Can I really burn 141 calories jogging a mile?

SaddyPants
SaddyPants Posts: 152 Member
edited October 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
I read online, or saw somewhere, that if you multiply your weight by .75 it gives you the calories you burn walking/jogging/running a mile.

Has anyone heard of this or know it to be true? I don't wan to be greatly over-estimating my calories burned.

Thanks!

Oh, and I weigh 188 and I'm 5'9

Replies

  • Pebble321
    Pebble321 Posts: 6,423 Member
    I haven't heard that one - I have read that walking/jogging/running a mile all burn around 100 cals, though that doesn't make any allowance for your weight.

    I work on about 10 cals/minute when I'm jogging at 12 mins/mile so I think I'd burn 120 cals per mile by this calculation and about 117 by your calculation - so me for it wouldn't be far off.

    As I don't have an HRM though, all of this is an estimation :)
  • AZTrailRunner
    AZTrailRunner Posts: 1,199 Member
    I have... but that is also running hard, uphill, for an hour or more at a time.

    Realistically, you are going to see numbers around 100- 110 per mile. (your mileage may vary).
  • fraanncciiss
    fraanncciiss Posts: 21
    Try buying yourself a HeartRate Monitor! And then use your BPM while you run and use an online calculator to find out how many you burned in conjunction with your height and weight! :)
  • KimertRuns13_1
    KimertRuns13_1 Posts: 702 Member
    Get a heart rate monitor.

    I personally can burn between 100-130 calories running but there's just too many things that factor in there for me. I do notice the more weight I lose the less I burn...which sucks a bit. However, it does force me to push harder so I burn more!
  • nighthawke
    nighthawke Posts: 45 Member
    Find the METS for the activity you're doing then use this formula.

    METS X 3.5 X (Body Weight / 2.2) /200 <--- The answer you get to this will be how many calories that activity burns per minute. Multiply this number by however many minutes you completed.

    Jogging has a MET of around 7.0. So if you take a 160 lb person and have them jog for 30 minutes the formula would look like this.


    7.0 X 3.5 X (160 / 2.2) /200 X 30 = 267.3

    267 Calories for jogging for 30 minutes at 160lb.
  • CakeFit21
    CakeFit21 Posts: 2,521 Member
    I do not burn 100 cals a mile. I've checked and checked and that does not apply to me. I just did the .75 calculation and I think it's close, at least for me. I recently figured I was burning around 80 cals a mile on an easy run. This formula gave me 84 cals. But there are so many factors....
  • Samerah12
    Samerah12 Posts: 610 Member
    I'm about 5'7 and 167 lbs (which in my mind is roughly equivalent to your size) and I burn around 100 cals/mile on just about anything 5 miles and under on pavement. Slightly less on a treadmill. Probably more on trails but I'm never positive about the distance so don't quote me.

    If you don't have a HRM and want to be conservative give yourself 100 cals/mile and you probably wont be far off.
  • SaddyPants
    SaddyPants Posts: 152 Member
    Thank you very much everyone! I appreciate most of your responses. :)

    I am going to start logging them as 100 calories per mile just to be on the safe side.
  • arc918
    arc918 Posts: 2,037 Member
    for your weight that seems almost right

    I'm 175 and I burn ~ 130 a mile
  • ooOOooGravy
    ooOOooGravy Posts: 476 Member
    Find the METS for the activity you're doing then use this formula.

    METS X 3.5 X (Body Weight / 2.2) /200 <--- The answer you get to this will be how many calories that activity burns per minute. Multiply this number by however many minutes you completed.

    Jogging has a MET of around 7.0. So if you take a 160 lb person and have them jog for 30 minutes the formula would look like this.


    7.0 X 3.5 X (160 / 2.2) /200 X 30 = 267.3

    267 Calories for jogging for 30 minutes at 160lb.

    this must be the calculation the some applications use, as i applied this to my run last night, and its come out with the exact number that my Endomundo run tracker came out with, however, i usually use the calculation of my avg. heart rate to track my calories, much more personal. (only can apply if you have a HRM of course :/ )
    This is from the Livestrong website:

    Female:
    (0.4472 x H - 0.05741 x W + 0.074 x A - 20.4022) x time / 4.184
    Male:
    (0.6309 x H + 0.2017 x A + 0.09036 x W - 55.0969) x time / 4.184

    H = Avg Heart Rate
    W = Weight in Pounds
    A = Age in Years
    time is in minutes
  • therealangd
    therealangd Posts: 1,861 Member
    7.0 X 3.5 X (160 / 2.2) /200 X 30 = 267.3

    267 Calories for jogging for 30 minutes at 160lb.

    That's reasonable. That's a little more than a 10 minute mile.

    If I don't know for sure, I will use 100 cals per mile.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Find the METS for the activity you're doing then use this formula.

    METS X 3.5 X (Body Weight / 2.2) /200 <--- The answer you get to this will be how many calories that activity burns per minute. Multiply this number by however many minutes you completed.

    Jogging has a MET of around 7.0. So if you take a 160 lb person and have them jog for 30 minutes the formula would look like this.


    7.0 X 3.5 X (160 / 2.2) /200 X 30 = 267.3

    267 Calories for jogging for 30 minutes at 160lb.

    this must be the calculation the some applications use, as i applied this to my run last night, and its come out with the exact number that my Endomundo run tracker came out with, however, i usually use the calculation of my avg. heart rate to track my calories, much more personal. (only can apply if you have a HRM of course :/ )
    This is from the Livestrong website:

    Female:
    (0.4472 x H - 0.05741 x W + 0.074 x A - 20.4022) x time / 4.184
    Male:
    (0.6309 x H + 0.2017 x A + 0.09036 x W - 55.0969) x time / 4.184

    H = Avg Heart Rate
    W = Weight in Pounds
    A = Age in Years
    time is in minutes

    It's only "personal" if you know your actual maximum heart rate. Heart rate by itself is not a very meaningful number. It only means something when you know that "x" heartrate means you are working at "y" percent of your maximum. A heart rate of 150 could be an easy stroll for a teenager but an all out effort for an older adult.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Find the METS for the activity you're doing then use this formula.

    METS X 3.5 X (Body Weight / 2.2) /200 <--- The answer you get to this will be how many calories that activity burns per minute. Multiply this number by however many minutes you completed.

    Jogging has a MET of around 7.0. So if you take a 160 lb person and have them jog for 30 minutes the formula would look like this.


    7.0 X 3.5 X (160 / 2.2) /200 X 30 = 267.3

    267 Calories for jogging for 30 minutes at 160lb.

    There is no fixed MET value for either running or walking. The intensity (MET) is directly related to speed (and incline). Someone running at 8 mph will have a significantly higher MET value than someone running 5.0 mph (and, given the same weight, will burn significantly more calories).
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    The x.75 estimate seems pretty accurate for running... it's pretty close to the estimates that MFP gives.

    But walking a mile burns less than running a mile. Slow walking burns about the same as fast walking, and slow running burns about the same as fast running, but running and walking are totally different activities.
  • BerryH
    BerryH Posts: 4,698 Member
    I have found I burn just over 10 calories a minute when running or doing anything that works me as hard as running, so that would be about 130 calories per super-slow mile for me - I'm 168lb and 5' 8".
  • ooOOooGravy
    ooOOooGravy Posts: 476 Member
    This is from the Livestrong website:

    Female:
    (0.4472 x H - 0.05741 x W + 0.074 x A - 20.4022) x time / 4.184
    Male:
    (0.6309 x H + 0.2017 x A + 0.09036 x W - 55.0969) x time / 4.184

    H = Avg Heart Rate
    W = Weight in Pounds
    A = Age in Years
    time is in minutes

    It's only "personal" if you know your actual maximum heart rate. Heart rate by itself is not a very meaningful number. It only means something when you know that "x" heartrate means you are working at "y" percent of your maximum. A heart rate of 150 could be an easy stroll for a teenager but an all out effort for an older adult.

    indeed, these cals are usually done by 220 minus your age, if knowing you MHR as i do, i adjust my age to relate to my max rate. my max HR is ment to be 195 according to the calc, however its 199, so i change my age down 4 years to compensate. If i knew my VO2Max, i would also take that into account too, but i dont. You cannot accuraely messure burnt calories without specialised equipment that take into account heart rate and air volume consumed or exchanged or whatever it does, but we can get as accurate as possible with what we have available. Having a HRM gives you a better degree of accuarcy to not having having one, and having a better quality HRM will get you even more accurate, so on and so forth... Its the degree of accuracy that your after, which is relative
  • KyleB65
    KyleB65 Posts: 1,196 Member
    Never heard this myself but the treadmill at my gym shows about 120 cal burnt for a mile run. I have not yet checked with a heart rate monitor but I would assume that this is close. So, your number sounds good.
  • mikeyrp
    mikeyrp Posts: 1,616 Member
    Its not a bad approximation - a little higher than the one my Garmin 305 kicks out (about 125 Cal per mile @ 9 minute miles)

    Also - running on hill is more effort than running on a flat. HRM is going to be more accurate than an approximation based on weight and speed - but at the end of the day its going to ba a guess of greater or lesser accuracy. On that basis I normally take the value from my GPS watch and dont worry about it too much.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Its not a bad approximation - a little higher than the one my Garmin 305 kicks out (about 125 Cal per mile @ 9 minute miles)

    Also - running on hill is more effort than running on a flat. HRM is going to be more accurate than an approximation based on weight and speed - but at the end of the day its going to ba a guess of greater or lesser accuracy. On that basis I normally take the value from my GPS watch and dont worry about it too much.

    When it comes to level running, calculations based on weight and speed will be more accurate than a HRM. The aerobic cost on running is consistent and the energy estimate equations well validated. Therefore, any variations from those calculated numbers to those on an HRM are likely due to incorrect HRM setup or the inherent inaccuracy of the HRM itself. When it comes to outdoor level walking, treadmill walking (level or incline), or outdoor level running, especially for extended times, the energy estimate formulae from the ASCM are the standard that the HRM has to match, not the other way around.
  • wolfchild59
    wolfchild59 Posts: 2,608 Member
    Find the METS for the activity you're doing then use this formula.

    METS X 3.5 X (Body Weight / 2.2) /200 <--- The answer you get to this will be how many calories that activity burns per minute. Multiply this number by however many minutes you completed.

    Jogging has a MET of around 7.0. So if you take a 160 lb person and have them jog for 30 minutes the formula would look like this.


    7.0 X 3.5 X (160 / 2.2) /200 X 30 = 267.3

    267 Calories for jogging for 30 minutes at 160lb.

    This seems the most accurate. I just did 3mi last night, took just under 29 min and both my HRM and BodyMedia Fit gave me around a 266cal burn. Which is about average for me on burns depending on my pace.
  • JamesBurkes
    JamesBurkes Posts: 382 Member
    According to my HRM I burn around 200 calories a mile. Then again, I am 210 lbs and my circuit is quite hilly.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories