You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
So I'm confused. I went on a 5k run last night and pushed myself, for me, pretty hard (25 minutes). Used my GPS watch which including an optical HRM to record it. According to Strava I burnt 482 calories.
Did the same route, in reverse as a family walk today, took just over an hour. Strava thinks I burnt 600 calories.
To me that doesn't make sense. I guess that means I burn 300 calories every 30 minutes walking but circa 500 calories every 30 minutes running. Just seems odd that running is more energy efficient for a given distance.
Or Strava is just pulling numbers out of its arse.
You had an extra 35 mins of being alive during the second one.
The apps can't record intensity, just duration, speed and distance. They will infer calories burnt from that, as above strava / arse interface.
As above. Numbers on apps like that are always a bit vague.
And you will still burn a number of calories watching tv on the sofa just 'sayin alive'.
The additional time walking will account for some extra calories burned too.. you don't have to be in the high intensity 'burn zone' as long as you're still moving around like walking, or cycling slowly, you'll still be burning calories.
Time spent excercising Vs intenisty of excercise.
I can pootle about on my bike for 6 hours on a sunday and burn over a thousand calories without breaking a sweat.
The apps can’t record intensity
Erm, it does by using the HRM as a factor..
The numbers are rubbish. But it does not surprise me that running would be more efficient per mile.
Same for my strava/garmin.
650kcal for an 8.75km, 55 minute trail run.
375kcal for a sub-26 minute 5k run
610kcal for a 1:11hr cycle in zone 2.
All with a HRM strap.
The numbers are rubbish
Not really and I dont understand why it seems odd.
You ran for 25mins and burnt more energy because the intensity was far greater than a sedate walk for an hour, you only burnt more calories because you were moving for longer. Had you of ran for an hour you'd burn by simply doubling it nearly 1k calories. (although all depends on the individual in terms of calorie burn levels).
Oh and it's not more energy efficient to run than walk given by your own admission you're burning more calories per 30mins therefore you'd expend your energy reserves quicker. So less efficient.
If I run my lock down loop of 3 miles in 32 minutes I burn 450 calories according to strava.
If I walk it in 40 minutes I burn 455.
The run wears me out ,the walk barely raises a sweat.
The walk doesn't raise a sweat but that is nothing to do with energy usage, just temperature. If you walk you've still lugged the same body around the same distance but just a little bit more slowly, but you've expended energy for a longer period of time so total calories are not that different. not a bit surprise surely?
Your running pace is not actually that much faster than your walking pace in the grand scheme of things. If you mapped intensity of exercise against time of exercise the area under the graph is about the same.
Assuming you weigh the same walking should require a broadly similar number of calories to running as you're moving the same mass, the same distance over the same terrain in a markedly similar manner.
Lower consumption per km is likely down to things like:
Running you're probably wearing lighter clothes and shoes.
Personal experience tells me it's harder to stop so I imagine better conservation of momentum.
Your stride is longer when running so less ground contact so (possibly) less friction to overcome.
Was it windier today etc.
Yes, walking a distance uses more calories than running. Although you are moving the same mass the same distance and getting the blood flowing more, it takes longer and your body burns extra calories with its normal functions.
Try doing the run for 30 mins, then sitting on the sofa for 30 mins before stopping your tracker and see how many calories you burn - probably about the same as walking (first half intensity > walking, second half intensity < walking)
Compared to walking, running will improve your cardio vascular fitness more and probably injure your joints more or something like that.
I like a walk, me. Less sweat, more cals, less knee pain. And I have all the time in the world these days.
200 active calories per hour for a brisk walk,
700 active calories per hour for a Z2 run,
820 active calories per hour for a threshold run.
1050 active calories per hour for a 20+ mph cycle.
All across the same terrain, all in similar weather, all using and Apple Watch to record
70kg, 6’, moderately fit.
Usually when calorie burn in apps appears off it’s because the user’s height, weight and age hasn’t been correctly and consistently set in the apps and the devices used to record the data. Weight is particularly important.
The other thing to bear in mind is that optical wrist heart rate monitors are notoriously shit.
My Strava and Garmin Connect calories are identical (unsurprising given they come from the device) and my walking calorie burn and running calorie burn are pretty consistent as well, all data recorded with a Garmin Fenix 5 and Garmin HR strap. Around 130 calories per mile walking and 170 per mile running. I’m 6’2” and 250lbs. When I was 200lbs, those numbers were 100 and 120 respectively. Weight makes a huge difference.
The other thing to bear in mind is that optical wrist heart rate monitors are notoriously shit.
Better than nothing, without a HRM the calorie count burn is usually much higher misleading people into thinking they ca devour 5 big macs after exercise and still lose calories.
Wrist based HRMs just need to be put on right, not too tight or too loose.
Yup, optic hr sensors are notoriously unreliable, only use is for monitoring resting hr.
Chest strap ftw.
I'm wondering in what world I would g.a.s how many calories I'm burning. Bizarre.
twinw4ll
Member
I’m wondering in what world I would g.a.s how many calories I’m burning. Bizarre.
I’m wondering in what world I would click on a thread about calories and exercise, bother to read it and then bother to comment when I don’t “g.a.s. about how many calories I’m burning”
Bizarre.
Here’s a clue - it’s not all about YOU!
I’m wondering in what world I would g.a.s how many calories I’m burning. Bizarre.
I find it interesting as I assumed that wearing myself (and my knees) out would lead to more immediate weight loss.
I shall stick to my walk ,save my knees and because I’m listening to podcasts as I walk rather than music when I run , also my ears.
The other thing to bear in mind is that optical wrist heart rate monitors are notoriously shit.
Except they're not when you use them properly. My Apple Watch will agree pretty much spot on with my chest monitor back to back. At the end of the activity it'll record the same average and max heart rates and track pretty much bob on to the chest strap for instantaneous readings. There are some minor differences when you change intensity (a few bpm lag with the Watch, but that could be down to sampling rate and mine is only a series 2 watch), but once intensity stabilises they both agree again. The reality is alot of people using wrist HRM's don't have their watches on properly and have them too loose which would screw with the reading.
Optical HRM are plenty accurate enough....certainly for doctors and clinicians to use so nothing about the fundamental technology that is a problem....just, as in most cases with most things, operator error then they go on the internet to blame the kit.
The issue here is that it has been proven that most people grossly over estimate how many calories they burn through exercise...which is why so many people struggle to lose weight despite exercising regularly...they'll do the exercise and then eat more and shovel energy drinks down their necks thinking they need the additional nutrition...in reality they are remaining in calorie excess and therefore don't lose weight. So it's natural to think you've burned alot more calories on a 30 minute run vs a 40 minute walk over the same course.
As per @wobbliscott if you read DC Rainmaker’s reviews of the more recent (anything in the last 3-4 years) reviews of anything with a wrist based hrm you’ll see they are pretty much spot on, assuming they are worn correctly.
It's also presumably why doctors recommend walking as actually quite a good method of exercise for maintaining a calorie deficit. To lose weight I'd advocate sustained low intensity exercise.
As others have said, I could walk up and down hills all day but if I run for 5k I'm tired and my legs hurt for days! For reference I am definitely not a runner - I did my annual 5k run the other day.
Z2 running is the best region for calorie burn. You can run for an hour, nice and easy, every day and burn 800 calories which would take 4 hours when walking.
Z4 running is for speed and strength training in prep for racing.
Sit still for an hour and let us know how many calories your HRM estimates you've used.
Is Strava using the HRM in the second instance?
While HRM watches won't be scientifically accurate, they will be much more realistic than Strava's made up calorie expenditures (when it doesn't have your HR details).
Z4 running is for speed and strength training in prep for racing.
But will also burn more calories.
Intensive exercise is a poor way of managing weight as you get older. intensive activity, particularly running, is injurious and it becomes difficult to shift weight after injury or lay off through (mainly) training alone.
As you age as well as being more prone to injury, injury recovery tends to take longer plus it is difficult to manage heavy training as it is simply exhausting and workout recovery is very much slower.
I know this through experience sadly....
Intensive exercise is a poor way of managing weight as you get older. intensive activity, particularly running, is injurious and it becomes difficult to shift weight after injury or lay off through (mainly) training alone.
As you age as well as being more prone to injury, injury recovery tends to take longer plus it is difficult to manage heavy training as it is simply exhausting and workout recovery is very much slower.
I know this through experience sadly….
Wish I'd read that about a year ago :). It's taken me way to long to just slow down and have a better time
As per @wobbliscott if you read DC Rainmaker’s reviews of the more recent (anything in the last 3-4 years) reviews of anything with a wrist based hrm you’ll see they are pretty much spot on, assuming they are worn correctly.
Really? I thought he normally says their least accurate for cycling - and he does road cycling not mtbing, which is less vibration filed in the first place. His normal guidance is wear it tight - i wear mine very tight (vivoactive 3) and it's crap for cycling - not too bad for running tho.
Yeah I believe that Strava uses the heart rate data as it ties up with the calories burnt in the TomTom sports app.
But will also burn more calories.
Yes, but not much more than Z2. Maybe 15-20%, but for substantially more effort.
IF I were running purely for calorie burn, I’d never leave Z2. I could run a 10-12k Z2 everyday without too much fuss which would net you 850ish calories.