Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Runners World Calorie Counter
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Hi
Try our website for alternative calorie counters and see how they compare - I'm not spamming the forum, I'm a genuine person who uses this sort of thing to manage my diet (I've been an international lightweight rower so I need to get the old nutrition right otherwise too fat on race day)!
www.dietandfitnesstoday.com
Let me know what you think about the site as well - all feedback gratefully received!
Antonia
Fmatty - OK I take your point about running having a bit more energy burning to it. Dunno how much.
But if you run a mile slowly, or run a mile fast - the energy burned is pretty similar.
Is your watch also a speed/distance calculator? Hopefully, if it is, this is what your watch is using to calculate the calories.
Actually it does make a difference how fast you run - the faster you run the more calories burned, because to run faster you are having to put more power into each step.
The table in "The competitive Runner's Handbook" by Bob and Shelly-Lynn Glover (figure 35.4 on page 445, 2nd Revised Edition) tells me that at 80 kg, 1 mile burns 431 Kcals at 9min/mile pace, and 656 Kcals at 6 min/mile pace, for example.
Zoe
Zoe
That's the point raised above though - the calories are different for an equal time of running, but the overall distance covered by the two runners will be very different:
The 6 min a mile runner will cover 5 miles in 30 mins (656cals/5miles) = approx 131 cal per mile
The 9 min a mile runner will cover just over 3 miles in 30 mins (431cals/3.3 miles) = approx 129 cal per mile
Hence, if you are calculating calories from the amount of time spent running, then the speed of the runner is very important. If you are estimating it from distance, then the speed of the runner makes very little difference.
Shy-ted - the equal calories estimate per mile is only for running - walking is different because the action is different and you expend less energy doing it - mainly because your body doesn't leave the ground at every foot turnover as you do in running. You use more energy because of that upward motion each pace.
Aitch - 100 cal per mile is probably quite a reasonable estimate for an "average" size person. Any difference is likely to be negligable anyway and I don't think we should be too worried about exact calorie expenditure. Like someone already said here, the difference we are talking about is probably less than a slice of toast!
I think the RW calculator is spot on matching my Garmin 350 exactly. The Garmin takes into account your weight and distance tracking you using satellites. it even knows when you hit hills and it monitors your heart rate as well. I put in my normal evening run and it was very close to what my Garmin shows when I have finished.
Stephen
In fact, while I'm not particularly concerned about calories burnt - I'm more focused on the weekly mileage totals, I have always assumed that 45-50calories per km, (or 70-80 per mile) based on my weight, would be a sensible calculation and that appears to be in accordance with the RW calculator - so it seems I've been on the right track (no pun intended) all along.
I ran 7.6 miles on saturday, averaging about 10 minute miles (Just over 1 1/4 hours). My Timex HRM reckons I burnt off 1587 calories!!
I weigh 15 stone and my HR was kept at an average of 152 (I'm 36).
Although there were some seriously long climbs and steep fast descents, can't see how the HRM would know this if the HR was kept constant.
Is this ridiculous, or does the extra weight help burn off extra calories?
The heavier you are, the more calories you will burn per mile (you are carrying round more) but according to the RW calculator, to burn that many calories for your run, you would need to weigh about 19 and a half stone!
You are burning about 208 calories a mile on average, which does seem a bit high. My Garmin calculates the calorie burn per mile, and although there is some variation for higher/lower heart rates, its only by about 10-20 calories per mile max.
RW calculator says for your weight you should burn about 159 calories per mile on average, and for me it usually tallies pretty much with what my Garmin tells me.
Are you sure all your settings are right on your watch for your weight etc, and the distance was correct?
Hi
In my humble opinion the RW calculator is based on the average person (at about 1.78m high or something like that) ... also an average of male/female...
I'm presuming your Suunto is similar to my Polar in that the information loaded into it is specific to you - sex, height, weight and maybe age...
It would then calculate all of that information along with your heart rate...
Obviously, the fitter you get the fewer calories you're going to burn because you'll be running on a lower heart rate...
Well, that's my two-penneth worth.
My partner burns about 40% more'n me when we cover the same distances - he's faster, taller, heavier, blah, blah, blah...
Smiles,
J
Looking at it from a scientific point of view; a calorie is a unit of energy. The harder the heart has to work, i.e. the higher the bpm, the more energy is required to be sent to the working muscles which explains the rise in heart rate.
For the fat burners out there, bare in mind that working to high intensities when base training with a goal to burn the maximum amount of calories, can be counterproductive to your goal. The harder the heart has to work, the more likely the body will take energy (calories) from the most easily accessible source-muscle glycogen. In other words, you will start to lose muscle mass not fat. As a result, on your rest days, your body will try to rectify the imbalance by storing any energy it consumes and a little extra to ensure that it is prepared in case it happens again. Extra fat will be stored.
Working at a lower intensity, maximum of 79% max. H.R., will ensure that some energy is still being taken from the fat stores on the body.
There is such thing as good and bad calories. My advice as a coach is to use your heart rate monitor as a guide to your calories burnt. Do not rely on a generic calculator, this is merely a guideline and not based on your specific metabolic profile.
Sorry for the lecture, but I hope it helps!
Didn't read all of these just the first half - sorry if the following has been mentioned. In exercise i understood we burn available glycogen stored in the liver before burning fat calories i.e. your first few miles aren't burning fat - so you have to separate stored glycogen and then converted glycogen from the contents of your stomach you've taken in prior to exercise - not forgetting fluid/energy loss/intake during the exercise. yikes!
J-frazz You gave me a fright then! I thought this thread was dead! (looking at the date)
Yes i think stored glycogen used in the muscles will be replaced next time you eat. I know the body can digest muscle tissue (converting protien to carbs etc) after available and fat stores are depleted. i.e. when you're starving. This stuff's testing my memory!
Rule of thumb ... an 11 stone person (154 lb) burns 100 Cal per mile running.
For each extra stone, add 10 Cal per mile ... so 13 st burns 120 Cal per mile ... 9 st burns 80 Cal per mile etc.
This is good ... it stops he little folk from fading away!
Not making sense to me...
My Polar F7 hrm tells me that I am doing 350kcals, this machine tells me I am doing 445, the tredmill at the gym tells me I am doing 578.....
Confused as to which I should go by- though know -sods law- that the HRM is probably right
Hi everybody, first time poster here. I’ve been using a sort of mapping system by Telenav. It is really useful to me because I can see other people’s bike routes and the best part is calculating the calories I can burn. (see it here: http://maps.telenav.com/tnmap/). Just wondering if anybody has a calorie counter they recommend?