12

# How many calories did I really burn? (Read 1088 times)

Today when I finished running my Garmin GPS said I burned 1002 calories.  But when I downloaded my data to this site it said I burned 955 calories.  I wonder why there's such a huge difference in readings?

My miserable story, which is killing me.

Two different algorithms for calculating cals burned based on weight and distance (there's probably 312^6 different formulas available).

And, neither was correct.

(1 beer per 1.5 miles is almost always the correct value)

MTA:  The RA formula states:

"Believe it or not, the number of calories expended while running depends mostly on your weight and how far you ran. The energy to lift your body off the ground and wind resistance consume only a small amount of energy. Other factors such as inclines also affect how many calories you burn. Since they are harder to measure than distance and weight, these other factors are not used. Therefore, this calculator assumes that you're running on a flat surface with little or no wind resistance."

You'll need to learn what the Garmin formula assumes to compare

Once we rode together in a metal firecracker

Is your weight listed the same both places?

Age: 45 Weight: 200 Height: 6'2" (Goal weight 200)

2013 Goal #1 - Sub 4 hour First Marathon - 3:48:09 at the Flying Pig 5/5/13!

2013 Goal #2 - Run my age in 10K.  44:51 on 9/14/13!

Today when I finished running my Garmin GPS said I burned 1002 calories.  But when I downloaded my data to this site it said I burned 955 calories.  I wonder why there's such a huge difference in readings?

FWIW, this is not a huge difference.  47 calories is less than a small slice of bread.

- Joe

all running goals are under review by the executive committee.

Is your weight listed the same both places?

Yes, i did post my weight on my watch and here too.

My miserable story, which is killing me.

Probably something with elevation gain or something like that.

As mentioned, 5% difference really isn't that much, especially when they are both just guesses.

Just multiply your miles run by .75 and multipy that by your weight and you'll get in the ballpark.

10.27 X .75 X 123 = 947.

Of course that is your gross calories, not net calories, and there has been discussion if the speed that you run can actually change the calories burned by a substantial amount.  Somewhere I read that an easy aerobic jog may burn 25% - 30% less calories per mile than a fast tempo run that takes you over your lactate threshold.  Also, some new studies are showing that walking really doesn't burn near as many net calories per mile as running does.  Lots of factors to consider when it really comes down to it so thats why it is really a big guess when it is all said and done.

Age: 45 Weight: 200 Height: 6'2" (Goal weight 200)

2013 Goal #1 - Sub 4 hour First Marathon - 3:48:09 at the Flying Pig 5/5/13!

2013 Goal #2 - Run my age in 10K.  44:51 on 9/14/13!

I'll be back

Just multiply your miles run by .75 and multipy that by your weight and you'll get in the ballpark.

10.27 X .75 X 123 = 947.

Of course that is your gross calories, not net calories, and there has been discussion if the speed that you run can actually change the calories burned by a substantial amount.  Lots of factors to consider when it really comes down to it so thats why it is really a big guess when it is all said and done.

Yeah, if you care about calories at all, probably net calories is what you care about. A better estimate there is .63 x weight. I count calories, and credit myself 105 per mile run (I weigh 165).

# How Many Calories Are You Really Burning?

2014 goals:    functional hamstrings     < 2:55 at Napa       < 24 at Western States

Yeah, if you care about calories at all, probably net calories is what you care about. A better estimate there is .63 x weight. I count calories, and credit myself 105 per mile run (I weigh 165).

# How Many Calories Are You Really Burning?

Yeah, that's one of the articles I remember reading.  I think you linked it before too.

When I do the math I don't get that same net calorie number for me though.

If I put myself down for a completely sedentary lifestyle, it shows I need to eat 2,370 calories to maintain my weight at 207lbs.  Divide that by 24 hours and it comes out to 99 calories an hour burned whether I'm doing anything or not.

It takes me about an hour to run 6 miles.  Running 6 miles X .75 X 207 = 932 calories.

932 gross calories minus 99 = 833 net calories.  Divide that back out and it comes out to .67 not .63.

6 X .67 X 207 = 832, 6 X .63 X 207 - 782.  Not a huge difference, but almost enough to justify an extra fun sized candy bar!

Age: 45 Weight: 200 Height: 6'2" (Goal weight 200)

2013 Goal #1 - Sub 4 hour First Marathon - 3:48:09 at the Flying Pig 5/5/13!

2013 Goal #2 - Run my age in 10K.  44:51 on 9/14/13!

A Saucy Wench

And if I put your run in fitday it says.....oh wait, need your height and your age.

What all these things prove is that it is all just estimates and that the formulas vary because people vary.

Also not included is afterburn...some people experience elevated metabolism for a period of time after running.

Besides the fact that 5% error is far below your estimate for caloric intake accuracy.  Packaged foods can be off by >25%, even whole natural foods can be off significantly.  How ripe the apple, how much sugar in that particular variety, how much sun and rain it got while growing.  etc. etc. etc.

It is all just estimates.

I have become Death, the destroyer of electronic gadgets

"When I got too tired to run anymore I just pretended I wasnt tired and kept running anyway" - dd, age 7

Venomized

i would not worry too much over a guestimate of a 47 calorie difference.  As mentioned there are several different ways to guestimate calories burned.

47 calories is generally close enough and will not impact your eating or weight on a scale.

Rubybaby43

karate girl

Two different algorithms for calculating cals burned based on weight and distance (there's probably 312^6 different formulas available).

And, neither was correct.

(1 beer per 1.5 miles is almost always the correct value)

When it comes down to it, this is really the only math that matters.

Kristy

more miles = more beer

Wait, what kind of beer?

Two different algorithms for calculating cals burned based on weight and distance (there's probably 312^6 different formulas available).

And, neither was correct.

(1 beer per 1.5 miles is almost always the correct value)

MTA:  The RA formula states:

"Believe it or not, the number of calories expended while running depends mostly on your weight and how far you ran. The energy to lift your body off the ground and wind resistance consume only a small amount of energy. Other factors such as inclines also affect how many calories you burn. Since they are harder to measure than distance and weight, these other factors are not used. Therefore, this calculator assumes that you're running on a flat surface with little or no wind resistance."

You'll need to learn what the Garmin formula assumes to compare

Hey Milk Truck

I beg to differ with your beer analogy.  When you are 220 lbs,  it is 1 beer per mile.

That is my whole reason for running so I have to stand by it!

2013 Goals

Weight - 200 lbs (currently 205)

2000 miles

Marathon - 3:15 (BQ) 3:07:21 10/5/13 - St. George, Utah

HM - 1:32 1:30:38 10/13/13 - Okanagan Marathon

10k - 42:00 41:58 10/13/13 - Okanagan Marathon (1st 10k)

5k - 20:00

Rubybaby43

karate girl

Wait, what kind of beer?

That is irrelevant -- as long as it's not piss water.

Kristy

more miles = more beer

Cool, so I'm going to run 3 miles and then drink 2 bombers of Mad Elf.

12