Running App that tracks Intensity over time
TimothyIvory
Posts: 12 Member
I like to run for an hour with variable speeds. I usually jog at 5 miles per hour but every once in a while I get flooded with energy and go supercharge as fast as I can 10-12 miles an hour (more?).
I'd like to track this to see how on a chart the rate of intensity increase so I can track how long I'm in this state and get an more accurate calorie burned estimator. Apps and fitness trackers welcome.
I'd like to track this to see how on a chart the rate of intensity increase so I can track how long I'm in this state and get an more accurate calorie burned estimator. Apps and fitness trackers welcome.
0
Replies
-
How fast you run makes no difference to the calories burned. It is simply your weight and the distance you run that counts.
There are many apps that will track your pace and distance keeping a record of everything. Check your phone's app store for something like Map My Run or RunKeeper (there are many others). However, to get the best tracking you should have a dedicated watch like one of the Garmin Forerunners.
BTW - When running (no jogging - joggers find bodies, runners run
) you measure your speed as pace - min:sec per mile or kilometer. When you tell another runner you are going 5 MPH you will usually get a blank stare. Google tells me that 5 MPH is 12 minute pace while 10 MPH is 6 minute pace.
Finally, if you really want to run injury free, get a plan. Getting supercharged is a good way to get hurt.
Good luck.7 -
^^ you will not find a better expert than dewd.
If all you care about is calories burned, don't bother with adjustments for pace.
But as a second measure of fitness ... how many calories per hour you can burn is deeply complex, involving vO2 max and lactic thresholds... and the strength of your parasympathetic system as a whole. And i do think it's worth training your body to be able to burn a LOT of calories for, say, 10 minutes.
Slight tangent...but i would assert that of all the fitness stuff we do, nothing is more likely to save your life more than being capable of a huge sudden expenditure of energy.
What are your fitness goals ?1 -
TimothyIvory wrote: »I like to run for an hour with variable speeds. I usually jog at 5 miles per hour but every once in a while I get flooded with energy and go supercharge as fast as I can 10-12 miles an hour (more?).
I'd like to track this to see how on a chart the rate of intensity increase so I can track how long I'm in this state and get an more accurate calorie burned estimator. Apps and fitness trackers welcome.
A running watch with gps linked to Strava will be able to give you a reasonable look at your varying pace over a run, and one with a hr monitor will give you a look at how your hr responds to the varying pace.
It really doesn't make that much difference how fast you run a mile to how many Calories you buurn, you just burn them quicker if you run faster.
I do find it interesting to look at how my hr reacts to changes in pace/intensity/incline, but it's worth noting that it takes your hr time to catch up with whatever you're doing, so if I'm doing short sprint intervals, it usually doesn't peak until the end of the interval (and sometimes not until part way through recovery). I'm more interested in how quickly I recover (too quickly now in my case, I'm so jealous of people that don't have to half kill themselves to get/keep the hr up)
1 -
Awesome! Learning lots
Increasing my pace doesn't mean I burn more calories when the total distance is the same. Okay!
I can't help it. I get a flood of energy and just go at it for about a minute, sometimes more. It feels amazing, a state of ecstasy. I do want to make sure I don't injure myself so having a plan seems like a good idea. Is there good youtube channel to learn these things, or a book, or even a few tidbits of info to keep me out there and not injure myself?
My fitness goals are to burn 5-7 lbs of fat around my stomach. I'm lean/muscular besides this area and its driving me f***ing crazy. I'm doing fasting cardio everyday in the morning, it seems to be slowly going away, but I'm noticing an equivalent, or perhaps, even greater amount of gains being lost (muscles). I work out too! It's a bummer to see months of gains dissapear like that, but I'm not sure what else to do.
I try to maintain a positive nitrogen balance that will allow fat loss AND muscle gain. Maybe I should try HARDER!!! to make sure I'm getting enough protein. Will see.
Thinking of getting a sportwatch to track my shi*, but really? Anyone do any research how accurate that is? I'll have a 30-80 percent margin of accuracy. I'd imagine an apple watch would be at 30 percent, a 100-150 dollar watch around 50%++. So, I'm hesitant, what am I missing?3 -
My Garmin forerunner 935 gives me the following data for a run:
- distance
- Time
- Elevation
- Calories burned
- average pace per mile
- Best pace per mile
- Average speed
- Max speed
- Split times per km
- average heart rate
- Max heart rate
- average cadence
- max cadence
- Stride length
- Time in heart rate zones
- training effect
It also calculates my VO2 max although I’m not sure how accurate this is.
So quite a lot of data. This also then contributes to a tally of intensity minutes and steps which can be tracked daily/weekly/monthly etc.
Might not be exactly what you’re looking for and not sure on accuracy but it is at least something you can use to get a little more insight.
Hope that helps2 -
The kinetic energy equation I learnt said that velocity was very important, so much so it was squared.
Pace, velocity, speed or whatever you call it IS important in calories burnt.3 -
The kinetic energy equation I learnt said that velocity was very important, so much so it was squared.
Pace, velocity, speed or whatever you call it IS important in calories burnt.
Think about it this way. I can burn 300 calories in under 20 by running 6:30 miles or I can burn 300 calories in 30 minutes running 8:30 miles. So you're right, 'velocity' does has something to do with how quickly I can burn the calories. HOWEVER, when running 6:30 miles I can't go much past 3. Running 8:30 miles I can go on forever (or at least 30 as I have done that before). And, how fast I run makes very little difference to the calories I burn over the course of a mile.
1 -
I can run 10 miles in 1h 20 and burn an estimated 1200 calories or I can run 10 miles in 1h 40 and burn an estimated 1000 calories. Similar route profile and wind speed for both.
Faster runs always have a higher calorie burn per mile for me.
Speed IS important.0 -
The kinetic energy equation I learnt said that velocity was very important, so much so it was squared.
Pace, velocity, speed or whatever you call it IS important in calories burnt.
It's true. Pace is important for calories burned. To double your speed takes four (or eight? can't remember) times as many calories per second. Because it's not just mass over distance, it's air resistance as well.
But here's the thing. I run around 9 minutes per mile. If I'm having a really good day take 10 seconds off of that. To double my speed would mean 4:30 miles and put me in the Olympics. The difference between a 9 mile and an 8:50 mile in terms of air resistance is very small. I haven't calculated the forces, but we're talking like a calorie over the course of a 10k.
So that's why people say pace doesn't matter. For practical purposes, it doesn't (for walking and running).1 -
I can run 10 miles in 1h 20 and burn an estimated 1200 calories or I can run 10 miles in 1h 40 and burn an estimated 1000 calories. Similar route profile and wind speed for both.
Faster runs always have a higher calorie burn per mile for me.
Speed IS important.
And this has been verified how?1 -
My pace can vary depending on the purpose of the run.
A run with OH and children on bikes 9-10 minute miles. About 100 calories per mile.
A training run on my own around 8 minute miles. About 120 calories per mile.
A race around 7.30 minute miles. About 130 calories per mile.
These are Garmin estimates. Over the last year I have eaten back all exercise calories and lost at or slightly faster than expected.
Calories per mile are at current weight, they were higher when I was heavier.0 -
The kinetic energy equation I learnt said that velocity was very important, so much so it was squared.
Pace, velocity, speed or whatever you call it IS important in calories burnt.
When you're talking about variation in running pace, the contribution is dwarfed by running mechanics and body mass. For the purposes of this question pace isn't relevant.2 -
This is a reminder to go dig up my last VO2max test and use some actual tested figures for calorie burn at different paces so MPDean can see not estimated but actual differences between paces.1
-
This is analogous to all eating back exercise calories. All exercise calories are estimates, when someone suggests not eating any back they are rightly told they have chosen the only amount that must be wrong.
Physics tells us pace DOES affect energy usage. To choose not to include that in the estimate is a sure way to get the wrong result.0 -
BTW I do get for many people this is an unnecessary level of detail.1
-
Yes there is a difference, it's just you have to have a bit of variance for it to matter.
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp
Energy Expenditure (Calories / 1 mile / 100 lbs)
(see if that chart does a nice copy/paste) - ETA - nope - removed0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »The kinetic energy equation I learnt said that velocity was very important, so much so it was squared.
Pace, velocity, speed or whatever you call it IS important in calories burnt.
It's true. Pace is important for calories burned. To double your speed takes four (or eight? can't remember) times as many calories per second. Because it's not just mass over distance, it's air resistance as well.
But here's the thing. I run around 9 minutes per mile. If I'm having a really good day take 10 seconds off of that. To double my speed would mean 4:30 miles and put me in the Olympics. The difference between a 9 mile and an 8:50 mile in terms of air resistance is very small. I haven't calculated the forces, but we're talking like a calorie over the course of a 10k.
So that's why people say pace doesn't matter. For practical purposes, it doesn't (for walking and running).
@NorthCascades
If I remember my physics correctly air resistance increases at the square of the increase in velocity but the power (and hence calorie expenditure) to overcome that drags increases at the cube of the increase in velocity.
That's significant for cycling (which is why we spend so much effort on drag reductions) but not for relatively low speed running.
If it were significant for running we would see all elite marathon runners in tight fitting aero tops instead of baggy vests.
Not really clear what precise aspect of physics @MPDean is referring to though.1 -
I am sticking to my original comment. How fast I run makes "very little" difference to the calories I burn over the same distance. If the difference of 20-50 calories makes or breaks your day, then perhaps you should pay closer attention to it. However, getting the exact number is not really possible without a lab (plus getting the input side correct at this level is also very, very hard to do). Plus, the main point I am (and was) trying to make is you can run faster and burn slightly more calories per mile but you can't run as long doing that way. If I was running to lose weight (I'm not and it is a HORRIBLE idea), then I'd rather run farther to get the most calories burned I could get with this exercise.2
-
NorthCascades wrote: »The kinetic energy equation I learnt said that velocity was very important, so much so it was squared.
Pace, velocity, speed or whatever you call it IS important in calories burnt.
It's true. Pace is important for calories burned. To double your speed takes four (or eight? can't remember) times as many calories per second. Because it's not just mass over distance, it's air resistance as well.
But here's the thing. I run around 9 minutes per mile. If I'm having a really good day take 10 seconds off of that. To double my speed would mean 4:30 miles and put me in the Olympics. The difference between a 9 mile and an 8:50 mile in terms of air resistance is very small. I haven't calculated the forces, but we're talking like a calorie over the course of a 10k.
So that's why people say pace doesn't matter. For practical purposes, it doesn't (for walking and running).
@NorthCascades
If I remember my physics correctly air resistance increases at the square of the increase in velocity but the power (and hence calorie expenditure) to overcome that drags increases at the cube of the increase in velocity.
That's significant for cycling (which is why we spend so much effort on drag reductions) but not for relatively low speed running.
If it were significant for running we would see all elite marathon runners in tight fitting aero tops instead of baggy vests.
Not really clear what precise aspect of physics @MPDean is referring to though.
In the Breaking 2 experiment Nike did try to make the runners more aerodynamic with the clothing and the shoes. Check out the shape of many of Nike's new shoes to see some of this tech that has made it to the common runner.
But (and this is big), Nike was doing everything they could to shave milliseconds off the elite runners time. It has little to do with us mere mortals.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »The kinetic energy equation I learnt said that velocity was very important, so much so it was squared.
Pace, velocity, speed or whatever you call it IS important in calories burnt.
It's true. Pace is important for calories burned. To double your speed takes four (or eight? can't remember) times as many calories per second. Because it's not just mass over distance, it's air resistance as well.
But here's the thing. I run around 9 minutes per mile. If I'm having a really good day take 10 seconds off of that. To double my speed would mean 4:30 miles and put me in the Olympics. The difference between a 9 mile and an 8:50 mile in terms of air resistance is very small. I haven't calculated the forces, but we're talking like a calorie over the course of a 10k.
So that's why people say pace doesn't matter. For practical purposes, it doesn't (for walking and running).
@NorthCascades
If I remember my physics correctly air resistance increases at the square of the increase in velocity but the power (and hence calorie expenditure) to overcome that drags increases at the cube of the increase in velocity.
That's significant for cycling (which is why we spend so much effort on drag reductions) but not for relatively low speed running.
If it were significant for running we would see all elite marathon runners in tight fitting aero tops instead of baggy vests.
Not really clear what precise aspect of physics @MPDean is referring to though.
In the Breaking 2 experiment Nike did try to make the runners more aerodynamic with the clothing and the shoes. Check out the shape of many of Nike's new shoes to see some of this tech that has made it to the common runner.
But (and this is big), Nike was doing everything they could to shave milliseconds off the elite runners time. It has little to do with us mere mortals.
Agreed.
Personally I like the Specialized wind tunnel experiments into the leg shaving performance impact for cyclists.
a.k.a. The Chewbacca Scale.
1 -
Ok, here are some raw results from my VO2max test during the time the grade was not changing (at 22%), and only the speed changed for this stretch.
(I know I've seen research basically turning that grade pace into level pace, but they don't seem to go over 10%, and of course Strava & Garmin have their GAP)
And yes, I was running though only 3 to under 5 mph - at that incline, yes.
@ 22% grade
MPH - Cal/min - Carb %
3.0 - 15.853 - 71.561
3.9 - 19.583 - 93.364
4.7 - 22.249 - 100.0
So for equal time, say 20 min (even though that last one was almost to the end and above AT/LT):
20:00/mile = 317 for 1 mile
15:23/mile = 392 for 1.3
12:46/mile = 445 for 1.6
(ya, wanted to make sure those not following along are now - if only so much time available and purpose is to burn calories - go as hard as you can that allows recovery for tomorrow)
More important per mile burn:
20:00/mile = 317
15:23/mile = 301
12:46/mile = 284
Spread of 33 cal between those extremes.
Interestingly enough - very close - 15, 18, 22 cal/min here @ 180 lbs I was during that test (though VO2 is 2-4 off):
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs2 -
If you are using any tracking app when you run, and MFP it will do all your burn math for you. If you would like to look at your theashold paces and your pace improvements I would suggest a good Garmin watch and there are several websites that do statitics well. One that I look at occasionally is Training Peaks.0
-
heybales was that on a treadmill?0
-
Yes.
Sadly their VO2/electrocardiogram machine had issue and could only print report, couldn't get the data file sent to computer to get on thumb drive.
So only had data points every 20 sec to look at.
0 -
How fast you run makes no difference to the calories burned. It is simply your weight and the distance you run that counts.
I disagree with this comment. That's a blanket statement to say that all people who weigh the same and run the same distance will all burn the same amount of calories.
It's a little more complex than that.
Get a chest strap heart rate monitor and look into the various apps out there rather than just running by feel. You don't burn the same amount of calories every time you do the same activities each day. There are a lot of factors concerning how many calories you're burning from day to day. You're not burning an infinite amount of calories just by continuing to move or exercise.0 -
Hardtokillfitness88 wrote: »How fast you run makes no difference to the calories burned. It is simply your weight and the distance you run that counts.
I disagree with this comment. That's a blanket statement to say that all people who weigh the same and run the same distance will all burn the same amount of calories.
It's a little more complex than that.
Get a chest strap heart rate monitor and look into the various apps out there rather than just running by feel. You don't burn the same amount of calories every time you do the same activities each day. There are a lot of factors concerning how many calories you're burning from day to day. You're not burning an infinite amount of calories just by continuing to move or exercise.
No, this is wrong. KCal = 0.62 x lbs x distance (mi)
HR makes no difference. Drag makes very little difference.
Mass and distance are the only things that make any difference.
Any and every 200lb person will burn 370 or so KCal over a 5k weather that takes 35 minutes or 19 minutes.
If you could, you could burn Calories for ever. However, without fuelling, you'll collapse well before then0 -
Hardtokillfitness88 wrote: »How fast you run makes no difference to the calories burned. It is simply your weight and the distance you run that counts.
I disagree with this comment. That's a blanket statement to say that all people who weigh the same and run the same distance will all burn the same amount of calories.
It's a little more complex than that.
Get a chest strap heart rate monitor and look into the various apps out there rather than just running by feel. You don't burn the same amount of calories every time you do the same activities each day. There are a lot of factors concerning how many calories you're burning from day to day. You're not burning an infinite amount of calories just by continuing to move or exercise.
Measuring your heart rate more accurately doesn't change the equation. Look back thru this thread to see actual numbers done in an actual lab. No matter how much you want it to be true doesn't change the fact that there is so little difference that it is hardly worth worrying about. It is certainly within the margin of error in your every day measurements.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions