I've been jogging as my main exercise since I have a treadmill at home, but my treadmill's built in calorie burning estimate is way off (obviously). It has a digital screen with a person's silhouette that mimics what you're supposed to be doing and the person will be speed walking when I'm literally running with everything I got. Even calculators such as this (sorry I'm on mobile): https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1350959101 let's you put in your height and weight and everything but the lowest speed they have is 6.4km/h. Even at 6.4km/h I'm power running!!! I usually jog at around 5 - 5.5km/h. Does anyone else have this problem?
@j77077 Honestly I just got a bit fed up with everything and got a fitbit versa 2, I know that its not 100% accurate but Its way better than any calculator or anything I used.
@j77077 I waited for mine to go on sale at walmart, I know it was a steep purchase for me aswell but I have honestly worn it every single day and find that it keeps me motivated and Ive never worn a watch in my life.
@j77077 So there's actually a general rule of thumb when it comes to running/jogging that you burn around 100 calories a mile. Now if it's especially hot, or you run a hilly route, or you overweight, you can add a bit more to that (but not too much). It's actually about the same for walking, too. A four mile walk/four mile run is still your body transporting your body four miles. One just takes longer than the other.
Now, I have a Garmin watch that usually tells that I burn slightly more than that - it takes into account my height, weight and heart rate. There's at least one study that found a Garmin watch actually underestimated calories burnt, and I'm also overweight, so I take it a face value.
Essentially, if you want a conservative/general estimate, it's 100 calories per mile. If you want a more accurate estimate, maybe consider a fitness watch with a good reputation. Hope this helps
@bea1271 That's not going to work for a much smaller person though. I know wrist hr monitors aren't great but mine says I burn about 80 calories a mile and that jives with my calculations based on my size.
@martin35 That's fair, I'm 5'3 so on the taller end of petite and 40lbs overweight. I also have a weird HR - my resting is about 49 BPM, but I regularly hit 198 on every single run with an average of 185 and max of 209. I can only go based off of my own experience, and the studies that suggest 100 calories a mile are based on a whole range of participants, which is why it's an average. This is why it might be better for OP to get a heart hr monitor for themselves.
Just a side note - some wrist hr monitors are actually much better than they are given credit for. For example, the garmin I have was in tested against a chest strap and had only 1.3 BPM difference. So, not completely accurate, but I'm not going to get too upset about that small a difference.
@bea1271 I’m not trying to worry you and I’m certainly not a doctor, but have you asked your doctor about your heart rate? 49 sounds very low and 209 sounds very high
@brendaischristfollower No worries, thanks for the concern! It's definitely something I've worried about in the past, but I'm 21 so 209 isn't that high for me (especially when you look into max heart rates for running and realise that 220-age is actually very inaccurate) and low heart rate runs in my family. My dad's is even lower, if you can believe, at around 43. The doctor also did a quick exam at my last check up and didn't seem worried, so unless I get any symptoms I'm just rolling with my weird heart rates.
@bea1271 I’m glad you asked a doctor and that it’s not uncommon for your family! As long as you’re healthy and happy girlie. I also have the Fitbit Versa and like it a lot for tracking calories and heart rate. I think these kinds of watches are too pricey for what it’s offering in general but I do wear it every day and it’s also fun to see how you’re sleeping at night.
@martin35 Oh also, what calculations have you used to check that against your size? That's exactly what OP is asking for and seeing as you've found it accurate for you, they might benefit from it
@j77077 I think the calculator you’re using does it based off of METs which I think it the most accurate, though it has no way of accounting for fitness level, VO2 max, heart rate, etc. I can look for the link but there’s a pdf with all the METs for basically any activity (exercise or not) that you can think of. I used it once and calculated estimated TDEE based on how many hours I sleep, work at a desk, do chores, walk, lift weights in a day and it was within 50 calories of my results using a basic TDEE equation with estimated activity level.
Long story short, they’re all estimates and being consistent and tracking calories and your weight daily will allow you to back-calculate TDEE. The more data points you have, the more accurate the regression!
Edit: forgot to add I think if you google “METs glossary” or something along those lines you can find the pdf I’m talking about but it should be using the same formula the calculator you’re currently using does
@j77077 Something I’ll just throw out there is to make sure you’re converting between units if applicable! I’ve accidentally mixed up km and mi and it really changes the pace lol - for example 5km/hr is about a 20 minute mile. Absolutely no shade if that’s your pace, just wanted to check!
Even calculators such as this (sorry I'm on mobile): https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1350959101 let's you put in your height and weight and everything but the lowest speed they have is 6.4km/h. Even at 6.4km/h I'm power running!!! I usually jog at around 5 - 5.5km/h. Does anyone else have this problem? 
