Runners World Calorie Counter

Hmmmmmm ? Differs from my Suunto Readout ?

1 to 20 of 56 messages
27/11/2007 at 00:43

Well, for me @ 80kgs five miles burns 667 cals. However my Suunto T4 reckons about 447 cals ?

Does the Suunto use heart rate to work it out. Which figure do you reckon is right for me ?

<scratches head>

I'm confused !
Kryten    pirate
27/11/2007 at 08:58

My guess is that the Suunto shows only the extra calories you have burnt through running. The RW one includes your base metabolism - i.e. the calories that you would have burnt anyway if you had not gone running - which nearly all of these calorie counter things do even though it's daft.

Kryten    pirate
27/11/2007 at 09:10

...although the base metabolism wouldn't make more than 100 calories difference, so I may be talking carp as usual.

27/11/2007 at 10:05

Hmmmmmmm ? Thanks, I can see the logic but looks like I am still none the wiser.
Stump    pirate
27/11/2007 at 10:12

Calories burnt get worked out from the Hr on sunnto's, I think, not entirely sure but it's all relative.

If you burn 3500kcals a week in excercise on your sunnto and you are not losing any weight at a constant food intake, incr your excercise to 3750kcals etc. You are just mesuring the difference.

27/11/2007 at 10:20

" Working from your personal fitness profile, the Suunto t1 displays real-time average heart rate and real-time calories burned with excellent accuracy. When the Suunto t1 says you've burned 238 calories, it's not a rough estimate, but rather, a number you can trust. "

Bu@@er, if this is right then I can't eat quite as many pies as I had thought. But then if the Suunto is right the RW calc is way out ?
27/11/2007 at 13:09
Go for the higher number and then you can eat more pies.
27/11/2007 at 13:22
Definately some logic with HR influence. It can't be right to go on weight alone. I would go for a figure in between the two and have a smaller pie!
cougie    pirate
27/11/2007 at 13:34

We've had this discussion before - and its a bit tricky.

I dont think the HR makes any difference.  You run a mile or walk a mile - you will burn the same calories in that time. The only difference being that your body will carry on burning a few extra calories after the run until you recover.

Try not to think about it too much.

27/11/2007 at 13:35

Cheers cougs, my brain hurts!

<don't say "I did warn you!>

27/11/2007 at 13:36

Is it the same princaple as

Walk or run a mile in the rain, you get just as wet doing either?

Stump    pirate
27/11/2007 at 13:44

More like work, energy and power 101

The energy developed to move you that mile is what is being used for the calorific burn.

It's not quite true that running a mile is the same as working. Gross work is the same but the delta V requires more energy as well.

Stump    pirate
27/11/2007 at 13:45
walking even
27/11/2007 at 13:47

English please stump!

We burn x amount of cals just being "in neutral" so then when we slip into gear more fuel is burnt on top?

27/11/2007 at 14:42

And therefore the way to measure this difference is to measure your heart rate.

If I run on a treadmill for 20 minutes at max heartrate I'm going to burn more calories than walking for 20 minutes!

There still seems some confusion between the 2 methods, miles done calculator done by weight and the haert rate done by most HRM. I personally would go by the HRM calcualtor and add the static calories mentioned by Kryten. It seems more accurate.

At 12 stone, on an hours steady state run(about 7 miles) I usually burn around 700 calories. The RW calc says 891 calories. I'd now go for about 800, as I mentioned earlier, in between the two.

cougie    pirate
27/11/2007 at 15:00

JF - if you run at max hr for 20 mins - you will have covered a lot more distance than by walking 20 mins ? 

Well I hope anyway for your sake !

27/11/2007 at 16:00
running a mile uses more calories than walking a mile as you bob up and down more when running so more energy is required to lift your body each time. Heart rate doesn't make much difference. Only true way to find out is to do it on a tread mill wired up like on a VO2 max test. As a rough guide, running a mile uses about 100 calories for an average sized bloke, bit less for a smaller skinnier person. My new Garmin reckons it takes climbs into account but I seem to use the same number of calories running 1000ft up a mountain as coming back down again, so that certainly can't be right
27/11/2007 at 16:42

CW I've always worked on the approx 100 calories per mile scenario, but then add the calories you would have burnt anyway, as mentioned by Kryten, this then makes sense.

Point taken Cougie!

27/11/2007 at 17:37

So does this mean that if I run 5 miles very very fast that I burn the same amount of calories as if I'd run it slowly?  Sounds a bit odd to me.

Sure the calculator helps me see what I've burned on my run, but unless I know my burn rate on other activities, do I really know how many 'extra' calories or pies I can eat?

27/11/2007 at 17:39

If we assume 2500 cals per 24 hours, say twice as much in the day as at night, means about 120 cals an hour in the day just doing normal stuff.  At 8 minute miling for 1 mile you should get about 16 cals for living and 100 cals for the running.  

Trouble is that the more training you do, the more weight you lose and a lighter body takes fewer calories to run the miles so you can't eat as many pies as you used to !

1 to 20 of 56 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums