The "1 mile = 100 calories" saying

Fursian
Fursian Posts: 612 Member
edited November 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
Hi all,

I keep hearing and reading that 1 mile roughly translates to 100 calories. I wonder where this truly comes from? What was that persons age, height, gender, weight, activity level, heart rate even? For those who don't have calorie tracking devices, would they be reasonably safe to log their mile walks down as 100 calories?

In my quest to find accurate measures of calorie tracking, I've came across a few sites that supposadly tell you based on your age, gender, height, weight, distance and duration how many calories you burned for that given activity. When I input my stats for a mile walk on a few of these sites, it'll suggest I've burned 75 calories, 80 on some others, these aren't taking my heart rate into consideration though.

My Suunto M1 watch, which is supposadly taking my heart rate into consideration, a well as age, height, weight, gender, resting/average/peak heart rate and fitness level, says that I burn around 180 per mile.

So, with all the various numbers I'm seeing, I'm confused as to which one is the most accurate?

For reference, my stats are 29, 5'2", 141lbs, female. Current situation regarding fitness, apart from the hour a day, that I split up into 20 minutes on the treadmill, 3 times a day, I'm faily sedentry the rest of the day...

Also, I know that there is many other factors at play where calorie burns are concened, I'm just wanting to be as accurate as I can and appreciate any guidance offered!

Replies

  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    edited October 2015
    For running the 1 mile = 100 calories is based on the average weight of 150lbs. It will be more if you weigh more, less if you are less.

    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning


    The main factors for calorie burn is intensity and weight. Things like your watch that estimate calorie burned need other factors for their formulas.

    Eta - outside of a lab there is no such thing accurate. You don't need to be accurate. Pick a method and used at. Evaluate after several weeks and adjust.
  • pondee629
    pondee629 Posts: 2,469 Member
    Rules of thuimb are estimates. Calorie burn rates on any app are estimates. No matter how carefully you are weighting and measuring your intake, it is still an estimate. "I'm just wanting to be as accurate as I can...". Come close, get on the scale once a week and continue or modify as needed. I really dont think you can be exact and may just frustrate yourself trying to be very precise. Don't make this too difficult. Life is art, not science.
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    I've actually never heard that. See shows what I know.

    My Fitbit which has proved to be fairly accurate for me gives me:
    5'4.5" 126.1 lbs very slow walk with toddler - 77 calories (gross) 57 (Net)
    126.1 lbs walk - 123 calories (gross) 104 (net)
    134.2 lbs casual walk pushing stroller - 136 calories (gross) 106 (net)
    (heart rate is taken into account with these)
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    edited October 2015
    3dogsrunning wrote: »
    For running the 1 mile = 100 calories is based on the average weight of 150lbs. It will be more if you weigh more, less if you are less.

    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning


    The main factors for calorie burn is intensity and weight. Things like your watch that estimate calorie burned need other factors for their formulas.

    Eta - outside of a lab there is no such thing accurate. You don't need to be accurate. Pick a method and used at. Evaluate after several weeks and adjust.

    exactly....

    it's just a baseline, it's not a hard and fast rule...a base line is simply meant to be a good starting point. beyond that, I have a hard time believing you're burning 180 calories on a 1 mile walk OP; do you have a higher resting HR? If you do, or if you have high blood pressure, etc that can throw HRMs off. Your HR is simply used in an algorithm to estimate some level of VO2 max that you are working...if you have a higher HR (as I do without medication) that algorithm goes out the window. Your calorie burn is not directly correlated to your HR.

    given your current weight and other stats, I'd say 80 calories per 1 mile is probably closer to accurate.
  • New_determination
    New_determination Posts: 1,460 Member
    180 per mile seems very high to me. If u have a heart rate monitor already I would follow that as it would be ur most accurate. But r u walking n getting this reading? What's ur heart rate? Just seams high. I have a fit bit that I use n it's not always accurate but better than nothing I burn 100 cal roughly 10 mins at a mod jog.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,865 Member
    Fursian wrote: »
    I keep hearing and reading that 1 mile roughly translates to 100 calories.

    For running, yes, broadly at 150lbs.

    Calorie expenditure is a function of mass and distance, little more.

    For walking, closer to 50-60cals/mile
    My Suunto M1 watch, which is supposadly taking my heart rate into consideration, a well as age, height, weight, gender, resting/average/peak heart rate and fitness level, says that I burn around 180 per mile.

    If you were walking the HR element might be causing the over-estimation. Your HR for walking shouldn't be high enough for it to be a meaningful indicator of calorie expenditure.
  • Fursian
    Fursian Posts: 612 Member
    edited October 2015
    Many thanks, @3dogsrunning, @pondee629, @shadow2soul, @cwolfman13, and @new_obsession for your responses! The feedback, links and sage advice was much appreciated! :)

    cwolfman13: I also find the 180 calories it shows suspect.

    My peak bpm from the mile walk is apparently 140 bpm, and it stays around 128 bpm for a good percentage of the walk. Resting HR is 65. No idea if these numbers are good or bad.

    Short of breaking into a lab for a jolly good testing, I'll be content on just logging 80 for the walks.

    ETA, thanks also @MeanderingMammal, for your response! I'll be keeping all of this in mind.
  • concordancia
    concordancia Posts: 5,320 Member
    Your heart rate doesn't matter. It takes a certain amount of energy to move your body a mile. If you walk the mile, it might take you 20 minutes to burn that 100 calories, whereas if you run, you can do it 10 or less minutes, but it is still a mile, still an average of 100 calories.
  • WickedPineapple
    WickedPineapple Posts: 698 Member
    3dogsrunning wrote: »
    For running the 1 mile = 100 calories is based on the average weight of 150lbs. It will be more if you weigh more, less if you are less.

    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

    ^ This.

    I found this link one day when I plateaued for a few months. I'm 5'1" and was around 140 lbs when I started running. My HRM (Polar FT4) was giving me about 10+ calories per minute while running (12-14 minute miles, so 120-140 calories per mile). It broke my heart when I used the formula in the link (0.63 x your weight = calories burned per mile running) and discovered I was getting less than 90 calories per mile running! However, once I ditched the HRM and used this formula instead, I started losing again.
  • gdyment
    gdyment Posts: 299 Member
    For metric the base rule is simpler. 1cal/1kg/1km - so if you are 70kg you can estimate 70 cals per km

    I also do 15-30 cal/km on a bike assuming moderate effort and 25 cals every 100m in a pool.
  • New_determination
    New_determination Posts: 1,460 Member
    I think the main idea is to keep working out n watching what we put in our mouths n how much. Having the hrm is a tool that can be useful but is still not 100% accurate. Find what works n if it's not, up ur game. I've been having troubles pushing myself so that I can loose I have gotten comfortable with my pace. Still proud of myself for doing any form of exercise but if I truly want to better myself n improve I have to break that comfort zone n push past it.
  • Fursian
    Fursian Posts: 612 Member
    @concordancia, @WickedPineapple, @gdyment, and @new_obsession, thanks for the feedback! This is very helpful! :)

    WickedPineapple: It's a little gutting to find that the efforts bearly work off a cup of tea, lol. According to the 0.63 x weight formula, I get 88. I was using lbs. I get about 40 using kg.

    new_obsession: Yeah, kinda the same deal here. Prior to the reality check, I was beyond sedentry. Any movement after that is a plus, lol.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    You definitely won't burn as much walking a mile as running one. I burn around 115 calories per mile running (I'm heavier than you but quite a bit older too). For walking an hour (leisurely) maybe 80ish. The formula of .43Xweight in lbs for walking and .63Xweight in lbs for running is pretty close for me.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    WickedPineapple wrote: »
    3dogsrunning wrote: »
    For running the 1 mile = 100 calories is based on the average weight of 150lbs. It will be more if you weigh more, less if you are less.

    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

    ^ This.

    I found this link one day when I plateaued for a few months. I'm 5'1" and was around 140 lbs when I started running. My HRM (Polar FT4) was giving me about 10+ calories per minute while running (12-14 minute miles, so 120-140 calories per mile). It broke my heart when I used the formula in the link (0.63 x your weight = calories burned per mile running) and discovered I was getting less than 90 calories per mile running! However, once I ditched the HRM and used this formula instead, I started losing again.

    Eh, I suspect it may be do to logging errors in your food intake that reducing your calorie burn corrected for. The formula doesn't account for effort at all you do burn more calories going at a faster speed.
  • belgerian
    belgerian Posts: 1,059 Member
    edited October 2015
    My Garmin HRM says I burn about 133 per mile my HR is 155 to 160 average (7:45 mile on average). I am 47 male about 195 (last time I was on scale). I run 7-8 miles daily 5 days a week, at least I try sometimes life gets in the way.
  • belgerian
    belgerian Posts: 1,059 Member
    Some one said heart rate does not matter but it does, the higher your heart rate is, the harder your body is working thus more work you do the more calories you burn (Hight Intensity Training). I burn more calories in a 7 mile run than I would in a 7 mile walk anyday. I use my heart rate as a indicator of how hard my body is working, if my pace slows but my HR is still up in the 160s I know I am still getting a good workout, but if my pace slows and my HR is around 140 then I am just being lazy and need to pick it up.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    belgerian wrote: »
    Some one said heart rate does not matter but it does, the higher your heart rate is, the harder your body is working thus more work you do the more calories you burn (Hight Intensity Training). I burn more calories in a 7 mile run than I would in a 7 mile walk anyday. I use my heart rate as a indicator of how hard my body is working, if my pace slows but my HR is still up in the 160s I know I am still getting a good workout, but if my pace slows and my HR is around 140 then I am just being lazy and need to pick it up.

    HR and calories burned are not directly related.

    A higher HR *can* mean you are working harder and, as mentioned above, intensity is one factor in calories burned. But. Elevated HR does not necessarily mean you are working harder. Some people have a higher than average HR, but a HR monitor assumes you fall within averages. There are any number of other factors that can elevate HR as well.
    The other problem is that HRMs assume that the elevate HR is due to the effort you are putting in. If your HR is 160 and you stop moving, your HR remains elevated for a time even though you aren't exerting energy (or at least not as high a leve). The HR monitor does not know that and continues to calculate that which is one reason why intervals can affect accuracy of estimations.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,865 Member
    belgerian wrote: »
    Some one said heart rate does not matter but it does, the higher your heart rate is, the harder your body is working thus more work you do the more calories you burn

    Calories expended are a function of moving your mass over the distance. As the muscles require oxygen to burn the fuel HR can act as an indicator of calorie expenditure, in a limited set of circumstances. Your not burning more cals because your HR is higher, your HR is higher because the system needs more oxygen.

    A couple of factors influence HR, largely the volume of blood moved in each stroke, and the proportion of oxygen that's carried in in the blood. So if you're moving faster, you're burning fuel faster, so need more oxygen, so you have a higher heart rate. But you cover the ground faster as well, so all you're doing is reducing the time taken to burn the fuel, not increasing the amount of fuel burned to travel the distance.

    The big difference between walking and running is the mechanical action of doing so.

    HR variations don't mean your burning more, you're burning at a different rate.

  • WickedPineapple
    WickedPineapple Posts: 698 Member
    omma_to_3 wrote: »
    WickedPineapple wrote: »
    3dogsrunning wrote: »
    For running the 1 mile = 100 calories is based on the average weight of 150lbs. It will be more if you weigh more, less if you are less.

    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

    ^ This.

    I found this link one day when I plateaued for a few months. I'm 5'1" and was around 140 lbs when I started running. My HRM (Polar FT4) was giving me about 10+ calories per minute while running (12-14 minute miles, so 120-140 calories per mile). It broke my heart when I used the formula in the link (0.63 x your weight = calories burned per mile running) and discovered I was getting less than 90 calories per mile running! However, once I ditched the HRM and used this formula instead, I started losing again.

    Eh, I suspect it may be do to logging errors in your food intake that reducing your calorie burn corrected for. The formula doesn't account for effort at all you do burn more calories going at a faster speed.

    Nah, I've had multiple plateaus, one of which due to inaccurate food logging prior to the HRM shenanigans. Got the food scale, started weighing everything and still weigh everything when actively losing. (Discovering I had to weigh everything, including my ciabatta rolls because they weighed 30-50% more than stated on the nutritional info was another heartbreaker.) Inaccurate food logging is one problem. Overestimating burns is another problem.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories