work I'm doing is still just walking. So calories as a measure of energy, and energy as a measure of work... the work variable is pretty fixed when it comes to walking... so is the calorie burn higher when walking simply because my HR is up from the run interval?

    But you were running at a faster pace than you could sustain. The reason people run intervals is to run for a longer time than they could otherwise at a given pace. So you burn more than what you would if you just ran for 15 minutes in a row at a slower pace. But I believe all of this is dwarfed by the amount MFP overestimates for pretty much any workout.

    First, I'm saying to log the workout as 15 minutes of running at max effort, not at average effort.

    Second, I find mfp estimates to be very reasonable, at least as near as I can figure, based on my expected vs actual results and 2 different HRMs.
  • JennyLee825
    JennyLee825 Posts: 6 Member
    Options
    I use my heart rate monitor for my interval running. I walk 2 min then run 1 min. I burn about 315 calories after 40 minutes. My new favorite workout!

Categories