260 calories for 20 minutes of running?

Options
lesliezimmer
lesliezimmer Posts: 85 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I am a 170 lb female. I run about a 10 minute mile and I do about 2 miles a day.

Why is MFP saying I am burning 260 calories on my runs? I don't know, that seems really high to me, but is it my perception that's off or is MFP estimating too high?

I don't have a fitbit or anything and i don't have the money to buy one, so what would you recommend I put as my calorie burn for this type of activity?

Replies

  • IsaackGMOON
    IsaackGMOON Posts: 3,358 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    Seems ok to me.

    Edit; didn't realise it was MFP. I'd recommend eating 50% of this calorie burn back, MFP always over-estimates.
  • bpetrosky
    bpetrosky Posts: 3,911 Member
    Options
    MFPs exercise calorie calculations are often assumed to be on the high side. There's other run calorie calculators on the web you can use to find a second opinion. They usually ask for your physical stats as part of the calculation.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    I calculate about 220 calories, for 170 lbs, 2 miles.
  • debubbie
    debubbie Posts: 767 Member
    Options
    I weigh 231 pounds and on a 2 mile run for me (about 25 minutes) I burn about 8 calories a minute according to my heart rate monitor. My burn would be about 200 calories and may be a little higher than your burn since I weigh almost 60 pounds more than you. If you are using MFP calorie burns, I would only eat 1/3 - 1/2 of the calories back for awhile to see how it affects your weight loss.
  • AnthonyThrashD_
    AnthonyThrashD_ Posts: 85 Member
    Options
    WalkRunMETs

    Assuming 0% grade and you're running 3 MPH, this site calcs it at 150 cal

  • fatcity66
    fatcity66 Posts: 1,544 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    lesliezimmer wrote: »
    I am a 170 lb female. I run about a 10 minute mile and I do about 2 miles a day.

    Why is MFP saying I am burning 260 calories on my runs? I don't know, that seems really high to me, but is it my perception that's off or is MFP estimating too high?

    I don't have a fitbit or anything and i don't have the money to buy one, so what would you recommend I put as my calorie burn for this type of activity?

    That would be 6 mph, which is fairly quick. It seems like a comparable amount calories for other calculators out there.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,009 Member
    Options
    AnthonyThrashD_ wrote: »
    WalkRunMETs

    Assuming 0% grade and you're running 3 MPH, this site calcs it at 150 cal

    But OP says she runs a 10-min mile, which is 6 mph, so a calculation based on 3 mph isn't exactly relevant.

    OP, I'm about your weight (and about 10 years older), and I use the MFP estimates for my runs, even when I run on the treadmill at the gym (the treadmill gives an even higher number than MFP does). I don't always eat all of my exercise calories back (but sometimes I do), but if my MFP net is in deficit, I've almost always lost weight (except for the odd week here and there where the monthly hormonal water retention swing apparently overwhelmed the deficit).

  • Chieflrg
    Chieflrg Posts: 9,097 Member
    Options
    You don't need to go by MFP or even a HRM. As both are guesstimates.

    Use this simple formula for running on relatively flat ground, it is most accurate.

    Net Running calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.63) x (Distance in mile)

    170 x .63 x 2= 214 cals burned more than just sitting is your answer.
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,150 Member
    Options
    Most of the burns are overestimated, thus people usually eat only a portion of the exercise calories.
  • lesliezimmer
    lesliezimmer Posts: 85 Member
    Options
    Thank you! I really appreciate the responses.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    lesliezimmer wrote: »
    I am a 170 lb female. I run about a 10 minute mile and I do about 2 miles a day.

    Why is MFP saying I am burning 260 calories on my runs? I don't know, that seems really high to me, but is it my perception that's off or is MFP estimating too high?

    I don't have a fitbit or anything and i don't have the money to buy one, so what would you recommend I put as my calorie burn for this type of activity?

    MFP always estimates too high, as do treadmills and other gym machines. 260 calories for 20 minutes of running does seem high. I would cut that in half and go from there.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    Chieflrg wrote: »
    You don't need to go by MFP or even a HRM. As both are guesstimates.

    Use this simple formula for running on relatively flat ground, it is most accurate.

    Net Running calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.63) x (Distance in mile)

    170 x .63 x 2= 214 cals burned more than just sitting is your answer.

    No, that's no accurate, and it's very genrealized.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    Liftng4Lis wrote: »
    Most of the burns are overestimated, thus people usually eat only a portion of the exercise calories.

    This, except, due to my weight loss and maintenance journey, I have found my heart rate monitor to be most accurate of all sources.
  • lesliezimmer
    lesliezimmer Posts: 85 Member
    Options
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    Liftng4Lis wrote: »
    Most of the burns are overestimated, thus people usually eat only a portion of the exercise calories.

    This, except, due to my weight loss and maintenance journey, I have found my heart rate monitor to be most accurate of all sources.

    I see. So for my particular situation, might it be better for me to do the TDEE method instead of MFP + logging burns?

    I am truly trying to be as accurate as possible with what I have to work with. I strongly believe in CICO.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    lesliezimmer wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    Liftng4Lis wrote: »
    Most of the burns are overestimated, thus people usually eat only a portion of the exercise calories.

    This, except, due to my weight loss and maintenance journey, I have found my heart rate monitor to be most accurate of all sources.

    I see. So for my particular situation, might it be better for me to do the TDEE method instead of MFP + logging burns?

    I am truly trying to be as accurate as possible with what I have to work with. I strongly believe in CICO.

    I've not used the TDEE method, so I can't advise on that.

    I would say to just cut your total cardio exercise calories burn in half and you'll be okay.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    I would take 50-75% of the calorie burn from MFP database for anything and judge it against your average weight loss over 6-8 weeks

    If you are losing more than your target eat back more

    But I agree that burn looks inflated for 20mins and a HRM would be your best bet
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    lesliezimmer wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    Liftng4Lis wrote: »
    Most of the burns are overestimated, thus people usually eat only a portion of the exercise calories.

    This, except, due to my weight loss and maintenance journey, I have found my heart rate monitor to be most accurate of all sources.

    I see. So for my particular situation, might it be better for me to do the TDEE method instead of MFP + logging burns?

    I am truly trying to be as accurate as possible with what I have to work with. I strongly believe in CICO.

    Makes no difference you are still working with estimates ...and they should both come out the same

    The only reason to use TDEE is if you do the same every day IMO

Categories