Runners - calories burnt estimates ….
snapem
Posts: 24 Member
Hi all
I run daily. Which can range from fairly mild 5km on the road, to a trail run of 30 km (haven’t done that far recently, but thinking I might do 14km trail tomorrow). Trail running and even just different courses (hills) and exertion can burn significantly different amount of calories.
I’m interested to know how people are estimating their calories burnt.
Not including calories burnt isn’t an option for me as if I don’t eat back at least a decent amount, I’m going to be underfuelling - potentially a lot on some days. (Leading to fatigue, injury, bingeing etc)
But I’m trying to figure out how to estimate it because each day or week could be so different from another , so it would be a bad idea to consistently eat back what I burn on a hard trail run.
When I started MFP, I found the running (or other exercise) estimates pretty hard to use for what I do. It doesn’t take into account the factors I described above (eg you might be slow but you can burn a lot on a trail run). I was finding it even not that useful for estimates for my twice daily bush track walk I do. And the speeds it gives as options are not that broad (trail running is often a lot slower than road running but burns lots of calorie)
I started using my Garmin watch heart rate monitor to try to be a bit more accurate , but I’ve noticed the Hr can be massively off on that (eg reading 80 when HR is 140 and vice versa) so don’t know how much to trust the calorie estimates
I’m getting very different estimates on watch , Strava and MFP & not really sure how to reconcile it.
Today’s run was estimated as almost double the Calories burnt on Strava than Garmin watch
Note , I’m not talking about one or two calories here or there. On a short run/activity it might be a couple of hundred calories different but on a trail run this has the potential to be something like a thousand calories different ….
Thoughts?
Please don’t just say “eat when hungry” as I’ve always had more of a tendency to just feel tired than “hungry” but there can be lots of reasons I feel tired (including medical reasons) so that hasn’t worked for me In the past (hence being on MFP)
I run daily. Which can range from fairly mild 5km on the road, to a trail run of 30 km (haven’t done that far recently, but thinking I might do 14km trail tomorrow). Trail running and even just different courses (hills) and exertion can burn significantly different amount of calories.
I’m interested to know how people are estimating their calories burnt.
Not including calories burnt isn’t an option for me as if I don’t eat back at least a decent amount, I’m going to be underfuelling - potentially a lot on some days. (Leading to fatigue, injury, bingeing etc)
But I’m trying to figure out how to estimate it because each day or week could be so different from another , so it would be a bad idea to consistently eat back what I burn on a hard trail run.
When I started MFP, I found the running (or other exercise) estimates pretty hard to use for what I do. It doesn’t take into account the factors I described above (eg you might be slow but you can burn a lot on a trail run). I was finding it even not that useful for estimates for my twice daily bush track walk I do. And the speeds it gives as options are not that broad (trail running is often a lot slower than road running but burns lots of calorie)
I started using my Garmin watch heart rate monitor to try to be a bit more accurate , but I’ve noticed the Hr can be massively off on that (eg reading 80 when HR is 140 and vice versa) so don’t know how much to trust the calorie estimates
I’m getting very different estimates on watch , Strava and MFP & not really sure how to reconcile it.
Today’s run was estimated as almost double the Calories burnt on Strava than Garmin watch
Note , I’m not talking about one or two calories here or there. On a short run/activity it might be a couple of hundred calories different but on a trail run this has the potential to be something like a thousand calories different ….
Thoughts?
Please don’t just say “eat when hungry” as I’ve always had more of a tendency to just feel tired than “hungry” but there can be lots of reasons I feel tired (including medical reasons) so that hasn’t worked for me In the past (hence being on MFP)
0
Replies
-
For runs, I use this calculator:
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
(select net calories, not gross, if you want to add the calorie burn to MFP - select gross of you want to compare with Garmin since Garmin gives gross calorie burn for exercise)
Obviously, trail running is different, but it's a starting point?
My Garmin underestimates consistently, I've found out. I use an external HR band though during workouts, since it's more accurate than the wrist readings.0 -
For runs, I use this calculator:
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
(select net calories, not gross, if you want to add the calorie burn to MFP - select gross of you want to compare with Garmin since Garmin gives gross calorie burn for exercise)
Obviously, trail running is different, but it's a starting point?
My Garmin underestimates consistently, I've found out. I use an external HR band though during workouts, since it's more accurate than the wrist readings.
Thanks for this.
Dumb question- what do I put for grade?
0 -
Many runners use the net calorie option on this calculator - https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
Thoughts.....
Don't use Strava for walking or running! (Except for entertainment?
)
I'm a cyclist and used it for convenience on a long but relaxed 3mph country walk just to record the distance and it was crediting me with almost 500cals/hr.
Use a chest strap HRM pickup instead if you think HR based estimates might be more convenient?0 -
For runs, I use this calculator:
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
(select net calories, not gross, if you want to add the calorie burn to MFP - select gross of you want to compare with Garmin since Garmin gives gross calorie burn for exercise)
Obviously, trail running is different, but it's a starting point?
My Garmin underestimates consistently, I've found out. I use an external HR band though during workouts, since it's more accurate than the wrist readings.
Thanks for this.
Dumb question- what do I put for grade?
I always run on the treadmill without incline, I always put zero. So I don't know, lol.0 -
Many runners use the net calorie option on this calculator - https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
Thoughts.....
Don't use Strava for walking or running! (Except for entertainment? )
I'm a cyclist and used it for convenience on a long but relaxed 3mph country walk just to record the distance and it was crediting me with almost 500cals/hr.
Use a chest strap HRM pickup instead if you think HR based estimates might be more convenient?
I know right? The estimates on various things seems wildly off sometimes . same with MFP which has often been more than Strava .
I was using Garmin hr mostly because it seemed more able to adjust to different activities with different intensities based on things like hills and trails. But no idea if it’s even vaguely accurate and the times I’ve seen the hr be so far off has made me suspect it might not be!
It’s been estimating lower generally than Strava and inputting an exercise on MFP which initially seemed preferable (ie more conducive to weight loss) but I’m worried as I increase my exercise and start doing more trail running that if it’s actually undercounting then that also might not be great…
0 -
I just use the MFP numbers. When I run, my pace varies a lot, from slow warmup miles to faster middle miles or workouts. I just average it out. For running roads I use 6 mph, though I'm mostly a bit faster, but it makes the math easy (6 miles is 60 minutes, 7.2 is 72 minutes), and if I'm trail running I use 5 mph. I figure the extra calorie burn I get from doing hills is bonus. Same with walking. I walk with a dog, so my pace varies a lot, but I average 3 mph with him unless it's very steep and rocky. Again, I just figure the uphill is bonus burn. It allows for some looseness in my logging. I've been maintaining for several years and that works for me.1
-
spiriteagle99 wrote: »I just use the MFP numbers. When I run, my pace varies a lot, from slow warmup miles to faster middle miles or workouts. I just average it out. For running roads I use 6 mph, though I'm mostly a bit faster, but it makes the math easy (6 miles is 60 minutes, 7.2 is 72 minutes), and if I'm trail running I use 5 mph. I figure the extra calorie burn I get from doing hills is bonus. Same with walking. I walk with a dog, so my pace varies a lot, but I average 3 mph with him unless it's very steep and rocky. Again, I just figure the uphill is bonus burn. It allows for some looseness in my logging. I've been maintaining for several years and that works for me.
Cool thanks.
Yes I have same thing with my dog - we walk fast at times but there are a Looooot of periods of stopping and sniffing 😂
Possibly I have to just accept that nothings going to be a perfect estimate and just see what happens with time
0 -
The energy expenditure with running seems to vary very little with pace. So you can just put your weight and some random distances and speeds into this calculator, average it out and derive a multiplier with weight and distance - provided your terrain is mostly flat. I mean, you can still use average numbers with this calculator for the whole run. Your watch will probably provide that average pace number, and you know how long you ran. For flat outside I might possibly use a grade of 1 to account for tiny bumps, wind, traffic and the likes. No idea..0
-
I'd just use the calculator already linked, and estimate grade the closest you can to the average grade if you do some more intense trail runs and such.
That calculator uses the ACSM prediction models, which was accepted as the most accurate based on a study that is often cited and breaks things down for those that just want to do a manual calculation. It was a little high IIRC, but not by much.
For flat ground the study found....
Running
Gross calories - .75 x weight in lbs x miles
Net calories - .63 x weight in lbs x miles
Walking is about half if calculating net calories
"Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise, Cameron et al, Dec. 2004 was the study that was used and often referenced.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »I'd just use the calculator already linked, and estimate grade the closest you can to the average grade if you do some more intense trail runs and such.
That calculator uses the ACSM prediction models, which was accepted as the most accurate based on a study that is often cited and breaks things down for those that just want to do a manual calculation. It was a little high IIRC, but not by much.
For flat ground the study found....
Running
Gross calories - .75 x weight in lbs x miles
Net calories - .63 x weight in lbs x miles
Walking is about half if calculating net calories
"Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise, Cameron et al, Dec. 2004 was the study that was used and often referenced.
Dumb comment but I literally don’t know how to estimate the grade. Over here we talk about Eg 10% or 25% grade but if I put a percentage in it gives me an error
I assume it’s just supposed to be a number but I don’t know what that is based on0 -
The main issue for the OP is attempting to estimate *trail* running (which is a very different animal than pavement running hills or no hills)(there are easy formulae for the latter such as posted above). I've been logging it as hiking (well, comparing the 2 numbers and adding an 'adjustment' to bring it up to the hiking number) using the 'moving time' number from the tracker. (won't be accurate, but at least less of an underestimate compared to logging it as pavement running).1
-
The main issue for the OP is attempting to estimate *trail* running (which is a very different animal than pavement running hills or no hills)(there are easy formulae for the latter such as posted above). I've been logging it as hiking (well, comparing the 2 numbers and adding an 'adjustment' to bring it up to the hiking number) using the 'moving time' number from the tracker. (won't be accurate, but at least less of an underestimate compared to logging it as pavement running).
Thanks @ritzvin
Yes this is one of my issues. Same with my twice daily dog bush walks which are on a hilly bush track.
I’ll explore the hiking option & may need to accept I’m going to have to do my best guess.
I’m worried otherwise I’m underfueling and it may be counterproductive especially as I increase my kms and get back into more trail running 🏃♀️ 🌳0 -
robertw486 wrote: »I'd just use the calculator already linked, and estimate grade the closest you can to the average grade if you do some more intense trail runs and such.
That calculator uses the ACSM prediction models, which was accepted as the most accurate based on a study that is often cited and breaks things down for those that just want to do a manual calculation. It was a little high IIRC, but not by much.
For flat ground the study found....
Running
Gross calories - .75 x weight in lbs x miles
Net calories - .63 x weight in lbs x miles
Walking is about half if calculating net calories
"Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise, Cameron et al, Dec. 2004 was the study that was used and often referenced.
Dumb comment but I literally don’t know how to estimate the grade. Over here we talk about Eg 10% or 25% grade but if I put a percentage in it gives me an error
I assume it’s just supposed to be a number but I don’t know what that is based on
You can find all types of charts for the conversion from angle to grade. The grade should just be a whole number, not shown as a percentage. A 45 degree incline is a 100% grade. But easier to think of as Rise/Run. If you go upward 1' (Rise) for every 10' you go forward (Run), then 1/10 = 10%.The main issue for the OP is attempting to estimate *trail* running (which is a very different animal than pavement running hills or no hills)(there are easy formulae for the latter such as posted above). I've been logging it as hiking (well, comparing the 2 numbers and adding an 'adjustment' to bring it up to the hiking number) using the 'moving time' number from the tracker. (won't be accurate, but at least less of an underestimate compared to logging it as pavement running).
Understood that it's trail running and not flat running. Other than best guesstimates for running, nobody is going to have an exact. As an example, every study I've seen states that running takes more calories than walking. Thus in your given scenario, hiking a trail with both feet planted at once should always take fewer calories than even slowly jogging that same trail. One forces you to lift your weight off the ground, the other doesn't.
You can find studies, but most leave a lot of variables. As incline increases stride changes, and at steeper angles becomes closer to hiking or walking uphill due to lack of ability to "bounce" enough upward and forward at the same time. Going downhill efficiency is slightly higher at slight angles, then switches to lower than flat ground as (negative) angles increase. A heart rate monitor would be useless in varied terrain due to not being a constant steady state activity. With tougher terrain it would also reach the point of varied output at times above aerobic and take bursts of anaerobic work.
But using the calculator given, showing even moderate grades in the numbers increases METS and calorie burn significantly, either walking or running. Vertical locomotion comes at a price, even in terrain easier to navigate.
And estimating the vertical is probably the safest method to go with IMHO. Simply estimate the rise of the total trail run, and if it's steeper stuff, add some extra for the declines simply counting it as more rise. I'd also suggest that the differing muscle use and constant changes in load would make it seem more taxing than a steady state run obviously. It is mentioned in studies that especially on steeper downhills the various techniques impacted things quite a bit. I'd also think in trail running the mental focus picture would make it much more taxing, even if calorie burn was properly accounted for. Looking for roots, loose stuff, rocks, snakes, etc takes more mental capacity than just jogging down a paved trail.0 -
I'll start by saying -- I personally am at a place where I just eat when I'm hungry but I TOTALLY get the --more likely to feel tired than hungry situation. And I KNOW that I've had times where I didn't eat back enough calories in a day based on my activity.
When I was actively losing weight I was using the estimate that my running app gave me, the estimate that my Polar HRM (chest strap) gave me, AND I'd spot check with just a google 'calories burned by avg. heart rate' estimate.
I rarely used what MFP has listed based on my pace just because I found it often inaccurate and I was also eating back 80-100% of my running calories.
I found that it was a bit of a trial and error situation but generally speaking, my running app and HRM would seem to match up the less intense my run was (i.e. consistent pace - but slower, and no hills). If I added hills in or my pace was faster, I noticed that my HRM would sometimes be 100-150 calories MORE than my running app so I ended up just logging a number somewhere in the middle. I lost weight at the expected amount so I assume I was close enough.
Now that I am just in maintenance....I take a quick look at how many calories my running app tells me I burned (it's connected to my bluetooth scale app) and have a rough idea in my head about how much more I should eat that day. But I don't eat back my running calories like that now --- I'm probably sort of in-between eating my TDEE and eating back some running cals. The reason I do this is because if I ate my maintenance and then 100% of my run calories --- there are days where I'd be required to eat like...2300ish calories, which is a lot for me so it works out better for me to just eat a bit more daily and then only a little bit more on the days I run. This also ends up sometimes being the day before or after my run, bc currently I'm much better at using my own hunger cues.
I hope you find a way that works! I can go on a 6mile run and only burn like 400 calories but I could do the same distance on a trail run and burn 500 or 600 ... so it all depends and it's hard!1 -
I'm actually quite surprised by my new Garmin watch when it comes to running calories and wonder whether they changed algorithms. I think it displays gross calories in the run overview, but still... The numbers are pretty much the same between here and lbs*miles*0.64 (which should be net calories, and is a bit lower compared to other algorithms. But I use this one). Thus I just use this number and am fine. HOWEVER this is for me. The numbers might not fit for other people.0
-
https://livehealthy.chron.com/calories-burned-walking-different-surfaces-4734.html
Some activities are hard to categorize - like there's hiking and there's hiking
I walk a neighbours unruly Husky , it's sniff sniff , pull and more pull and beware when he sees a squirrels !! Needless to say I have to change out my t-shirt every walk1 -
https://livehealthy.chron.com/calories-burned-walking-different-surfaces-4734.html
Some activities are hard to categorize - like there's hiking and there's hiking
I walk a neighbours unruly Husky , it's sniff sniff , pull and more pull and beware when he sees a squirrels !! Needless to say I have to change out my t-shirt every walk
Yep agree - I feel there are massive variations in “running” Eg I could run 15 km on the road fairly fast vs 15 km on a difficult trail slower snd MFP might think I’m burning less due to being slower but it’s definitely harder work
This is why I hoped a heart rate monitor might give more accuracy but it also seems all over the place
Who knows 🤷🏻♀️0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions