Advertisement -- Learn more about ads on this site.

 
Message Boards
FORUM:   Fitness and Exercise
TOPIC:  

Calories per mile?



Click here to read our frequently asked Fitness and Exercise questions.

 
 
Search the
Message Boards:
Search
      Share
Advertisement -- Learn more about ads on this site.

Author: Message: Sort First Post on Top


UNIDENT
Posts: 33,498
3/15/12 1:55 P

To factor in a strong wind, or significant variation in intervals of walk/run, you really do need to wear a heart rate monitor.

If you are doing regular intervals on a treadmill you could log it as two activities - eg 15 minutes walking at x pace, and 10 minutes running at y pace.



JENMC14
Posts: 2,707
3/15/12 9:41 A

I'd love to be able to call at 31 minute 5K easy! I'm still in the half walk, half run stage! My 11 year old and I are going to start the Couch To 5K program together, now that the weather has turned nice, just have to figure out what days she doesn't have something or that I'm not carting her sister to something!


Online Now
ZORBS13
SparkPoints: (88,165)
Fitness Minutes: (90,459)
Posts: 12,693
3/15/12 9:00 A

I'm pretty close in weight, and I burn around 250-275 cals for an easy (31 minute) 5K.



MOTIVATED@LAST
Posts: 13,641
3/15/12 8:55 A

I don't know about you, but I find that my walking speed is very predictable and stable, but my running speed is predictable and stable.

I can have a rough guess at whether I was walking for 40/60/80/whatever percent of the time, and thus how long and how far I was walking in total. And the residual distance and time must have been running.

M@L

PS. Rereading the above, it seems like a lot of math. It somehow seems easier in real life.



JENMC14
Posts: 2,707
3/15/12 8:12 A

Yeah, CT, my treadmill today gave me about 300 calories for doing 2 miles in 24:55! The above link gave me like 158 if I called it "jogging". Running a 12 minute mile (it was 12.5) for 25 minutes would've given me 180ish, I believe. I went with the lower number. I know without a heartrate monitor, I know I'll never know for sure, so I do typically try to go with the lower number, but I like to try to be as accurate as possible.



KENDALL68
Posts: 72
3/15/12 8:09 A

I wondered the same thing the other day when I was running on an especially windy day. There must be factors that make a specific rate of burn change- heat has to make us work harder, running against the wind is definitely more work, etc.

They say ideal running temp is 70(?) I wonder if that means that colder or warmer is more work?



CTFLENER
Posts: 350
3/15/12 7:12 A

There are way too many factors involved for a calculation to be accurate.

Body weight. Strength. Speed. Distance overall. and so many more.

Spark estimates it, websites estimate it, treadmills estimate it, and you can estimate it...and all will likely be considerably different.

I would rather error on the low side than the high side. If I burn more than I estimate, that's fine...but if I estimate high and don't actually burn that much, that's not good.



JENMC14
Posts: 2,707
3/15/12 5:55 A

Thanks for the advice and links! I figure it was the difference between running and walking, but now I have another question. My mile is typically a mix of running and walking, but it's too big of a pain in the butt to figure out how much is running at what speed and how much is walking at what speed. So, is using the time and distance accurate (enough), then, if there is a greater burn for running v. walking because of the movement?



JADOMB
SparkPoints: (74,701)
Fitness Minutes: (19,493)
Posts: 1,623
3/13/12 6:44 P

It may have to do with jogging on a treadmill, but I find the walking is not too far off from the jogging. I think there are various factors one has to think about. In my case, I am at a constant 3.5 mph whether I jog or walk. I find that when I walk, my HR is around 130+, and when I jogg I am around 150. Relatively speaking, that's not too far off, but there is a definite difference. Once a person is actually running at 4 mph and above, I'm not sure how many people can even walk at that pace, so it's hard to really compare them. Also, the smother one runs, I'm sure they use less calories than one that pounds the pavement. That, along with personal weight, etc. makes if rather difficult to have some fixed rate that fits all. So just try to find what fits you the closest and work with that, or just est. it, like I do, and be happy with the healthy lifestyle and weight loss. A few 100 calories here and there in exercise isn't as important as the few 100 calories here and there in nutrition. And it is so much easier to get accurate too.



RALLEN75
Posts: 280
3/13/12 11:21 A

I think I got this from Runner's World and it's what I use. .63 x weight x miles=calories burned. So .63 x 121 x 3 miles= 229 calories burned



MOTIVATED@LAST
Posts: 13,641
3/13/12 5:52 A

Jen,

MPlane makes a good point - running does burn more calories than walking, because you are airborne for part of each stride. But within walking, or within running, it is total distance covered that matters.

I think that the figure of 100 calories per mile assumes a 150 lb person - as you are lighter than this, you will burn less per mile.

Personally, I think the Spark walking and running tracker is clumsy to use, and subject to some errors. I prefer the running and walking trackers at www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php


M@L



MPLANE37
SparkPoints: (62,301)
Fitness Minutes: (32,427)
Posts: 2,148
3/13/12 1:53 A

I think it is because 12min/mile is jogging and 13min/mile is walking. There is a big difference between walking and jogging: In walking your center of mass does not move up and down so much, because you always have one foot on the ground. When running, your both feet are in the air, actually you are momentarily in the air, and periodically, so your center of mass displaces significantly in the vertical direction, your muscles doing work against your body weight to achieve that. That 1 min. difference in completing 1 mile causes big difference in calories burned because of this, i.e. because you change from walking to running. Within walking classification or within running classification, you burn about the same calories independent of your speed per mile.

Edited by: MPLANE37 at: 3/13/2012 (01:58)


JADOMB
SparkPoints: (74,701)
Fitness Minutes: (19,493)
Posts: 1,623
3/12/12 9:59 P

I can totally see how it is difficult to have an accurate calorie count on most all things. I just make sure I keep my HR up around 130-150 in anything I do. If the jogging starts getting to where my HR is under 130, it's time to make changes or my calorie burn will go below the norm. I think I am close to the norm at this moment.



UNIDENT
Posts: 33,498
3/12/12 1:53 A

You're not "average". You're "slight". You don't weigh very much and that means you don't burn as much as an "average" person doing any activity.

Chances are the big difference between a 12 minute mile and a 13 minute mile is that is where Spark assumes you're walking one, and running the other.

The 100cal per mile is only appropriate for walking. Running is a much higher intensity exercise and will burn another 50% or so more. People who've told you running burns no more than walking are incorrect.

WOF - the message boards have zero problem with URLs to anywhere else. Did you use the add a link feature? Here's that link:

www.runtheplanet.com/resources/tools/calcu
lators/caloriecounter.asp




WOFTRACKS
Posts: 61
3/11/12 4:22 P

JENMC!4

calculator says 96 cals @5 mph at your BW..

http://www.runtheplanet.com/resources/to
ols/calculators/caloriecounter.asp

Edit:evidently this site will not accept links to other sites...I guess you will have to enter the URLif you want to use the calculator..

Edited by: WOFTRACKS at: 3/11/2012 (16:25)


SAE2012
SparkPoints: (25,483)
Fitness Minutes: (19,355)
Posts: 855
3/11/12 3:37 P

Since I've loss weight I can jog the same distance and burn less calories than the day I started jogging. I've heard when you lose weight you do not burn as many calories and you have to work harder.



JENMC14
Posts: 2,707
3/11/12 3:33 P

I've seen written here numerous times, that, on average, a person burns about 100 calories per mile walked/run. So, why is it that when I do a mile in around 13 minutes, I get somewhere in the area of 55 calories burned? A 12 minute mile gets me 76. Is it my weight? My time? Is the SP calculator off? I know my treadmill calculator is off, I've gotten upwards of 200 calries burned for a 12 minute mile on it before. Unfortunately, a HR monitor is not in the cards for me right now. And, I eat in my ranges, and don't rely on the caloric burn estimates too much, I'm just genuinely curious. I'm thinking it has to do with my current weight, since I'm lugging around far less than I used to. ;)

Edited by: JENMC14 at: 3/11/2012 (20:03)


 
Page: 1 of (1)  
Search  



Share


 
Diet Resources: fruit pectin allergy | what is fennel | fennel seed