I recently read an article in Men's Fitness magazine that said a 175 pound guy will burn about 1000 Calories running at an 8 mph mile. Not to discredit MF, but that doesn't seem right. Anyone agree?

175# running at 8 mph for 1 hour can bring most people to about 1000 calories. That's a 7.5 minute mile pace which is way faster than most non-runners can sustain for eight miles, let alone two or one miles.

175# running at 8 mph for 1 hour can bring most people to about 1000 calories. That's a 7.5 minute mile pace which is way faster than most non-runners can sustain for eight miles, let alone two or one miles.



i think it would be probably closer to 2000 than 1000 at that rate, seriously

i think it would be probably closer to 2000 than 1000 at that rate, seriously

Nah, I don't think so. You can get a good estimate via Fitday or some similar program though if you really want to figure it out.

I recently read an article in Men's Fitness magazine that said a 175 pound guy will burn about 1000 Calories running at an 8 mph mile. Not to discredit MF, but that doesn't seem right. Anyone agree?
I don't care how fast you run, you'll never burn 1000 calories per mile. Think about it.

Okay, this is what Calories Per Hour (http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.html) thinks for a 175 lb. person.

Running - 8 mph
598 kilojoules in 8 min
523 kilojoules in 7 min

They probably meant 1000 kcal/hour while running 8 minute miles, that seems about right. You'd need to be a helluva runner to keep that pace for a hour however.

They probably meant 1000 kcal/hour while running 8 minute miles, that seems about right. You'd need to be a helluva runner to keep that pace for a hour however.

Agreed.

No way you can burn 1000 cals/mile, impossible.

They probably meant 1000 kcal/hour while running 8 minute miles, that seems about right. You'd need to be a helluva runner to keep that pace for a hour however.

It's not that tough, actually. Working up to an 8-minute mile takes some doing, but once you know your pacing, you can hit a really good stride and stay there.

I wouldn't recommend that pace for an hour, of course, but a 10-minute mile for an hour is an average pace for an intermediate marathoner. The two times I've done half-marathons, my time was somewhere in the 1:35 range (close to 10-minute miles).

It's around 1,000 per hour, not per mile. Keep in mind with running, your calories burned is more related to distance than it is pace ... in other words, while a person who runs 10 miles will burn more calories than a person who walks, there won't be much of a difference except that the person walking will take a lot longer.

Jeremy

It's around 1,000 per hour, not per mile. Keep in mind with running, your calories burned is more related to distance than it is pace ... in other words, while a person who runs 10 miles will burn more calories than a person who walks, there won't be much of a difference except that the person walking will take a lot longer.

Jeremy


Right- 175lbs at 7.5mph for 1 mile returned 132 calories burned in 8 minutes... or 990 per hour.

It's around 1,000 per hour, not per mile. Keep in mind with running, your calories burned is more related to distance than it is pace ... in other words, while a person who runs 10 miles will burn more calories than a person who walks, there won't be much of a difference except that the person walking will take a lot longer.

Jeremy

Distance is the predominant factor. But a person who runs 10 miles at 7minute pace will burn appreciably more calories than someone who walks 10 miles at a moderate pace. I posted a formula that approximate the differences in calories burned when comparing running and walking awhile ago.

Blimey, 1000 calories per hour...

Where's my trainers, i'm off for a marathon. :D :D

It's not that tough, actually. Working up to an 8-minute mile takes some doing, but once you know your pacing, you can hit a really good stride and stay there.

I wouldn't recommend that pace for an hour, of course, but a 10-minute mile for an hour is an average pace for an intermediate marathoner. The two times I've done half-marathons, my time was somewhere in the 1:35 range (close to 10-minute miles).

I've yet to participate in a marathon because I don't think I'm fast enough, running a single mile I can probably shave 5:20, 5+ miles it takes me about 7:00 on average, but the results I see for half-marathons here are even below that time. Is this because of age groupings? (I'm 20) Or are Minnesotans just abnormally fast :p

It's not that tough, actually. Working up to an 8-minute mile takes some doing, but once you know your pacing, you can hit a really good stride and stay there.

I wouldn't recommend that pace for an hour, of course, but a 10-minute mile for an hour is an average pace for an intermediate marathoner. The two times I've done half-marathons, my time was somewhere in the 1:35 range (close to 10-minute miles).Doing a half in 1:35 is more like a 7:20 pace, which represents pretty thorough fitness.It's around 1,000 per hour, not per mile. Keep in mind with running, your calories burned is more related to distance than it is pace ... in other words, while a person who runs 10 miles will burn more calories than a person who walks, there won't be much of a difference except that the person walking will take a lot longer.That's been the common recommendation, but runnersworld, and others, have found recently that running burns significantly more calories _per mile_ than walking. Walking is almost totally horizontal; running is horizontal with a lot of vertical. I can't remember the numbers precisely but they were not at all insignificant. I recall the net burn (calories burned just by the exercise, ignoring calories you'd burn anyway, like watching tv) were around 90/mile for a 175 lb man and 60/mile walking for the same guy. So, not only is the walking much slower, but it's burning quite a few less calories.

I think a 175 lb man doing that 8 miles in an hour would burn 800-1000, so it's not unreasonable. Heat would be a factor as well (the body spends extra resources staying cool, if it's very hot), though I don't know to what degree.I've yet to participate in a marathon because I don't think I'm fast enough, running a single mile I can probably shave 5:20, 5+ miles it takes me about 7:00 on average, but the results I see for half-marathons here are even below that time. Is this because of age groupings? (I'm 20) Or are Minnesotans just abnormally fast Yes, you've got the fitness for one. Check http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/Running%20University/Article%201/mcmillanrunningcalculator.htm. Granted, that's an estimate, but it's pretty accurate, apparently. Of course, you can't, as the link mentions, take a fast mile time and, if you've never run more than a few miles, expect to get out 26.2 without putting in the training base for 26.2, but if you got your mileage base up properly you could expect to finish in the top half of your field. I'm running my first on Dec 10 and 5 miles would take me about the same time as you. I've never tried a one mile, so I have no clue how long it would take.

I've yet to participate in a marathon because I don't think I'm fast enough, running a single mile I can probably shave 5:20, 5+ miles it takes me about 7:00 on average, but the results I see for half-marathons here are even below that time. Is this because of age groupings? (I'm 20) Or are Minnesotans just abnormally fast :p

A lot of those people that you're seeing have been running for years and years and years. If you start training now, think about how much faster you'd be when you were 25? What about when you're 30 or 35?

A lot of those people that you're seeing have been running for years and years and years. If you start training now, think about how much faster you'd be when you were 25? What about when you're 30 or 35?Not sure how much merit it has, but some people throw around 7 years as the number of years to peak on one's fitness. However, I think in even a couple of years a person can get ridiculously fit. Our very own BamaDave, at his ripe age of 39 (hee hee) is not far from 3 hours (world record is 2:04, I think, and if you're getting 2:20 you're super elite) and he's only been running properly for a few years. I know another guy who, at 28, just got 3:09 in a marathon, and less than a year ago his best time was a touch under 4. I think 4 hours is a goal an otherwise fit person can get in the period of about 6 months (so, they didn't run before, but were otherwise reasonably fit).

I recently read an article in Men's Fitness magazine that said a 175 pound guy will burn about 1000 Calories running at an 8 mph mile. Not to discredit MF, but that doesn't seem right. Anyone agree?

Around 1000 calories per HOUR at 8mph, that's not too far off. I think it should actually be somewhat higher than 1000.

This is just another one of those averages though. You want to know your VO2max, Maximum heart rate, and then the heart rate you sustain at 8 mph. Then you can get quite a good estimate.

Now you can go here:

http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/vo2race.htm

and find that a guy who can run 8 mph for an hour has a VO2max around 44.25 (or more). But if a guy runs 8 mph for a mile, (7 minutes 30 seconds) then the VO2max is only estimated as 37.7 (or more). Assuming that guy weighs 175 pounds (80 kg) then we get estimates

1062 calories for the 1 hour run

113 calories for the 1 mile run

If we go here:

http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/vo2max.htm

we see that the 44.25 VO2max is more or less in the average range for guys between the ages of 20 and 50.

So this is probably what they had in mind for Men's Fitness - a 175 pound guy between 20 and 50 at an average level of fitness can run 8 miles in an hour and burns a little over 1000 calories doing it.

It isn't really right though. Because above the age of 20, only the guys with average or better than average VO2max can run 8 mph for hour.

If you want to know how many calories you really burn in any exercise, the simplest accurate thing to do is get hold of your maximum heart rate, VO2max, and use a heart monitor that uses those good estimates of VO2max and MHR to figure your calories, or else use the heart monitor to get your average heart rate during exercise and then figure them yourself.

Agreed.

No way you can burn 1000 cals/mile, impossible.

I think from a calorie point of view, lunge walking a mile while curl and pressing a couple 20# dumbells would be even worse than 1000 calories. If you have a 3' lunge stride, that would be 1760 reps. Based on my own experience of that exercise I think that would be well over 1000 calories.


And you can always look up the Inman mile:

http://www.usawa.com/rules.html#e24

For me, that's a 295# - 300# load to carry for a mile. I'm pretty sure that is going to be pretty caloric. Dunno about 1000, though, since I'm not going to get through that mile at this point.

I've yet to participate in a marathon because I don't think I'm fast enough, running a single mile I can probably shave 5:20, 5+ miles it takes me about 7:00 on average, but the results I see for half-marathons here are even below that time. Is this because of age groupings? (I'm 20) Or are Minnesotans just abnormally fast :p

Are you talking about the winners? Yes, they run sub 5 pace. The elite runners. It doesn't mean you have to. Most marathons with a few exceptions don't have qualifying times. Most anybody can participate.

According the treadmill that I regularly use, I'm 172 pounds and run 6 miles per hour for 3 miles on a zero incline and whenever I pass mile 3 I'm also passing 1000 calories according to the display. It's an estimate, true, but I think that's closer to what we're looking for here.

According the treadmill that I regularly use, I'm 172 pounds and run 6 miles per hour for 3 miles on a zero incline and whenever I pass mile 3 I'm also passing 1000 calories according to the display. It's an estimate, true, but I think that's closer to what we're looking for here.I don't; fitness machines are notoriously optimistic with calorie expenditure. Based on my own experiences of tracking calories and doing a lot of running and reading up on it from running publications, plus reading Dean Karnazes' book (ultramarathon man, where he says he burns around 600-650/hour, I think), I think the general rule of thumb of ~100 calories per mile running is a good one.

I do think running is one of the best exercises to crank out calories, but to burn 1000 in 3 miles you'd have to be exceedingly obese, I think!

According the treadmill that I regularly use, I'm 172 pounds and run 6 miles per hour for 3 miles on a zero incline and whenever I pass mile 3 I'm also passing 1000 calories according to the display. It's an estimate, true, but I think that's closer to what we're looking for here.


It's an estimate that puts your VO2max at 85.3 which is right there with Lance Armstrong.

I'm pretty sure you told it your weight as 172 kg.

If that is what happened then it really thinks you're actually burning 455 calories, not 1000; the VO2max it uses for you would be a respectable 39.

So no, you are not burning 2000 calories an hour.

I was just playing with that VO2 max page. It's interesting, but its numbers on the second page are off, or at least highly critical. It says that a 5k time of 23 minutes for a 20-29 year old is on the high end of fair. I can tell you without a doubt that the average 20-29 sure as sh*t cannot run 5k in 23 minutes unless he's well above average in fitness. 22:18 barely puts a runner in the good category, but when I did that time on a 5k a few weeks ago I got something like 48th overall in a field of 550. It says that 21:17 is 46.3, which is good (not excellent, or superior), but that fellow got 27th overall. I'll say it was a darn hard course, but still!

I think the calculator's numbers may be good, but I'd like to see some actual averages instead of just the author's opinion (if that's what it is; I've not read the page in enough detail ;)).

1000 calories in an hour is definitely doable if you're decently fast. Like covering 9-10 miles in that hour

I think the calculator's numbers may be good, but I'd like to see some actual averages instead of just the author's opinion (if that's what it is; I've not read the page in enough detail ;)).

If you mean the tests on this page:

http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/vo2max.htm

then the Cooper, Balke, Beep, and Rockport tests are all based on scientific research.

They don't give their validation for the "Result of Race" test, but they're almost certainly not just making it up. If we compare to the Balke test for example Balke test VO2max estimates and their corresponding "result of race" VO2max estimates

1500 meters in 15 minutes => 27.6
result of race for that => 15.1

2500 meters in 15 minutes => 39.1
result of race for that => 29.4

3500 meters in 15 minutes => 50.6
result of race for that => 44.8

4500 meters in 15 minutes => 62.0
result of race for that => 61.1

Looks like unless you are going real fast, the "result of race" page gets too low a VO2max estimate compared to the Balke test.

Doing the same to compare the Cooper test with the "result of race" test:

1500 meters in 12 minutes => 22.2
result of race for that => 19.9

2500 meters in 12 minutes => 44.6
result of race for that => 38.2

3500 meters in 12 minutes => 67.0
result of race for that => 57.9

Again, it looks like "result of race" is an underestimate of the VO2max. I wonder why?

So - good catch spotting the low estimates!

That site is usually pretty good, although I hadn't used the "result of race" calculator before; I usually go by the Cooper and Balke tests to compare with my Polar Fitness test. Those tend to roughly agree for the times I've used them so I am not as concerned about them.

So we rewind a little. I used the "result of race" test today in my reply about the Men's Fitness 8 miles in 1 hour being about 1000 calories for a 175 pound guy. Since the result of race web page calculator basically said 1060 calories, it's probably more than that. (And that makes more sense to me since I can do 1060 calories in an hour more easily than run eight miles in an hour.)

If we go by the Balke test, we see that 8 miles in an hour at 8 mph would imply

1.6 miles = 2575 meters in 12 minutes

the Cooper test estimate for this is 46.3, which is higher than the "result of race number".


2 miles = 3219 meters in 15 minutes

the Balke test estimate for this is 47.3, which is even higher (as it should be - it's a longer test).

What happens here is that the VO2max estimate goes up if you can maintain the same speed for longer because you have less and less stored glycogen left further into the run.

This means the Balke test is an underestimate of the true VO2max needed to go the full hour. This is the reason I didn't use it, or the Cooper estimate. I figured the "result of race" estimate would do a better job since you could plug in a whole hour. The reason I've never used it before is that I haven't run for as long as an hour (and don't plan to).

The required VO2max for 8 miles in 1 hour would probably be a bit more than 50, but I'm just guessing based on that we expect the Balke estimate of 47.3 to be low.

If it's 50, then the average guy can't do it. Frankly, my VO2max is around 50 and I'd be a bit pessimistic about just knocking off 8 miles in an hour. I've done two miles in 15:45 though, so it might not be that far beyond my cardio. (It is beyond what I want to do to my knees and shins though).

A guy who can do it, and weighs 175 pounds, would expect to burn at least 1200 calories (based on the estimate of 50). That's not quite a walk in the park.

I wonder if Men's Fitness used the same numbers as the "result of race" calculator did. It was pretty close to their 1000.

Good lord, Zen. I've never analyzed VO2max like that, and I ran track and cross country in college.

Good lord, Zen. I've never analyzed VO2max like that, and I ran track and cross country in college.

I ran cross country in high school, and quite badly at that. But that was 1972. Not many people knew this sort of stuff then.

But people learn stuff as time goes on. The VO2max and lactate tolerance stuff is important to me since I have endurance goals. Any measure of progress or regress that I can use can only help me keep on track.

And as this, and many other threads show, lots of people have questions about how their exercise burns calories - whether they are cutting or bulking. Anything that helps us all understand how our individual bodies work should be of value for a whole lot of fitness goals.

I'll need to read over that VO2 post this weekend, when I'm fully and thoroughly rested :D I see you've done your homework, though. :)

I'll need to read over that VO2 post this weekend, when I'm fully and thoroughly rested :D I see you've done your homework, though. :)

It's sort of mental work to get me a higher amount of confidence and belief that I can do 60x225. I figure since I did 25x225 that the absolute resistance is not the problem - I've done 50s and 60s at 135 so I know I have the form. It's all down to keep from getting gassed before 60. I want to KNOW I have it before I mount the bar. I do visualization stuff too, but this is a form of that.

EDIT: 60x225 squats. (In case anyone thought I meant something ill like 60x225 bench).

I ran cross country in high school, and quite badly at that. But that was 1972. Not many people knew this sort of stuff then.

But people learn stuff as time goes on. The VO2max and lactate tolerance stuff is important to me since I have endurance goals. Any measure of progress or regress that I can use can only help me keep on track.

And as this, and many other threads show, lots of people have questions about how their exercise burns calories - whether they are cutting or bulking. Anything that helps us all understand how our individual bodies work should be of value for a whole lot of fitness goals.

Sure, I wasn't criticizing. It's impressive in a way. Although you can definitely train, do advanced workouts, and compete at a high level without ever specifically calculating any of that. It's fine to do it though.

Although you can definitely train, do advanced workouts, and compete at a high level without ever specifically calculating any of that. It's fine to do it though.

I actually think some people are better off not calculating and others are better off calculating. I do the calculating outside the gym. Once I'm in it - it's more of a physical business.