|
Nov 2016
4:12pm, 9 Nov 2016
216 posts
|
dibbers
what's the typical calorie burn per KG of body weight per mile (or kilometre) ?
|
|
Nov 2016
4:22pm, 9 Nov 2016
2,003 posts
|
K5 Gus
Fetch shows it as 120 cal per mile for me on a flat course, and my weight in Fetch is 70kg, so about 1.7 ??
|
|
Nov 2016
4:32pm, 9 Nov 2016
59,251 posts
|
Gobi
No way.
I was tested and burned 57 calories a mile weighting about 73kgs.
Welcome to efficiency 
|
|
Nov 2016
9:09pm, 9 Nov 2016
526 posts
|
tipsku
That's a very interesting question, dibbers. It put the statistics geek in me to work again.
Generally speaking, it depends on HR and the time for each mile. These can vary significantly during a training and racing cycle and even during a run, depending on terrain. The better trained you are, the lower your values are probably going to be for your weight; as shown by Gobi, the master of efficiency and low HR.
A couple of examples below for variation in terrain and fitness level:
I checked the stats of Snowdonia marathon and my kcal/mi values range from 59 downhill mile 26, to 106 up Waunfawr mile 23. On the flatter bits I'm between 65 and 75, uphill 80-95, Waunfawr being the outlier because it's the slowest mile, 11:49 and HR is high, 175 avg.
In Milton Keynes in much warmer weather, I averaged 75-80 for most of the race (flatish with lots of bridges and underpasses) because I had a higher HR throughout.
In a normal aerobic training run, e.g. a recovery run with 123 AVG I have lower values, between 56 and 66. This was during marathon training when my fitness was improving.
Now, post marathon, I have a relatively higher HR for similar paces because I'm still recovering. So my kcal/mi values go up as well. Today, recovery run avg 133, values per mile between 65 and 78 so I'm not as efficient as I was before the marathon. The terrain was even flatter than in the previous example above.
This said, I don't quite believe the Garmin values (Garmin going with about 520 kcal/hour for Snowdonia, 2016 kcal for 232 min of running). When I calculate my fuel needs with them, I end up feeling hungry towards the end of the marathon and I need to slow down. I go with the figures of my old polar, which gives me 580-650 per hour (for the HR range 165-175). If I go with that I get through the race without bonking.
Apologies for another long post. I'm on holidays at the moment so I have time to analyse stats of the past season(s). When I'm home again, I'll get that formula.
|
|
Nov 2016
9:20pm, 9 Nov 2016
527 posts
|
tipsku
PS: just compared Snowdonia with Manchester a couple of years back, both run at 170 AVG and 181 max, Snowdonia in 3:52 and Manchester 3:37 so a 15 min difference. So you would expect a higher calorie need for Snowdonia.
In fact, it's 2016 for Snowdonia and 2024 for Manchester even though the latter race was 15 min shorter. Both measured with Garmin but with different models, Manchester with the FR 110 and Snowdonia with the FR 630. So I guess it also depends on the algorithm that each watch uses.
|
|
Nov 2016
4:33pm, 10 Nov 2016
217 posts
|
dibbers
Thanks tipsku
Another question: should it not be Carbohydrates we calculate rather than calories?
|
|
Nov 2016
10:18am, 16 Nov 2016
28 posts
|
bakedbeano
Probably not. All food groups that aren't used structuraly are stored or broken down, then converted into "carbohydrate" fragments which are fed into the Krebs cycle within the mitochondria. High mileage runs should increase the catabolism of protein because of increased cortisol release.
|
|
Nov 2016
10:25am, 16 Nov 2016
29 posts
|
bakedbeano
I think that the Calorie calculations are about as accurate as 220-age for calculating maximum heart rate. Theres so much difference between individuals metbolism that it cn only ever be a rule of thumb (for example Tipsku's calcultions for snowdonia and manchester)
|
|
Nov 2016
11:15am, 16 Nov 2016
1,279 posts
|
larkim
My gut feel is that Tipsku's calcs work for her through a combination of luck and good judgement, but there are so many assumptions in there that it is unlikely to replicate across to other runners in anything but the broadest sense.
Having said that, if she has got a tool which works and which (clearly) delivers results, then that's great; the overall approach is certainly sound (how much energy will I need, how much have I got stored, how much can I take on board, how will I disperse the energy across the race etc).
|
|
Nov 2016
11:30am, 16 Nov 2016
30 posts
|
bakedbeano
Yes Larkim I'm sure you're right. Its got to be right if it works for you. I'm a late comer to the sports science of proper nutrition and heart rate or pace based runing. I was a real cynic for years. I was of course completely wrong and ive become a much better runner or the realisation.
|
