BETTER WITHOUT ADS? Become a voluntary supporter

Welcome To Fetcheveryone

Our awesome training log doesn't hide its best features behind a paywall. Search thousands of events, get advice, play games, measure routes, and more! Join our friendly community of runners, cyclists, and swimmers.
Click here to get started
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here

1 calorie per KG of bodyweight per KM travelled

13 watchers
Dec 2018
11:52am, 14 Dec 2018
20496 posts
  • 0
Wriggling Snake
Time. If you run faster it takes less time, you might be working harder but for less time than if you run slower or are moving the same amount of mass the same distance...the amount of work is the same the calories burned will be roughly equal.

You might get fitter provided it is part of a structured plan.
Dec 2018
12:31pm, 14 Dec 2018
645 posts
  • 0
I've always gone on the "about 100 calories a mile" estimate, on the basis that:

1. I have no idea what my metabolism is compared to anyone else so that's an estimate
2. I don't weigh my food to check the calories per portion so that's an estimate too
3. I don't run at consistent speeds

4. I don't run on all flat/all hilly routes
5. It might be 90 cals/mile, it might be 110. Knowing which it is is not going to change a lot in my training or my eating.
6. I'm not Paula Radcliffe
Dec 2018
12:47pm, 14 Dec 2018
6364 posts
  • 0
One thing that the TV Programme "Secret Eaters" demonstrates over and over is if there are differences in "metabolism" between people, they are dwarfed by how much someone eats. Another thing that the programme teaches is that *everyone in the world* does not truthfully record or even recall how much they really eat. For most people it is a considerable undercount, for those mysterious "eats like a horse and never puts on weight" unicorns it is a considerable overcount. The snag being of course that nobody wants to hear this and one anecdote is worth a ton of scientific experiment e.g.
Dec 2018
12:57pm, 14 Dec 2018
39828 posts
  • 0
Metabolism is a red herring as far as the calories burned during exercise are concerned. It boils down to weight and distance, possibly adjusted for change in elevation if the route is point to point - unlikely to be significant on a circular course.

You *might* burn more calories *after* exercise if your metabolism is faster, but as The_Saint points out the impact is dwarfed when compared with the basic calorie burn.

All of my recent Garmins try to work out calories using heart rate, combined with other information, but the difference between their calculated number and 100 calories per mile multiplied by (weight in Kg)/75 is negligible.
Dec 2018
1:06pm, 14 Dec 2018
65662 posts
  • 0
Interesting assumption the old 100 calls per mile, i was tested using science back when I was ultra distance running and only burned 57 calories a mile when I weighed 71.5kgs.
Dec 2018
1:08pm, 14 Dec 2018
39829 posts
  • 0
I can believe that ultra runners learn to use energy extremely efficiently.
Dec 2018
1:20pm, 14 Dec 2018
6365 posts
  • 0
I think if you go slow enough, you can get used to running on fat reserves but I don't think anything measurable happens to "metabolism".
Dec 2018
1:44pm, 14 Dec 2018
39831 posts
  • 0
You're probably right, Saint. Some of it may be pure efficiency. When I was able to train properly my beats per mile was down at about 1,200, now it's more like 1,700. I suspect Gobi's is a lot lower, if he's willing to share.

Got something to say?

To contribute to the discussion, you need to either sign in or register as a user.

About This Thread

Maintained by Kieren
Doesn't matter whether the weight is bone, muscle or fat, it's still weight.

Anyone got any oth...

Back To Top