« Hard to tell | Main | Dynamics »

March 01, 2005

Calories per mile

Somewhere I found a link to the Dead Runners Society mailing list on which people have been discussing energy gels for long runs. Somebody at CarbBoom.com has posted a Marathon Gel & Calorie Calculator to help you determine how many gel packets to eat during the run. They claim someone of my weight should eat 4 or 5 of their gel packets during a marathon, and probably a few before and after. At about $1-2/oz. for flavored maltodextrin, I may take a rain check on that. (You can get bulk maltodextrin at iHerb.com for $0.18/oz. apparently.)

The interesting feature of CarbBoom.com's calculator under the above link is that it estimates the number of calories you'll burn per mile if your weight is between 100 and 240 lbs. and your pace is between 5:20 and 12:00 per mi. So if at my current weight I run a 3:30 marathon, I'll be burning on the order of 3000 calories.

Interestingly I'd only burn about 5% more calories at a blisteringly fast 2:20 marathon pace.

Even more interestingly, the calculator suggests at 2:20 marathon pace I eat one gel at 12 miles, then another at 20, and that's it during the race. However, if I run at a 5:15 marathon pace, I'm supposed to eat one gel at the 5 mile mark, then a gel every 4 miles, totalling 6 packets. I wonder how many you're supposed to eat if you lie on the couch and watch a TV broadcast of other people running a marathon.

Posted by Mark at March 1, 2005 08:38 PM

Comments

I have always paid attention to a chart that the Consumer Reports had in a health newsletter concerning calories used in athletic activities. I have always felt Consumer Reports makes a sincere effort to get their science straight. Their chart show significantly greater calorie use than the calculator you cite. For a 200 lb. runner, Consumer Reports gives a figure of 144 calories per mile at a 12-minute per mile pace (your site give 121 calories) and 156 calories per mile at a 7:30 per mile pace (your site give 128 calories for a 7:20 pace.) That's right at a 20% difference between the two sources.

Posted by: Dana at March 2, 2005 02:41 AM