Looking for website with running burns, including net calories

yirara wrote: »

Assuming you mean a heart rate monitor: a HRM is not useful for estimating calorie burns as HR is not related to calorie expenditure. The results get even worse if one doesn't know his or her maxHR. Plus HR gets influenced by so many things such as temperature, general feeling of that day, my asthma medication raises my HR, yet I doubt I burn more calories.

I'm looking for a very specific website someone posted here once.

And all of those factors are accounted for by a website estimate?

sijomial wrote: »

LazSommer wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

Assuming you mean a heart rate monitor: a HRM is not useful for estimating calorie burns as HR is not related to calorie expenditure. The results get even worse if one doesn't know his or her maxHR. Plus HR gets influenced by so many things such as temperature, general feeling of that day, my asthma medication raises my HR, yet I doubt I burn more calories.

I'm looking for a very specific website someone posted here once.

And all of those factors are accounted for by a website estimate?

@LazSommer
Running efficiency (assuming level ground - not on the beach or hills!!) is pretty similar from runner to runner so it becomes mass moved over distance multiplied by efficiency ratio. Hence the formula.

@yirara Think it's the Runner's World calculator that most people refer too.
http://www.runnersworld.com/fitness-calculators/calories-burned-calculator

How do they factor in pace?

LazSommer wrote: »

So you always run on flat ground on a beautiful day with no other factors? I didn't realize fitness occurred in a vacuum.

And HR as a reliable indicator breaks down very quickly in non-controlled conditions.

Distance and mass are good enough for most circumstances.

GPS will help account for vertical elevation changes.

yirara wrote: »

Assuming you mean a heart rate monitor: a HRM is not useful for estimating calorie burns as HR is not related to calorie expenditure. The results get even worse if one doesn't know his or her maxHR. Plus HR gets influenced by so many things such as temperature, general feeling of that day, my asthma medication raises my HR, yet I doubt I burn more calories.

I'm looking for a very specific website someone posted here once.

The newer Garmins are relatively decent for doing so. There isn't a direct relationship between HR and calories but there is an indirect one that allows for estimation.

LazSommer wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

LazSommer wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

Assuming you mean a heart rate monitor: a HRM is not useful for estimating calorie burns as HR is not related to calorie expenditure. The results get even worse if one doesn't know his or her maxHR. Plus HR gets influenced by so many things such as temperature, general feeling of that day, my asthma medication raises my HR, yet I doubt I burn more calories.

I'm looking for a very specific website someone posted here once.

And all of those factors are accounted for by a website estimate?

@LazSommer
Running efficiency (assuming level ground - not on the beach or hills!!) is pretty similar from runner to runner so it becomes mass moved over distance multiplied by efficiency ratio. Hence the formula.

@yirara Think it's the Runner's World calculator that most people refer too.
http://www.runnersworld.com/fitness-calculators/calories-burned-calculator

So you always run on flat ground on a beautiful day with no other factors? I didn't realize fitness occurred in a vacuum.

From my understand, until you hit a certain degree of hills, it doesn't play a huge role. I can't remember the grade but obviously if you are running big hills, it will make a difference, but just a varied terrain will pretty much average out.
The other factors would be very minor.

yirara wrote: »

TavistockToad wrote: »

weight x miles run x 0.63

If these are net calories then the estimate looks probably kind of realistic. Is this equation the same for men and women?

It is net. The source is here.
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

It is for male and female, that won't make a significant difference in calories burned.

sijomial wrote: »

LazSommer wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

LazSommer wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

Assuming you mean a heart rate monitor: a HRM is not useful for estimating calorie burns as HR is not related to calorie expenditure. The results get even worse if one doesn't know his or her maxHR. Plus HR gets influenced by so many things such as temperature, general feeling of that day, my asthma medication raises my HR, yet I doubt I burn more calories.

I'm looking for a very specific website someone posted here once.

And all of those factors are accounted for by a website estimate?

@LazSommer
Running efficiency (assuming level ground - not on the beach or hills!!) is pretty similar from runner to runner so it becomes mass moved over distance multiplied by efficiency ratio. Hence the formula.

@yirara Think it's the Runner's World calculator that most people refer too.
http://www.runnersworld.com/fitness-calculators/calories-burned-calculator

So you always run on flat ground on a beautiful day with no other factors? I didn't realize fitness occurred in a vacuum.

@LazSommer
You realise that HR is also affected by many different factors and is very individual?
This is about estimates so unless you are in a lab environment the best or reasonable estimate is all you can shoot for.

As an example I train on an expensive power meter equipped bike trainer, a fairly empirical measure of energy output produced. The other day I was putting out 200 watts at 150 beats per minute and the guy next to me was producing 240 watts at 130bpm. Similar age and weight but an exceptional cyclist.

HRMs can give reasonable (and usable) estimates but no more than that. Ditto for formulas, power meters etc etc....

Which is something people like Stryd and RPM2 want. Running power meters should be able to normalize runs for wind, grade, surface, etc. like bike power meters. I'd like to get one, but they are probably a decade from wide adoption.

3dogsrunning wrote: »

It is net. The source is here.
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

It is for male and female, that won't make a significant difference in calories burned.

This is the one I always link people to.

Net walking: .3 x lbs x miles = calories
Net running: .63 x lbs x miles = calories

This is lower than what my HRM gives me and lower than what a lot of people on here post, but I would rather err on the conservative side.

fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »

LazSommer wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

Assuming you mean a heart rate monitor: a HRM is not useful for estimating calorie burns as HR is not related to calorie expenditure. The results get even worse if one doesn't know his or her maxHR. Plus HR gets influenced by so many things such as temperature, general feeling of that day, my asthma medication raises my HR, yet I doubt I burn more calories.

I'm looking for a very specific website someone posted here once.

And all of those factors are accounted for by a website estimate?

LOL! No kidding. A HRM is plenty accurate, and surely more so that a website.

The website is based on a study where they hooked runners up to equipment to as precisely as possible measure their energy expenditure. It's pretty accurate. Not perfect, there are other factors as mentioned up-thread.

Using an HRM, on the other hand doesn't even give you net cals. At least, I've not seen one that does. And it won't account for cardiac drift - your heart rate starts a steady increase about 5min in that continues throughout the run without any increase in pace or incline. Additionally, If you don't fall in the 'norm' for max HR (>30% of people fall one or more standard deviations outside) and you don't or can't calibrate your HRM then it will be off.

For some people, way off. I'm well outside of the norm for max HR. My HRM (that can't be calibrated) reports that I burn 900+ cals for a 6mi run. I weigh 116-118 lbs and run on pretty level trails. Actual burn for that distance as verified through long-term weight management is a bit over 400 cals. As it happens, the equation referenced earlier and the website hit that number pretty much on the nose.