140 calories per mile of running seems a reasonable figure.
The standard convention in exercise calorie estimates is to include underlying metabolic calories as well, as this is the total load on your body. With due respect to Coach Denise, I'm pretty sure that Spark's calorie estimates follows this convention.
For 30 minutes of running, the double count of metabolic calories is pretty small, and well within the margin of error of calorie estimates for TDEE anyway - it can probably be ignored. For something longer (eg. hiking for 5 hours), then the double-count becomes much more significant.
That is just for that exercise; it does not include anything extra at all. That number is based on the time and pace of your run, but also your weight. It is an estimate, but comes from studies that are pretty good as an estimate. To get a more accurate number, you will want to use a heart rate monitor.
Fitness Minutes: (6,055)
5/3/18 6:07 P
I just went on a run and added it to my fitness tracker through the mileage tab. I ran 3.2 miles at a 10 min/mile pace (total time was 31 minutes, 55 seconds). SP said I burned 445 calories, which seems like a lot (I weigh 179 - 5'8 30 year old guy). That number has to include "basal" calories burned, right? As in that number represents the calories I burn during 32 minutes of living (TDEE [total daily energy expenditure] calories) + the calories burned while running.
But if that's the case, doesn't that doubly count TDEE calories? Those calories are already accounted for in my recommended calorie range, so adding exercise calories burned to my "calories remaining" range seems like it's counting those TDEE calories twice. Right?