realistic calories from exercise

Options
fgleiser
fgleiser Posts: 16 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
hi. I'm 180cm, 76kilos (down from 91)

I jog 3-4 times a week and use Runtastic with an HRM on my smartphone and sync it over to MFP.

Runtastic reports around 500cal from 45-min jogs and 900 from 80-min ones.

Question is, how acurate are the calories burned reported by Runtastic?

I try not to eat all of them back, but sometimes I do because of some social event (bbq, birthday parties and such)


thanks for your help

Replies

  • juggernaut1974
    juggernaut1974 Posts: 6,212 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    5'11, 167 lbs for our non-Metric friends :)

    Of course it all depends on how hard/fast you're running/jogging, and what the terrain is like. But overall, at your size I'd say those burns are probably inflated by a factor of 2 or so.
  • Tedebearduff
    Tedebearduff Posts: 1,155 Member
    Options
    fgleiser wrote: »
    hi. I'm 180cm, 76kilos (down from 91)

    I jog 3-4 times a week and use Runtastic with an HRM on my smartphone and sync it over to MFP.

    Runtastic reports around 500cal from 45-min jogs and 900 from 80-min ones.

    Question is, how acurate are the calories burned reported by Runtastic?

    I try not to eat all of them back, but sometimes I do because of some social event (bbq, birthday parties and such)


    thanks for your help

    Hey nothing is 100% accurate .... you just have to stick with 1 method of tracking is all. So if you like using runtastic keep using that and just go with what it says.
  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member
    Options
    Exercise calories can be frustrating. These sound a bit high, which is often the case. Are you still losing weight, or maintaining, whichever the case may be? Because this is one of the first places to start if you stall for more than a few weeks.
  • fgleiser
    fgleiser Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    Thanks for your reply

    I'm a on 6:20 min/km on average. On the shorter runs I go a bit faster on the longer ones a bit slower. runtastic's reported calories went down as I lost weight, even if I run faster now.

    IIRC, the app uses also data from the HRM to calculate how many calories I burned during exercise
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    Men burn about 145 calories per mile of running, so if you are running 6.2 miles in 80 minutes, then the figures are about right.
  • Tedebearduff
    Tedebearduff Posts: 1,155 Member
    Options
    Dnarules wrote: »
    Exercise calories can be frustrating. These sound a bit high, which is often the case. Are you still losing weight, or maintaining, whichever the case may be? Because this is one of the first places to start if you stall for more than a few weeks.

    Really? I can do over 1000 calories in 60 minutes ... his/her calories seemed more realistic than mine.
  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member
    Options
    Tedebearduff wrote: »
    Dnarules wrote: »
    Exercise calories can be frustrating. These sound a bit high, which is often the case. Are you still losing weight, or maintaining, whichever the case may be? Because this is one of the first places to start if you stall for more than a few weeks.

    Really? I can do over 1000 calories in 60 minutes ... his/her calories seemed more realistic than mine.

    I simply said they sound high. There is a lot of debate over exercise calories in these forums.

    My main point is that if OP is on track for weight loss, then this is fine. If weight loss stalls, they may want to reconsider.

  • fgleiser
    fgleiser Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    Dnarules wrote: »
    Exercise calories can be frustrating. These sound a bit high, which is often the case. Are you still losing weight, or maintaining, whichever the case may be? Because this is one of the first places to start if you stall for more than a few weeks.

    I'm still losing. I plan to go to 73kilos (161 pounds). The last couple of weeks I stalled a bit on the scale but the waist measurements still went lower
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    Men burn about 145 calories per mile of running, so if you are running 6.2 miles in 80 minutes, then the figures are about right.

    And actually, if you are looking at net calorie burn, men burn closer to 100 calories per mile, so you would need to run 9 miles in 80 minutes for the number to be right.
  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    Men burn about 145 calories per mile of running, so if you are running 6.2 miles in 80 minutes, then the figures are about right.

    Yeah, and no one ever agrees on exercise calories. The best way to gauge is by results.

    A lot of people say to eat only 50 percent back, but I ate them all and lost weight just fine. So it takes trial and error sometimes.

  • fgleiser
    fgleiser Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    Tedebearduff wrote: »
    Really? I can do over 1000 calories in 60 minutes ... his/her calories seemed more realistic than mine.

    I'm a 'he'. Sorry I forgot to mention ;)

  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member
    Options
    fgleiser wrote: »
    Dnarules wrote: »
    Exercise calories can be frustrating. These sound a bit high, which is often the case. Are you still losing weight, or maintaining, whichever the case may be? Because this is one of the first places to start if you stall for more than a few weeks.

    I'm still losing. I plan to go to 73kilos (161 pounds). The last couple of weeks I stalled a bit on the scale but the waist measurements still went lower

    Then it sounds like you are on track for now :). It's just something to consider if weightless completely stalls.


  • leggup
    leggup Posts: 2,942 Member
    Options
    I use Runkeeper, which is probably similar to runtastic. Speed and incline play a big factor in calorie burns. I've done the math on mine and find that I burn 90-110 calories per mile, on average. I am female, 5'11, 145 lbs.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    I'm calculating 790 for your 80 minute run, assuming you're covering a bit over 12km in that time. Looks like your numbers are good. :drinker:
  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member
    Options
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    I'm calculating 790 for your 80 minute run, assuming you're covering a bit over 12km in that time. Looks like your numbers are good. :drinker:

    This means more than what I said above. Mr. Knight is very conservative when it comes to exercise calories :).

  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    Dnarules wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    I'm calculating 790 for your 80 minute run, assuming you're covering a bit over 12km in that time. Looks like your numbers are good. :drinker:

    This means more than what I said above. Mr. Knight is very conservative when it comes to exercise calories :).

    :drinker:
  • fgleiser
    fgleiser Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    I'm calculating 790 for your 80 minute run, assuming you're covering a bit over 12km in that time. Looks like your numbers are good. :drinker:

    That was close. Acording to runtastic, for my yesterday run: 12.35km, 1:17:41, 964cal
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    I'm calculating 790 for your 80 minute run, assuming you're covering a bit over 12km in that time. Looks like your numbers are good. :drinker:

    Is that total or net calorie burn?

Categories