Have you tried GLP1 medications and found it didn't work for you? We'd like to hear about your experiences, what you tried, why it didn't work and how you're doing now. Click here to tell us your story

# How many calories did I burn

Posts: 1,424 Member
Hello I went jogging today I joged 3.2miles in 33 minutes or so
I was using a app which tracks distance and speed I put my height and weight it told me I burned 500 calories that can't be true
Would a heart rate monitor be more accurate

## Replies

• Posts: 135 Member
A heart rate monitor will be more accurate.
• Posts: 52 Member
edited January 2016
"a group of Syracuse University researchers measured the actual calorie burn of 12 men and 12 women while running and walking 1,600 meters (roughly a mile) on a treadmill. Result: The men burned an average of 124 calories while running, and just 88 while walking; the women burned 105 and 74. (The men burned more than the women because they weighed more.)"
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning#

Yes an HRM would be more accurate
• Posts: 28,439 Member
I believe the go-to average is 100 calories per 10 minutes. That would be closer to 330 calories.
• Posts: 8,281 Member
A heart rate monitor won't necessarily be more accurate because of the limits of that technology. Estimating running calories is more straightforward than other exercises. I would try another calculator or site. Unless you weigh 250 lbs or more, in which case the 500 cals might be accurate.
• Posts: 27,167 Member
"a group of Syracuse University researchers measured the actual calorie burn of 12 men and 12 women while running and walking 1,600 meters (roughly a mile) on a treadmill. Result: The men burned an average of 124 calories while running, and just 88 while walking; the women burned 105 and 74. (The men burned more than the women because they weighed more.)"
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning#

Yes an HRM would be more accurate

I believe based on this is where the general rule of 100 calories per mile. That is based on an average weight of 150lbs. So if you are higher than 150, you would be over the 100.

But I also agree 500 is unlikely unless you are a lot more than 150lb.
• Posts: 955 Member
0.62 calories per mile per pound.
Time is irrelevant.

To burn 500 calories over 3.3 miles, you've got to weigh 245 lbs
• Posts: 1,481 Member
I believe the go-to average is 100 calories per 10 minutes. That would be closer to 330 calories.

Just piping up to say this rule always works well for me! 30 minutes is almost always about 300 calories for me. This is based off my HRM, but I like to know what the ballpark is in case I forget my HRM or it doesn't pick up. There are also a lot of running calorie calculators on the 'net. I find as an obese beginner I burn more than the old adage of 100 calories / mile though that is probably a good estimate if you are at a healthy weight and somewhat in shape.
• Posts: 8,311 Member
Hello I went jogging today I joged 3.2miles in 33 minutes or so
I was using a app which tracks distance and speed I put my height and weight it told me I burned 500 calories that can't be true
Would a heart rate monitor be more accurate

Since you didn't give your height and weight, it is sort of difficult to say. It may be high. It may be close. It may be low. All depending on things like how much you weigh. There are lots of online calculators, so try a few as long as they ask for height and weight.
• Posts: 1,475 Member
I believe the go-to average is 100 calories per 10 minutes. That would be closer to 330 calories.

I thought this was 100 calories per mile? Asking because I could sprint for 10 minutes or walk for 10 and the burns would be different.

But, OP was running 10 minute miles so in this case it works both ways.
• Posts: 1,424 Member
I weigh 195 lb or so height is 5ft11