Runners

I ran two miles this morning in 24:40 and burned 223 calories, so about 110 calories per mile. I can't go faster than that (yet!) I'm 45 years old, 5'3" and weigh about 130, all of which I think factors into that. I'm not in the best shape, either, so I'm probably burning a little more because my HR gets up there while I'm running.

A good base to go by is 100 calories per mile ran. Less if you have walk breaks. If you are quite overweight then a little more.

i think around 105-110 per mile when running at 6-6.5mph but i don't know for sure.

I do know that if i walk around 4mph, i burn almost exactly 100 calories per mile (1 calorie per .01 mile) i can literally watch the two numbers go up simultaneously.

I think it's really individual, which is why I recommend you investing in a heart rate monitor. I got mine from Amazon (the Timex Personal Trainer, I think it's called), and it was only like $40. Just make sure you get one with a watch and a chest strap. That will give you the most accurate results, and then all you have to worry about is pressing start and stop and not tracking mileage and doing calculations.

im not sure, i just get a count from my polar. i run 5ks atm and burn between 400-600 takes me just under 30mins!. depends on how hard im pushing.

I've heard 100 cals a mile on average too but I know I burn less. I've also read it doesn't matter how fast you go but that never made any sense to me. Maybe someone could explain it.

Depends on speed, incline, whether outdoors or in. I work harder outside so average 110 to 120 outside while only 90 to 100 inside figuring on a 10 min mile. Also your weight, gender and overall fitness level will come into account. If you don't have a HRM with chest strap or Garmin I recommend getting one. Good luck

I personally use this site to calculate my calories from a run:
http://www.healthdiscovery.net/links/calculators/calorie_calculator.htm

I've heard 100 cals a mile on average too but I know I burn less. I've also read it doesn't matter how fast you go but that never made any sense to me. Maybe someone could explain it.

The way I understand it is because, say one person runs 1 mile in 6min, but another runs 1 mile in 12min - the person who ran it in 6min only exherted themselves for this short amount of time, versus the person who exherted themselves for 12min, so each burns 100 cal, just one burns it faster than the other.

But I personally don't think that's 100% true, because I do think you burn slightly more the faster you go.

Normally around 125 per mile, but as high as 160 per mile when running hilly terrain at a decent clip (8:00 min mile). That would be for a 183lb male, keeping an "average" HR of 160 for an hour (with a MHR in the mid 170s on the same terrain).

I burn 90-95. or so the heartrate thing that came with the garmin says! If i go faster (which is rare) then it does go up to over 100.

Some Garmin models only calculate calories based off of distance and pace, and not HR, even though it may have a HR strap. I know my Garmin Forerunner 305 doesn't use HR to calculate calories burned.

I burn 90-95. or so the heartrate thing that came with the garmin says! If i go faster (which is rare) then it does go up to over 100.

Some Garmin models only calculate calories based off of distance and pace, and not HR, even though it may have a HR strap. I know my Garmin Forerunner 305 doesn't use HR to calculate calories burned.

hmmmm, thats good to know....i should probably bust out the 8,348 page manual and try figure the darn thing out.....thanks!

I have heard the 100 per mile thing too, but I am at more like 80 per mile, at 5'5" 133 lbs. It's annoying me!

Im right there with you!! It could be worse...

I don't think "speed" is really the factor. It's all relative.

Someone who is fast may not necessarily burn more calories per mile as someone who is minutes slower. That faster person will likely have a higher lactate threshold and higher Vo2 max than the slower person; making them more 'efficient' at covering that mile, albeit "faster". But simply because they cross the mile minutes faster doesn't necessarily mean they burned any more calories than their slower counterpart. I believe, through my own HRM observations, that your average HR and max HR over the distance plays as much a role in the calories burned as your age, weight, height and gender, but "speed" not necessarily being a component.

Oh, and for that conversation that suggests the slower person burns more calories than the faster person, I believe that is only over a specific distance, NOT a specific time. The winner of the marathon will be done in just over two hours, while the back-of-the-packers are coming in at 5 and 6 hours. Since the slower people were out there for 3-4 hours longer, it's safe to say they will burn more calories simply because they contributed both high effort PLUS a longer workout. I'd be interested to see who burned more calories if the winner and last place person both stopped at 2 hours. That's the question.