calories burnt running

shorexline

shorexline

New member
EVERY calculator online has drastically different estimates for calories burnt running.
Can anyone suggest a good calculator? Or give me an estimate?

I run either 5 km in 30 minutes or 7 km in 45 minutes, outdoors.

Thank you!
 
Its not as easy as that. Calories burnt also depend on you: your age, your weight, your body mass- the more you weigh, the more your body has to pull along, the more calories you burn. The lighter you are, the fewer calories you will burn (but the upside of that is most lighter runners are at an advantage: they have the chance to run faster as gravity is not as punishing so are able to burn even more calories by running faster.)

Its also (I think), dependant on how your energy levels are that day. I have days where I run at 11km/h and get my heart rate right up to 170 and it stays between there and 150bmp. Then I may have a bad day following and run at the same speed yet my system is so sluggish and my heart rate hovers between 130 and 150bmp. Whats more is it feels more exhausting so I am liable to stop alot earlier and burn less overall twice over. Its quite a difference and I'm not sure if anyone else gets this but I know I do.

I just go by my heart rate monitor- I am at odds weather or not to trust it (its a Polar) it tells me if I do yoga I burn about50-100kcals an hour yet when I do cardio I apparently do around 700kcals an hour. I workout for 1.5 tp 1.45 hours and am not really sure if the 1000kcal figure is correct and many others swear by their HRM to organise their food so I'd say take it with a pinch of salt and trust your instincts, you know how hard you work, not a guess work equation.
 
It is kind of a can of worms because you have to consider how many calories you would have burned by doing nothing, or whatever else you do besides exercise, and subtract that from the exercise calories in the tables.

I get around the problem by not counting exercise calories at all. I just exercise about the same amount each week, and track only the food calories. The way I decide how many food calories to eat is not by using a formula, but just by watching the scale.

The beauty of this method is that, even if I consistently underestimate my food calories, it just doesn't matter. It only means that, whatever the number is, I have to eat less if I'm starting to gain weight.
 
I completely understand that it depends on your age weight and height, and I dont know why I forgot to leave this information out. I am 19, 5'6 and 125 lbs.

Thank you both for your feedback. Summer123 I definately agree it depends on your own energy levels for the day. I think the difference is probably very miminal though, like 40-50 calories I would assume. I really am just looking for a rough estimate, and calculators on the internet are giving me numbers that range by the hundreds, which i feel can really make or break my weight loss progress.

Harold I think your system is ideal, because putting too much trust into computer-generated numbers probably isnt wise. I really just wish there was some way to know for sure though!

I may invest in a heart-rate monitor..how much do those typically sell for and where can I find one?
 
You can get one for about $20 at Walmart, but I wouldn't recommend that one. It's the kind that you wear like a wristwatch - it is a wristwatch - then you have to press a button on the front of it to get a reading. Mine broke after a couple or three months. This kind is convenient to wear, but not very convenient to get a heartrate reading from. If you are doing anything much more strenuous than walking, it's just no good.

The other kind you wear a strap on your chest, and the number is displayed continuously on the wristwatch device. Those work better, I suppose (never had one) but you have to wear the strap around your chest. You can do an internet search and check out the prices. They range up to about $100.
 
For an individual at a normal weight, they'd net roughly 100 extra calories burned per mile regardless of whether they walk the distance or run it. Of course this number goes up as your weight goes up.
 
I have a heart rate monitor- wouldn't be without it as I need to know exactly whats going on in terms of how hard I am working (I don't trust myself enough to do the "pecieved" energy level thing).

I wear a HRM with a chest strap. I did research, its the more exact way and Polar as it has a coded strap so if someone gets on the treadmill next to me wearing a HRM, their details wont get confused with mine. It's 'coded'. You can get those that just attach to your wrist but they have to be on tightly and your wrists swell alot when your working out so it could get uncomfortable as time goes on. You could also lose signals as the pulse on your wrist is alot weaker to sense then the one on your chest. In addition the sites and specialist sites I asked the professionals on (runners world...etc) all said the chest strap versions were the best to use.

I get told a 10 min run for me can burn anything from 80-135 kcals depending on the speed, gradient and how my energy levels are.
 
aravind82 said:
For an individual at a normal weight, they'd net roughly 100 extra calories burned per mile
Click to expand...
So lets see ... I'm 5'4" and weigh 165 and my guy is over 6'7 and weighs 270. Which of us is "normal" weight? Which of us is burning an extra 100 cals per mile?

:)

Giving any random number as an "estimate" or "average" is simply useless.

The only way to know for sure how many calories you're burning is to use a heart rate monitor or a BodyBugg or other device of that type. You need to take into account your level of exertion, your age, your weight, your height, etc.

Otherwise, it's just a "best guess" ... or what we call a WAG (wild assed guess).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top