I have walked a lot over the last few years. To estimate my calories burned I have been using the formula: Distance in miles x Weight in lbs x 0.3. I have seen that the formula for running is: Distance in miles x Weight in lbs x 0.63
Now that I am in maintenance and am in the best shape of my life I have been itching to begin jogging. I've used the C25K app and liked what it provided. I know it may sound silly, but the main thing that has prevented me from committing to interval training is knowing how to estimate the calories I have burned.
Do you have a method that combines the 2 formulas to estimate your calories? Do you track your distances between walking and running, if so, how? Any other methods you feel work best?
Thanks in advance for your comments. I am so appreciative of the MFP community - I've learned so much from these boards!
Replies
I have been reluctant to use the tech because I've heard how often they can be off and because of what I've seen in my cases...
I use MapMyWalk on my phone with a heart rate monitor and was always surprised by the calorie burns it gave me vs. the formula I referenced. For example, my last long walk was 8.83 miles and it estimated my calories at 1,359 vs. 566 calories using the formula. More than twice the estimate! I know may pace was pretty fast (13:43 average) for that walk and the difference between net and gross probably accounts for some of that difference, but not that much (I hope).
I could just go with the MapMyWalk estimate and do the 50% thing. Hoping there may be other ideas too.
@garystrickland357 is there a formula you use with the average pace?
mapmywalk is notorious for overestimating calorie burns.
garmin is pretty accurate, fitbit it seems to depend on the person.
the runger is real for me, if i did that i would gain weight every time i trained for a half marathon! (my first half i gained 7lbs!)
If you had a Garmin or similar device or a GPS tracking app which has a lap feature, you could use lap to split up the running/walking segments so they could be easily added together.
The HRM algorithms assume steady state cardio at a moderate effort. Run/walk intervals will affect the accuracy of estimates, although to what extent will be variable based on the implementation. And they aren't designed or very good for low intensity workouts, such as walking.
Gross is how it would be handled for tracker synced in which uses a replace method, NET is how it should be handled for stand-alone MFP as an add method (sadly they use Gross database, hence the comments to take % off stated calorie burns).
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
You can also use that to do a pretend interval session where you get the calorie burn for walking separate from running and add together, compared to just taking the average pace.
You'll find usually not much difference at all.
this.
Garmin pretty much always gives me the formula.. anytime I've checked, it has indeed been 72-74calories/mile which fits the 0.63x___ formula. (Includes runs with and without the HRM). (ETA: also includes runs with some walking intervals)
If your average pace is in run territory, I wouldn't worry about overcounting any walking intervals, especially considering the distance covered will only be ~half as much per minute and you are probably already spending the majority of the time running. (ie the walking portion as a percentage of the distance covered is probably pretty small).
If the run:walk intervals aren't too heavy on walking, this will pretty much be the case. For a 4:1 run:walk interval (run 4 minutes, walk 1) and a 20 minute/mile walking pace and 8 minute/mile running pace, it would only overestimate calories by 5% to assume you ran the entire distance. That is within the limit of accuracy for calorie estimates.
Either use a better device or app (Strava perhaps?) or just do the educated guessing/estimating yourself.
I'd simply use any old device to measure distance and then use a number between 0.3 and 0.63 depending on the proportion of walking and running you do.
Please keep in mind that exercise estimates simply don't have to be accurate - they just need to be reasonable to be usable. In the context of a big number (your CI) some inaccuracy in your small number (exercise) isn't going to make a significant difference. Even if it had a small impact it's going to be very slow in manifesting itself and you are going to notice before it's a problem.
Knowing how bad the estimates from MapMyWalk were (thanks to this community) I never relied on its calorie estimates - only to get the distance and see the other analysis.
It sounds like the Garmin is the most accurate of the wearable tech. Until I commit to purchasing one I'm going to give the Intervals app that @MelanieCN77 recommended and Strava a try and see how it goes. Will also try to compute based on the proportions of walking vs. running.
I'm another Garmin 920 user / fan, largely because of its multi-sport capabilities and built in triathlon setting. It is a discontinued model, if and when you consider wearable technology you can find some great deals on them.
I wouldn't overthink it. For the first four weeks just use the walking calculation, after that use the running. While there is an error, in the grand scheme of things it's negligible.
Only because you said "don't judge me":
It's really hard to prove or disprove your math, without a few more variables - like how many minutes at each pace.