# Calorie burn off!!

100 Calorie's per mile??????

1 to 20 of 24 messages
07/11/2007 at 15:07

All over this site it states 100 calories per mile burn off and was stated in one thread that a 15 mile run would be around 1500 calories burnt off. I have a Garmin 350 Roadrunner running watch and it shows more than this on every run, i.e. a recent half marathon of 13.1 miles showed a burn off of over 2000 calories and my nightly four mile shows around 600. Which is right as this also ties in with what the gym running machines show.

Steve

07/11/2007 at 15:11
I've always understood it to be 90 to 100 calories per mile.

07/11/2007 at 15:17

Is this a general average rule of thumb. I wonder if speed and incline is taken into account on these watches as they are tracked by satellites so know when you go up hill or running fast.

Steve

07/11/2007 at 15:20
and surely weight of the person too.
cougie    pirate
07/11/2007 at 15:23

yeah - it depends on your weight, but for a bloke like me about 100 calories or near as damn it.

Theres a calculation that gives it. Weight x distance x factor of something...

Gym running machines always massively overestimate calory burn for some reason.

07/11/2007 at 15:25

That’s a thought as the watch is programmed with sex, height and weight so would use this in calculations as well.

Steve

cougie    pirate
07/11/2007 at 15:26
cougie    pirate
07/11/2007 at 15:27

Cant see why sex or height would affect calorie burn significantly ?

07/11/2007 at 15:32
It can get quite windy up there when you are tall!!!!
07/11/2007 at 15:37

Mabelle, well done on the 7 mile run on the weekend you are well on target and more than capable in doing that first 10k.

Steve

JPenno    pirate
07/11/2007 at 16:35

have just cross checked my Garmin and the site listed by Cougie.

Garmin has 1207cals for my recent 8.22 miles and the calorie calculator has 1177, BUT i think the Garmin needs slightly resetting as I have lost a couple of pounds recently. So they both appear to be within a reasonable tolerance of each other.

07/11/2007 at 17:25
Thank you very much stephen.
07/11/2007 at 17:29
I think the course makes a difference too though, 3.5 flat miles must surely use less calories than a 3.5 mile climb? or maybe it evens out in downhills?
07/11/2007 at 17:57
ahem. I believe a body weight of 132 pounds is optimum for burning 100 calories per mile. So cougs, you're burning lots more than that.
07/11/2007 at 17:58

erm...coz you're tall, I mean. No one should infer from my comment that you're fat.

[giggle]

07/11/2007 at 18:02
so how do these machines "know" your individual metabolic rate and function ..or are we all calibrated to the same standard?
07/11/2007 at 19:14

Cougie, using map my run, I plotted a recent training run, then asked it to work out calories burnt, supplying weight, time and gender. I did it again but put male, and it said I would have burnt more calories.

More proof that life is not fair

07/11/2007 at 19:39
you can do the same thing with a body fat monitor tho -  tell it you are male and it will do you a better deal - just like car salespeople
07/11/2007 at 20:22

It is based on weight x distance. I am 210lbs and 6`1” and ran a recent half marathon in 1.47. My Garmin told me I should have burnt off 2128 the above calculator that cougie supplied works it out at 2084.

I cant see how many people would fall into 100 calories for every mile.

This table is also on runner’s world and is quite accurate and works mine close as well.

Steve.

23/11/2007 at 07:56

What does it really matter- whether you have burned 1200 or 1100 calories? Yes there is a simple equation that "works" when you use more calories than you consume.

Unless you are fanatical (/obsessive) about calorie control, you will be estimating how much you are taking in, and there will be much more error in that than from your exercise accuracy!

I like the simplicity of "100 cals per mile" as a general rule of thumb.  It should work when calculating how much I have to eat on ultras to keep going...

1 to 20 of 24 messages