[Autumn Gold]

I run six days a week and burn approx 700 calories per run. I also do two long walks a week (about 80 minutes) and burn approx 600 calories. My question is should I be counting the walk as less than 600 even though it says that's what I burn? I usually count it as 400, purely because it's walking and not something strenuous like running.

I suppose the route of the question is, are calories burnt through exercise still the same regardless of what the exercise is that you are doing? Or should you take a few calories off if the exercise is less strenuous?

I calculate my calories via a Polar monitor (they're pretty reliable.)

[MsCollins2B]

excellent question i hope someone has the answer i would like to know as well lol

[Meg]

Originally Posted by Autumn Gold

... are calories burnt through exercise still the same regardless of what the exercise is that you are doing? Or should you take a few calories off if the exercise is less strenuous?

I calculate my calories via a Polar monitor (they're pretty reliable.)

The number of calories you burn during exercise is determined by your heartrate, regardless of the type of exercise you're doing. Let's say that your average HR while running is 150 and your average HR while on the elliptical is 150 and your average HR while doing step ups is 150. That means that you are burning the same number of calories per minute doing each different exercise, regardless of your perceived level of exertion. So yes, the calories burnt through exercise are still the same regardless of what exercise you're doing.

Your HR already determines how strenuous the exercise is, so there's no need for you to subtract calories burned from your HR monitor. You probably don't get your HR as high when you're walking as when you're running, so the calories automatically won't be as high. No need to adjust.

One caveat: your HR monitor tells you about your calorie burn while you're exercising. What it doesn't tell you is how your metabolism is affected after exercise. Studies have shown that lifting weights can elevate your metabolism for more than 24 hours through a process called EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption). A HR monitor can't tell the whole story about exercise and calories, though it's a pretty good indicator of what happens while you exercise. So don't forget to add some weight lifting to your exercise program!

[ncuneo]

Interest Meg. I've always heard that the average (being 150 lbs, if you weigh more you burn slightly more) burns 100 cals per mile running regardless of speed. Now I would think that if you run faster your heartrate would be higher, is this wrong?

I figured the 100 cals per mile to be true since someone running at say 10 miles per hour wouldn't be exercising as long as someone doing 12 miles per hours and that would by why if the distance is the same the calorie burn is also the same regardless of speed.

[SCraver]

Originally Posted by ncuneo

I figured the 100 cals per mile to be true since someone running at say 10 miles per hour wouldn't be exercising as long as someone doing 12 miles per hours and that would by why if the distance is the same the calorie burn is also the same regardless of speed.

I having done a lot of poking around with some online calculators and compared that to what the treadmill tells me and I guesstimate that I burn about 125 calories a mile walking and about 150 a mile running. I *think* you do burn more per mile going faster.

[mkroyer]

Nuenco- it all depends on how conditioned you are. I image you are pretty darn conditioned, so you probably dont burn nearly as many cals as you think you do running. I personally (per HR/BodyBugg) only burn approx 400 cals in a 10k...if that... and if youve been dieting for a while, well, you prob burn less as well.
As far as burning more cals because youre running faster...well, that goes back to how conditioned you are. My "base" mile might be an 8 minute mile, which might be really fast to you whose base mile is a 10 min mile, BUT my personal percieved exhertion at an 8 is the same as yours at a 10, because im conditioned. Does that make sense? So, you and i both run in the same 10K race. I run my confy 8 minute miles, and finish in 48 minutes (keeping my HR at 135 on avg, because i am conditioned) and you run the 10K at YOUR comfy 10 minute mile, finishing in about an hour (keeping your HR at 135 on avg). You burned more caloreis, because you were exercisong longer. Lets say you felt like superwoman and somehow mmanaged to step it up to 8 minute miles for the 10k and finish in the same amount of time as me. You STILL would have burned more calories, because you HR would have prob shot up to a much higher avg... I dont really know what my point is anymore..... except that the better/faster/longer you are a runner, means you prob burn a LOT less than a newer, slower runner does, because you are conditioned, and becasue it doesnt take you as long.

[coad786]

Originally Posted by Autumn Gold

I run six days a week and burn approx 700 calories per run. I also do two long walks a week (about 80 minutes) and burn approx 600 calories. My question is should I be counting the walk as less than 600 even though it says that's what I burn? I usually count it as 400, purely because it's walking and not something strenuous like running.

I suppose the route of the question is, are calories burnt through exercise still the same regardless of what the exercise is that you are doing? Or should you take a few calories off if the exercise is less strenuous?

I calculate my calories via a Polar monitor (they're pretty reliable.)

I so envy where you are right now in your fitness!! Good job! I hope to be where you are one day.

Can I ask you... how do you know your Polar monitor is reliable? I've been trying like anything to figure out how many calories I'm really burning. Im scared to use my machine calories and then I was hearing the watches aren't reliable in calculating calories burned. What kind of polar monitor do you have?

I learned a lot from this whole thread!