How many calories do YOU burn from walking?

spicy618

atypicalsmith wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

spicy618 wrote: »

I'm 5'4, 159 lbs. BTW, you're at my goal weight.

Anyway, I've been tracking my walks for years. I walk appr. 4.9 miles in 1:22 mins. Depending on the temperature outside, It usually shows about 550 calories, however, I will log about 400. I usually deduct about 150 calories from my HRM for calories I would have burned anyway.

HTH

5 miles at 159 lbs is closer to a 240 net calorie burn than the 400 you log.

Forgot to quote the last comment - 4.9 miles in 1:22 MINUTES!

Wow. Who the heck walk almost 5 miles in 1 almost two minutes... Just wow.

spicy618

atypicalsmith wrote: »

I think she meant 1 hour 22 minutes.[/quote]

I'm sure you are right, but couldn't help pointing that out [/quote]

Thanks for your rude response. Keep doing what you're doing. I'll keep doing what I am... Good Luck.

spicy618

WalkingAlong wrote: »

atypicalsmith wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

spicy618 wrote: »

I'm 5'4, 159 lbs. BTW, you're at my goal weight.

Anyway, I've been tracking my walks for years. I walk appr. 4.9 miles in 1:22 mins. Depending on the temperature outside, It usually shows about 550 calories, however, I will log about 400. I usually deduct about 150 calories from my HRM for calories I would have burned anyway.

HTH

5 miles at 159 lbs is closer to a 240 net calorie burn than the 400 you log.

Forgot to quote the last comment - 4.9 miles in 1:22 MINUTES!

You understand a colon is not a decimal point, right?

THANK YOU.

Who do you know that walks almost 5 miles in less than 2 minutes????

wizzybeth

I go by miles for some reason...people can grasp that better than 2500 steps or 10,000 steps...When I do a mile, I log about 100 calories. 1.5 miles = 150. 2 miles - 200. I always take less than the app tells me.

spicy618

CA_Underdog wrote: »

spicy618 wrote:

Forgot to quote the last comment - 4.9 miles in 1:22 MINUTES!

MFP gives ~402 kcal for 4.9mi in 88 min (i.e., "Walking, 3.5mph"). Your estimates pass plenty of sanity checks. HRMs do well for steady-state cardio, only 7-10% error for my Garmin. Walking can be that. Some people beat themselves up taking only 50% of their hard-earned exercises calories, but I eat back all or most of mine, and am making excellent progress as well (-80#).

Thank you.
Common sense isn't so common. Just wow.

BWBTrish

spicy618 wrote: »

WalkingAlong wrote: »

spicy618 wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

spicy618 wrote: »

I'm 5'4, 159 lbs. BTW, you're at my goal weight.

Anyway, I've been tracking my walks for years. I walk appr. 4.9 miles in 1:22 mins. Depending on the temperature outside, It usually shows about 550 calories, however, I will log about 400. I usually deduct about 150 calories from my HRM for calories I would have burned anyway.

HTH

5 miles at 159 lbs is closer to a 240 net calorie burn than the 400 you log.

Really? So, my HRM with my chest strap, linked through bluetooth to MapMyFitness, tracking my speed and pace per mile, is incorrect? I wonder why I lose weight eating back most of my calories. I guess my scale is wrong too.

I would ignore the advice that stems from the Runners World article linked to above. That has some bad math in it. It assumes an unrealistically high BMR.

A Fitbit would credit you around 100 calories per mile. In reality, your net burn is probably between 60-80 per mile. Using a number that motivates you to keep walking is probably way more important than nailing the calories estimate, which I think is Fitbit's logic.

Thank you. I was going to anyway.
Only because I know HRM are not accurate, however, I've been using them for over 5 years. I've bought more than one. (Polar, IronMan, MapMyfitness) Have lost my initial 35 lbs using it and eating back my calories.
When I'm at the gym, the machines Heart Rate reading are close to my Heartrate, also that would mean when I'm rollerblading, elliptical, walking, bicycling (sp) all those are wrong and I've been eating double my calories from my workouts.

I wouldn't compare myself to someone who is running, because I Don't run. I'm glad I have my own results to go by, because this guy's response would have me believing, I will have to walk 3 hours, at top speed to burn 500 approximately... lol

yeah i had some earlier posts removed because of the response
But Every Monday there is a check up
I do a special program

I watch close what my HRM does and what the test results are (lab) and see what the difference is
Like i said constantly off my 15 to 17 percent
I can live with that

I dont need advice or info I am doing fine almost lost 75 pounds in the last 5 months and heart rate is going down ( getting fitter and fitter) I didn't ask for advice the OP did ask info which i supplied with my earlier posting.
I listen to what the doctor/team/nutritionist have to say and not what is advised at the forum by random strangers who dont know my program/test results or medical records.
Which i didn't provide anyway because it is not really their business.

I am doing good and i know what i burn on a average. So i really dont going to change anything or use any other calculators. Why should i?
I think lab tests is as close as you can get.

So ones again the average burn in one hour with a polar H7 is 400 too 600 on a speed of 3.2 and higher. I jog sometimes a bit ( max of 20 minutes) and i use weights while walking sometimes. With the same routine done at a lab the lab result is about 16% lower than my own Polar H7.

lemonlionheart

WalkingAlong wrote: »

Some of the commenters to that article also mentioned the bad math, and that the article it lists as its source doesn't include any such info at all.

The article table says we all burn .23 x weight per mile walked in BMR. Figure 3mph, 150 lb. person, that implies 103 BMR calories burned per hour, or 2484 in BMR per day. Mine is closer to half that. So assuming the gross walking estimate is good (which I'm not sure is wise) what you'd actually adjust the estimate down by to get net burn should be more like maybe half what they did- or .12, so use .41 as the walking multiplier. That would give me over 60 calories per mile, which is about 30% higher than the .30 multiplier gives.

Which I point out every time brianpperkins posts that article.

I didn't catch that, thanks! That would give me around 260 calories for 10000 steps (about 1hr 20mins) walking. That seems reasonable still, but I will probably log 150-200 just to be on the safe side

Mr_Knight

CA_Underdog wrote: »

spicy618 wrote:

Forgot to quote the last comment - 4.9 miles in 1:22 MINUTES!

MFP gives ~402 kcal for 4.9mi in 88 min (i.e., "Walking, 3.5mph"). Y

For a 230-pounder, that's about right.

Scale accordingly for other weights.

SezxyStef

according to my Jawbone I have "walked" 9709 steps so far today...no exercise and it then tells me I have 116 calories to go...having eaten 1753....so it thinks my maintenance is about 1800....eh whatever...

So just living and getting almost 10k steps I have burned 1800 calories in just over 15 hours...normally tho...i use mapmywalk and my jawbone together...and I suspect it's about 200 calories for 1 hour of brisk walking 4.5mph-5mph..I don't log it tho.