Calorie count for running

funnyfitguy
funnyfitguy Posts: 17
edited October 6 in Fitness and Exercise
I don't know what you guys think, but it seems like every calorie estimator I have seen for running seems a little high.

Eg. Running at 6mph for 60 min = 923 Calories

I don't think running 10min/miles is too terribly fast. Granted, I've done a lot of running in the past, but I still weigh 200lbs... in case you were wondering, at that pace, my HR stays about 145-150bpm. So, 923 calories? I would think it would be closer to 400-500.

I'm curious, what do you all think?

BONUS: Do you think running slower burns more body fat percentage? (not TOTAL calories from fat, but do you think you burn more fat % running slower) Help a guy out!

Replies

  • ansonrinesmith
    ansonrinesmith Posts: 741 Member
    For me, that's about right. If I run 6mph my BPM is around 165-170, so in those cases it's better to use your BPM to estimate calories.

    You are still in fat burning mode, when doing cardio. Some people think when you aren't in "FBM" that you aren't burning it. You are, but you are also doing great cardio work.
  • AZTrailRunner
    AZTrailRunner Posts: 1,199 Member
    A HRM is your best way to count calories most accurately. Online calculators don't account for intensity or elevation gains. Generally speaking, most people burn 100- 120 calories per mile. Heavier people are doing more work, so they tend to burn more calories.

    Also, as you become a better runner, your heart works less to move you at the same speed as when you first started. You become more efficient, and therefore burn fewer cals per mile. The online calculators don't account for this.

    Get a HRM and that'll get you as close as possible.

    Add: 923 calories is very possible for someone running that speed for that long at that weight.
  • funnyfitguy
    funnyfitguy Posts: 17
    I appreciate the responses... I know it has more to do with HR and how in shape you are in. I just underestimate to kind of give myself a buffer (ie. I'll type in 45 min if I go 60, just to be on the safe side.) It's working, I'm losing weight, but the fat is slow to come off. In other words, I've lost about 10lbs in about 3 weeks, but only 2% body fat. I want to maintain my muscle mass... so do you think running slower would be better?

    I guess I'm just knit picking... but I appreciate what you guys have written so far!
  • val205
    val205 Posts: 50 Member
    I'm no expert but I've heard MFP overestimates on calories burned too, so I always halve the amount it suggests for me to get my "buffer"!!
  • AZTrailRunner
    AZTrailRunner Posts: 1,199 Member
    I appreciate the responses... I know it has more to do with HR and how in shape you are in. I just underestimate to kind of give myself a buffer (ie. I'll type in 45 min if I go 60, just to be on the safe side.) It's working, I'm losing weight, but the fat is slow to come off. In other words, I've lost about 10lbs in about 3 weeks, but only 2% body fat. I want to maintain my muscle mass... so do you think running slower would be better?

    I guess I'm just knit picking... but I appreciate what you guys have written so far!

    Unfortunately, with only a few extreme exceptions, when you lose weight (calorie deficit), you also risk losing muscle mass. It takes a maintenance level or surplus of calories to maintain or build muscle. (There are exhaustive threads on the topic of losing muscle mass here on the forums).

    My HRM calculates when I'm in the "fat burning" zone versus the "fitness zone" based on my working HR, but at the end of the workout, weightloss will come down to calories burned anyways. Sometimes it through burned fat, burned muscle, water loss, or glycogen depletion. I don't necessarily believe that if you work out less intense you will burn more fat. I could be wrong though.
  • CakeFit21
    CakeFit21 Posts: 2,521 Member
    I'm not an expert on this and I'm trying to figure it out myself. Hopefully I can give you enough info that you can Google more complete info. My coach is an elite triathlete and she has me training, (marathon) at a very low HR for long runs. In my research I've learned that triathletes and ultra runners do this to use their fat stores instead of sugar for energy because you can perform so much longer. The downside is that it takes a long time to train your body to keep your HR that low and also build a competitive speed. It is very hard to get use to training that slow, but then on race day it is surprising how fast you are able to run and keep your HR in check. It worked for me.

    Hopefully, someone can read this and either add to or correct me and give you more info. I found a book called "the big book of endurance training and racing" to be really helpful.

    And yes, a HRM is the best way to accurately track everything. I love my Garmin 310xt.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories