I tell my athletes to use 400yds as 100 calories.

CS

---

---

To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.

I tell my athletes "good job" when they stink.

No offense, but where do you get that number from.

Not trying to be a d-bag, either. It sounds like it makes sense, just want to know where you got it from.

It's arbitrary.

I use the same numbers all the time.

100 calories per mile run/walk.
100 calories per 4 miles bike.
100 calories per 400yds swim.

Of course they aren't scientifically accurate, but if your trying to watch what you eat VS what you burn, it's pretty close.

CS

---

---

To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.

Instead of arbitrary, you could actually just call your method wrong.

Or I could call it right.

I said it's arbitraray and not meant to be 100% accurate, but it's pretty close.

And if you don't wanna use it, don't. Why the wise ass comment anyway?

CS

---

---

To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.

Can't remember where, but I remember reading 600-700 per hour.

A quick search found this:

http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm

To me, that sounds about as accurate as saying you burn 600 calories per hour of running. Running is more dependent on distance, as 100 calories/mile. Was hoping for something a little more accurate than that.

---

speedySTATES

If you really want the answer for you then you need to go get a v02max test and resting metabolism test. These tests will give you your zones and let you know how many calories (approximately, but far closer than the 400 meter test) you burn at a given heart rate. Then you can swim with a HR monitor for a while to get your base lines. This is my HR during intervals, or during a 1600 meter straight swim, etc. That is really the way you can tell.

Can't remember where I got this but I have been using this computation for years:

weight (lbs.) x miles x 2.93 = caloric expenditure. For example (me), swam 2000 yards, so........ 165 x 1.13 x 2.93 = 546 calories.

For cycling........ weight x miles x .28 = calories

For running........forgot that one so I just use 130 per mile

Hope this helps

Your run one looks too high unless you're doing a lot of uphill running or weigh more than the 165 you used in your first example.

Swim and bike will be heavily dependent on speed (both are affected most heavily by drag in exponential rates)

Most consistent rule of thumb I've seen for running (which tends to be much more linear than biking or swimming in weight/calorie need) is about 65 calories/100 lbs/mile. So if you're 165 it would be about 108 calories per mile. In practice this has worked out to be very close for me for years of maintaining weight.

---

-Andrew Saar
It is better to do the right thing and be paid poorly,
than to do the wrong thing and be rewarded richly.

That's pretty close to what I said without all the math.




That's pretty close to what I said without all the math.

If you're heavier, then add a few calories, if you're lighter then remove a few. Better shape, take a few off, worse shape, add a few.

Unless you wanna get a calorimeter, it's never gonna an exact science.

---

---

To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.

Anyway you slice it, all this is a wag anyway, but it gets you into the ballpark. It's good enough to control my body composition to whatever I need.

I also use a Garmin 305. It generally puts me at that 130 number I use for the run. As far as the bike, it is always higher than the .28 correction that I use. Maybe because it figures in the terrain. There is relativley little flat ground around here. But I use neither of those Garmin computations.

The run and swim numbers seem pretty close; the bike number is way low. It would compute to 500kcal/hr or approx. 125watts to go 20mph.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

I always calculated it out at 4500 yards per 1000 calories, or what a solid hour's worth of swimming would get me. I think its a slight underestimation, especially granted my weight (185-190), but whatever.

Whatever it is, it can't be enough to off-set how HUNGRY I get after swimming! What's up with that? I am injured right now and swimming a lot more, but I am so hungry after swimming, it's not helping me avoid putting on weight while injured, LOL.

Anyone have a calorie burn rate for pool running at 60 (or 120, both feet) per minute turnover?

I use the same formulas. Running is Miles * Weight * 0.653 -- around 112kcals/miles for a 172lb person

I use the formulas to compare one year to the next. From 2007 I still have my IM, mary, and 50mile PRs and coincidentally my highest calorie burn at 409K kcals.

---

Swim - Bike - Run the rest is just clothing changes.

I've been curious about the Garmin calories count. I ran for 2.5 hours on Sunday. Almost no climbing. Did 17.4 miles and the Garmin 310 had me at 2200 calories burned. I did not wear the HR monitor for the run.

I had always thought that calories consumed was dependent on HR and effort , as well as duration (which converts to distance). Any idea how the Garmin can count calories without HR?

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hilly Flats Racing

No idea how the Garmin calculates calories. But again, nothing is exactly precise. But close enough is good enough.

Without the HR monitor, i think Garmin just guesses...based on the weight in your profile possibly? I dont know. I find they give very high numbers if I run/cycle without the HR monitor.

What I wonder, how accurate is it WITH the HR monitor on? I would guess pretty accurate? or do other factors play in? (metabolism or something...clearly I know not much about this lol)

And even if you do, its only going to be exact once.

---

---------------------------------------------------------
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. ~Gandalf

I am statistical junky, as such, I have done year long data regressions on calories burned, calories consumed, weight lost/gained, etc.

What I found (via a sum of least squares regression of that data) was that while there was uncertainty in the data for a given day/week/meal/workout, over the long period of data, the solution smoothed out and I found the following (Male, late 30s in age, 135 to 145 pounds):

Resting burn: right around 1900 - 2100 as would be expected
Deficit to lose a pound of weight: close to the 3500 expected
running burn: very close to the 100 cals per mile regardless of effort (as expected)
bike burn: take the KJ of work done and add between 10 and 20% and call it calories
Swimming burn: 150 cals per 1,000 yards (SCY freestyle, flip turns, cruising speed around 1:25 to 1:35 with interval push offs between 1:35 and 2:00)

So what I now believe is that for me and my analysis, 600 to 700 cals per hour doing an aerobic activity is working pretty hard. It is easier to do it while running, harder to do while riding, and really hard to do while swimming (all for me obviously, you might be able to run 9 miles in an hour easily, I can't you might be able to swim 1:05 all day long, I can't).

If I were in a pinch and needed a decent burn estimate. I would say that if I worked hard (swim bike or run) 650 ish and going easy is 450 ish, going in the middle is in the middle.

---

Ironman Certified Coach

Currently accepting limited number of new athletes

I'm also intrigued by the answer to this.


Using a metric scale...

For running I've always used 1 cal per kg bodyweight per km .

On the bike, using Powertap data, on a standard route (not pancake flat or hilly) I end up using around 20-25cal per km (depends on speed, faster you go the more cals needed to overcome wind resistance). I weigh 75kg