What should I log for a 45 minute walk?
Replies
-
From your link: "HRM are only accurate (such as they are) under very specific exercise conditions, i.e. steady-state cardio exercise."DeguelloTex wrote: »
If I walk five miles at a pace that very marginally elevates my heart rate and five miles at a pace that greatly elevates it, I burn the same number of calories? I can see how the answer can be the same depending on the operative definitions of work and energy, but if calorie burn is related to heart rate, that certainly seems like a counterintuitive result.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It makes a difference in terms of calories/minute, sure, but not really in calories/distance.
When you get up to very high speed, the biomechanics change and the burn rate goes up, but very very few people are walking like that, it's a pretty unnatural gait. At that point you're better off doing a slow jog, anyway.
Heart rate doesn't correlate with calorie burn, except under very specific conditions (and even then, not all that well). This is why people get into so much trouble with HRMs.
Lots of posts detailing this on MFP - I think there's even a sticky by poster Azdak at this point, which is a useful read.
EDIT: Some good reading in here... http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak
What is more steady-state cardio exercise than walking at a specific speed for, say, an hour?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
From your link: "HRM are only accurate (such as they are) under very specific exercise conditions, i.e. steady-state cardio exercise."DeguelloTex wrote: »
If I walk five miles at a pace that very marginally elevates my heart rate and five miles at a pace that greatly elevates it, I burn the same number of calories? I can see how the answer can be the same depending on the operative definitions of work and energy, but if calorie burn is related to heart rate, that certainly seems like a counterintuitive result.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It makes a difference in terms of calories/minute, sure, but not really in calories/distance.
When you get up to very high speed, the biomechanics change and the burn rate goes up, but very very few people are walking like that, it's a pretty unnatural gait. At that point you're better off doing a slow jog, anyway.
Heart rate doesn't correlate with calorie burn, except under very specific conditions (and even then, not all that well). This is why people get into so much trouble with HRMs.
Lots of posts detailing this on MFP - I think there's even a sticky by poster Azdak at this point, which is a useful read.
EDIT: Some good reading in here... http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak
What is more steady-state cardio exercise than walking at a specific speed for a particular distance?
Intensity isn't high enough. Running at a moderate pace for at least 30 minutes would be an example of something where it works reasonably well - but even then only if the calculation is tailored to the runners fitness level.
0 -
Do you have any links that indicate that walking at a 13:30 mile pace is insufficiently intense to qualify as steady-state cardio?DeguelloTex wrote: »
From your link: "HRM are only accurate (such as they are) under very specific exercise conditions, i.e. steady-state cardio exercise."DeguelloTex wrote: »
If I walk five miles at a pace that very marginally elevates my heart rate and five miles at a pace that greatly elevates it, I burn the same number of calories? I can see how the answer can be the same depending on the operative definitions of work and energy, but if calorie burn is related to heart rate, that certainly seems like a counterintuitive result.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It makes a difference in terms of calories/minute, sure, but not really in calories/distance.
When you get up to very high speed, the biomechanics change and the burn rate goes up, but very very few people are walking like that, it's a pretty unnatural gait. At that point you're better off doing a slow jog, anyway.
Heart rate doesn't correlate with calorie burn, except under very specific conditions (and even then, not all that well). This is why people get into so much trouble with HRMs.
Lots of posts detailing this on MFP - I think there's even a sticky by poster Azdak at this point, which is a useful read.
EDIT: Some good reading in here... http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak
What is more steady-state cardio exercise than walking at a specific speed for a particular distance?
Intensity isn't high enough. Running at a moderate pace for at least 30 minutes would be an example of something where it works reasonably well - but even then only if the calculation is tailored to the runners fitness level.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
From your link: "HRM are only accurate (such as they are) under very specific exercise conditions, i.e. steady-state cardio exercise."DeguelloTex wrote: »
If I walk five miles at a pace that very marginally elevates my heart rate and five miles at a pace that greatly elevates it, I burn the same number of calories? I can see how the answer can be the same depending on the operative definitions of work and energy, but if calorie burn is related to heart rate, that certainly seems like a counterintuitive result.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It makes a difference in terms of calories/minute, sure, but not really in calories/distance.
When you get up to very high speed, the biomechanics change and the burn rate goes up, but very very few people are walking like that, it's a pretty unnatural gait. At that point you're better off doing a slow jog, anyway.
Heart rate doesn't correlate with calorie burn, except under very specific conditions (and even then, not all that well). This is why people get into so much trouble with HRMs.
Lots of posts detailing this on MFP - I think there's even a sticky by poster Azdak at this point, which is a useful read.
EDIT: Some good reading in here... http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak
What is more steady-state cardio exercise than walking at a specific speed for a particular distance?
So long as you're properly calculating your 'net' burn, I find my HRM pretty accurate regardless of the exercise type.
The problem I find is that people don't use them properly, a machine can only ever be accurate if it is used properly..
I don't agree with the notion that HRMs are only any good for steady state cardio though, the calorific burn is calculated from the heart rate being monitored vs the user stats.. the type is exercise that you are doing to generate that heart rate is irrelevant.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Do you have any links that indicate that walking at a 13:30 mile pace is insufficiently intense to qualify as steady-state cardio?DeguelloTex wrote: »
From your link: "HRM are only accurate (such as they are) under very specific exercise conditions, i.e. steady-state cardio exercise."DeguelloTex wrote: »
If I walk five miles at a pace that very marginally elevates my heart rate and five miles at a pace that greatly elevates it, I burn the same number of calories? I can see how the answer can be the same depending on the operative definitions of work and energy, but if calorie burn is related to heart rate, that certainly seems like a counterintuitive result.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It makes a difference in terms of calories/minute, sure, but not really in calories/distance.
When you get up to very high speed, the biomechanics change and the burn rate goes up, but very very few people are walking like that, it's a pretty unnatural gait. At that point you're better off doing a slow jog, anyway.
Heart rate doesn't correlate with calorie burn, except under very specific conditions (and even then, not all that well). This is why people get into so much trouble with HRMs.
Lots of posts detailing this on MFP - I think there's even a sticky by poster Azdak at this point, which is a useful read.
EDIT: Some good reading in here... http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak
What is more steady-state cardio exercise than walking at a specific speed for a particular distance?
Intensity isn't high enough. Running at a moderate pace for at least 30 minutes would be an example of something where it works reasonably well - but even then only if the calculation is tailored to the runners fitness level.
It *is* steady state cardio.
What it isn't, is intense enough to fit the part of the exertion curve where there is some limited correlation between heart rate and calorie burn.
0 -
Well, still wondering if walking calories are as negligible or not. I've been trusting my Fitbit to give me a decent estimate of my TDEE, maybe I shouldn't.
Just track your data for 30 days - doing that, I find that my Fitbit DOES give me a decent estimate. MFP is set to sedentary - all activity is tracked through FB and all calories in through MFP. When I was on a deficit I did, indeed, lose weight more or less according to what my "net calories" would suggest, and I have been maintaining for a few weeks also according to what my "net calories" would suggest. If your data DON'T add up, then you get to decide whether to tighten up the calorie tracking or continue tracking food the way you are doing and eat fewer calories (if you are trying to lose weight, more of course if you are trying to maintain or gain) according to how you are tracking.
0 -
Well, still wondering if walking calories are as negligible or not. I've been trusting my Fitbit to give me a decent estimate of my TDEE, maybe I shouldn't.
Just track your data for 30 days - doing that, I find that my Fitbit DOES give me a decent estimate. MFP is set to sedentary - all activity is tracked through FB and all calories in through MFP. When I was on a deficit I did, indeed, lose weight more or less according to what my "net calories" would suggest, and I have been maintaining for a few weeks also according to what my "net calories" would suggest. If your data DON'T add up, then you get to decide whether to tighten up the calorie tracking or continue tracking food the way you are doing and eat fewer calories (if you are trying to lose weight, more of course if you are trying to maintain or gain) according to how you are tracking.
That's the right way to do it. Log meticulously, maintain a consistent exercise schedule, and you can figure out your own burns (and BMR and NEAT and etc) to a high degree of accuracy, completely customized to you.
:drinker:0 -
Personally, if I go out on a walk on a mountain or to the countryside and I'm walking for hours then I log it. If I decide to just walk to town instead of taking my car (about 30 mins steady walk away) then I just take the 60 or so calories 'extra' that I might have earned as a hit and encompass it as part of my usual day.
Everybody does it differently. As a general rule I only really log cardio exercise that I accurately measure with my HRM but obviously this is just a habit I stick to and isn't overly necessary!
I approach like this too - only my rule is that if I don't change my bra or shoes for it, it doesn't get logged. So an hour or two wandering round the shops or a 30 minute walk into town on my lunch break is great, but doesn't 'earn' me calories on MFP (under my own self imposed rules); a 3-4 hour hike in the countryside, wearing walking boots and with a sports bra on, does get logged, but I'm conservative with the calorie estimates.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »Miles walked * body weight in pounds * 0.3 => calories burned walking
There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise and doesn't draw on the internal batteries the way something like running does. But if you want to - go for it! :drinker:
Plus *so* *many* MFPers end up with such huge overestimates for walking calories that even eating back "only" 50% still ends up being more than they burned.
Interesting formula.
A lot of people hate it, because the numbers are smaller than we'd all like. But the universe is what it is...
:drinker:
From where are you getting that formula? It's lower than any I've seen.
I like this chart, but I don't know if it's accurate. It factors in speed, too.
http://nj2ny50.org/calorie-estimator-how-many-calories-do-you-burn-walking0 -
Then you just lost me.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Do you have any links that indicate that walking at a 13:30 mile pace is insufficiently intense to qualify as steady-state cardio?DeguelloTex wrote: »
From your link: "HRM are only accurate (such as they are) under very specific exercise conditions, i.e. steady-state cardio exercise."DeguelloTex wrote: »
If I walk five miles at a pace that very marginally elevates my heart rate and five miles at a pace that greatly elevates it, I burn the same number of calories? I can see how the answer can be the same depending on the operative definitions of work and energy, but if calorie burn is related to heart rate, that certainly seems like a counterintuitive result.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It makes a difference in terms of calories/minute, sure, but not really in calories/distance.
When you get up to very high speed, the biomechanics change and the burn rate goes up, but very very few people are walking like that, it's a pretty unnatural gait. At that point you're better off doing a slow jog, anyway.
Heart rate doesn't correlate with calorie burn, except under very specific conditions (and even then, not all that well). This is why people get into so much trouble with HRMs.
Lots of posts detailing this on MFP - I think there's even a sticky by poster Azdak at this point, which is a useful read.
EDIT: Some good reading in here... http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak
What is more steady-state cardio exercise than walking at a specific speed for a particular distance?
Intensity isn't high enough. Running at a moderate pace for at least 30 minutes would be an example of something where it works reasonably well - but even then only if the calculation is tailored to the runners fitness level.
It *is* steady state cardio.
What it isn't, is intense enough to fit the part of the exertion curve where there is some limited correlation between heart rate and calorie burn.
The link you provided says HRMs are accurate (within the meaning of what "accurate" means in this context) for steady-state cardio exercise. You say walking is steady-state cardio exercise. But, for some reason, heart rate and, by extension, HRMs aren't valuable in this context because heart rate doesn't correlate with calorie burn in this context, which is steady-state cardio exercise.
At best, the link you provided includes some particularly poor and, frankly, misleading wording if what you're saying now is accurate.
Edited to add: Do you have any links that indicate that walking at a 13:30 mile pace is insufficiently intense to reach some limited correlation between heart rate and calorie burn?0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Then you just lost me.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Do you have any links that indicate that walking at a 13:30 mile pace is insufficiently intense to qualify as steady-state cardio?DeguelloTex wrote: »
From your link: "HRM are only accurate (such as they are) under very specific exercise conditions, i.e. steady-state cardio exercise."DeguelloTex wrote: »
If I walk five miles at a pace that very marginally elevates my heart rate and five miles at a pace that greatly elevates it, I burn the same number of calories? I can see how the answer can be the same depending on the operative definitions of work and energy, but if calorie burn is related to heart rate, that certainly seems like a counterintuitive result.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It makes a difference in terms of calories/minute, sure, but not really in calories/distance.
When you get up to very high speed, the biomechanics change and the burn rate goes up, but very very few people are walking like that, it's a pretty unnatural gait. At that point you're better off doing a slow jog, anyway.
Heart rate doesn't correlate with calorie burn, except under very specific conditions (and even then, not all that well). This is why people get into so much trouble with HRMs.
Lots of posts detailing this on MFP - I think there's even a sticky by poster Azdak at this point, which is a useful read.
EDIT: Some good reading in here... http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak
What is more steady-state cardio exercise than walking at a specific speed for a particular distance?
Intensity isn't high enough. Running at a moderate pace for at least 30 minutes would be an example of something where it works reasonably well - but even then only if the calculation is tailored to the runners fitness level.
It *is* steady state cardio.
What it isn't, is intense enough to fit the part of the exertion curve where there is some limited correlation between heart rate and calorie burn.
The link you provided says HRMs are accurate (within the meaning of what "accurate" means in this context) for steady-state cardio exercise. You say walking is steady-state cardio exercise. But, for some reason, heart rate and, by extension, HRMs aren't valuable in this context because heart rate doesn't correlate with calorie burn in this context, which is steady-state cardio exercise.
At best, the link you provided includes some particularly poor and, frankly, misleading wording if what you're saying now is accurate.
Well, I can't help that.
Ultimately you're going to have to decide for yourself what to do. If you have studies showing HRMs give accurate burns for walking, well, do what you gotta do! I seem to recall you started a thread trying to figure out why your weight loss results weren't what they "should" be, so perhaps that's an indication it's time to rethink some assumptions.
:drinker:
0 -
I don't know whether they are or aren't. That's part of why I don't bother with one and part of why I don't explicitly eat back exercise calories.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Then you just lost me.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Do you have any links that indicate that walking at a 13:30 mile pace is insufficiently intense to qualify as steady-state cardio?DeguelloTex wrote: »
From your link: "HRM are only accurate (such as they are) under very specific exercise conditions, i.e. steady-state cardio exercise."DeguelloTex wrote: »
If I walk five miles at a pace that very marginally elevates my heart rate and five miles at a pace that greatly elevates it, I burn the same number of calories? I can see how the answer can be the same depending on the operative definitions of work and energy, but if calorie burn is related to heart rate, that certainly seems like a counterintuitive result.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It makes a difference in terms of calories/minute, sure, but not really in calories/distance.
When you get up to very high speed, the biomechanics change and the burn rate goes up, but very very few people are walking like that, it's a pretty unnatural gait. At that point you're better off doing a slow jog, anyway.
Heart rate doesn't correlate with calorie burn, except under very specific conditions (and even then, not all that well). This is why people get into so much trouble with HRMs.
Lots of posts detailing this on MFP - I think there's even a sticky by poster Azdak at this point, which is a useful read.
EDIT: Some good reading in here... http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak
What is more steady-state cardio exercise than walking at a specific speed for a particular distance?
Intensity isn't high enough. Running at a moderate pace for at least 30 minutes would be an example of something where it works reasonably well - but even then only if the calculation is tailored to the runners fitness level.
It *is* steady state cardio.
What it isn't, is intense enough to fit the part of the exertion curve where there is some limited correlation between heart rate and calorie burn.
The link you provided says HRMs are accurate (within the meaning of what "accurate" means in this context) for steady-state cardio exercise. You say walking is steady-state cardio exercise. But, for some reason, heart rate and, by extension, HRMs aren't valuable in this context because heart rate doesn't correlate with calorie burn in this context, which is steady-state cardio exercise.
At best, the link you provided includes some particularly poor and, frankly, misleading wording if what you're saying now is accurate.
Well, I can't help that.
Let's turn this around - if you believe HRMs *are* an accurate way of getting walking calorie burns, can you share the link to studies showing that to be the case?
That said, again, when I walk three miles at the mall while my daughters are shopping it's a completely different feeling than when I walk three miles at 13:30 per mile. Now, maybe that feeling is just inaccurate and misleading me and I'm really burning just as many calories with an almost completely non-exertional stroll through Old Navy and Forever 21 as I am when my heart rate is much higher, when I'm breathing heavier, and I'm sweating like the overweight doughball I still am. (Though, admittedly, a much smaller doughball than a year ago.)
Ultimately, it won't really matter because my TDEE is what it is, however I feel about calorie burn, but the amount of effort it takes to stroll three miles versus very quickly walk three miles seems very different, even accounting for the difference in time. Maybe it really isn't any different. I walk a set distance, not a set time so whether there's a difference or not wouldn't affect my bottom line. It's just an interesting topic.
0 -
Given that I don't include my exercise in that calculation and don't eat back any exercise calories, my exercise calories are irrelevant to that calculation and that discussion.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Then you just lost me.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Do you have any links that indicate that walking at a 13:30 mile pace is insufficiently intense to qualify as steady-state cardio?DeguelloTex wrote: »
From your link: "HRM are only accurate (such as they are) under very specific exercise conditions, i.e. steady-state cardio exercise."DeguelloTex wrote: »
If I walk five miles at a pace that very marginally elevates my heart rate and five miles at a pace that greatly elevates it, I burn the same number of calories? I can see how the answer can be the same depending on the operative definitions of work and energy, but if calorie burn is related to heart rate, that certainly seems like a counterintuitive result.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It makes a difference in terms of calories/minute, sure, but not really in calories/distance.
When you get up to very high speed, the biomechanics change and the burn rate goes up, but very very few people are walking like that, it's a pretty unnatural gait. At that point you're better off doing a slow jog, anyway.
Heart rate doesn't correlate with calorie burn, except under very specific conditions (and even then, not all that well). This is why people get into so much trouble with HRMs.
Lots of posts detailing this on MFP - I think there's even a sticky by poster Azdak at this point, which is a useful read.
EDIT: Some good reading in here... http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak
What is more steady-state cardio exercise than walking at a specific speed for a particular distance?
Intensity isn't high enough. Running at a moderate pace for at least 30 minutes would be an example of something where it works reasonably well - but even then only if the calculation is tailored to the runners fitness level.
It *is* steady state cardio.
What it isn't, is intense enough to fit the part of the exertion curve where there is some limited correlation between heart rate and calorie burn.
The link you provided says HRMs are accurate (within the meaning of what "accurate" means in this context) for steady-state cardio exercise. You say walking is steady-state cardio exercise. But, for some reason, heart rate and, by extension, HRMs aren't valuable in this context because heart rate doesn't correlate with calorie burn in this context, which is steady-state cardio exercise.
At best, the link you provided includes some particularly poor and, frankly, misleading wording if what you're saying now is accurate.
Well, I can't help that.
Ultimately you're going to have to decide for yourself what to do. If you have studies showing HRMs give accurate burns for walking, well, do what you gotta do! I seem to recall you started a thread trying to figure out why your weight loss results weren't what they "should" be, so perhaps that's an indication it's time to rethink some assumptions.
:drinker:
And, you linked that article as authoritative, so if it contains misleading wording, you kinda can help linking it.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »Ultimately, it won't really matter because my TDEE is what it is, however I feel about calorie burn, but the amount of effort it takes to stroll three miles versus very quickly walk three miles seems very different...
Not sure where the confusion is coming from. In both cases you're covering the same distance. But in one case you're moving a lot faster, and you'll be done a lot sooner. Why wouldn't they feel different?
You are exerting more power the faster you go. If you do both for the same length of time, you will go a lot further distance in the non-strolling case, and therefore burn more calories. If you do both for the same length of distance, you've moved the same weight through the same distance, and the expectation should be that you burn about the same, since you did the same amount of overall work.
Running burns 2x the calories/distance (or roughly 4x the calories/time, roughly) because it's a completely different motion that requires a much higher power output due to "levitating" the body mid-step.
0 -
Which is why I said I could understand a purely physical equivalency because the mass and distance are the same. However, from a purely physical definition of work, you could spend all day trying to deadlift 5000 pounds and accomplish zero work because you couldn't move the weight off the ground. I don't know that that correlates with burning no calories just because no work, in the physics sense, had been performed.DeguelloTex wrote: »Ultimately, it won't really matter because my TDEE is what it is, however I feel about calorie burn, but the amount of effort it takes to stroll three miles versus very quickly walk three miles seems very different...
You are exerting more power the faster you go. If you do both for the same length of time, you will go a lot further distance in the non-strolling case, and therefore burn more calories. If you do both for the same length of distance, you've moved the same weight through the same distance, and the expectation should be that you burn about the same, since you did the same amount of overall work.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »Miles walked * body weight in pounds * 0.3 => calories burned walking
There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise and doesn't draw on the internal batteries the way something like running does. But if you want to - go for it! :drinker:
Plus *so* *many* MFPers end up with such huge overestimates for walking calories that even eating back "only" 50% still ends up being more than they burned.
Interesting formula.
A lot of people hate it, because the numbers are smaller than we'd all like. But the universe is what it is...
:drinker:
From where are you getting that formula? It's lower than any I've seen.
I like this chart, but I don't know if it's accurate. It factors in speed, too.
http://nj2ny50.org/calorie-estimator-how-many-calories-do-you-burn-walking
He's always dissing walking as being nigh unto ineffective.
Mind-boggling, especially since, IIRC, a survey of successful weight maintainers cited ongoing walking as their primary form of exercise.
Yup. 76% of successful maintainers reported brisk walking.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.long
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »Miles walked * body weight in pounds * 0.3 => calories burned walking
There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise and doesn't draw on the internal batteries the way something like running does. But if you want to - go for it! :drinker:
Plus *so* *many* MFPers end up with such huge overestimates for walking calories that even eating back "only" 50% still ends up being more than they burned.
Interesting formula.
A lot of people hate it, because the numbers are smaller than we'd all like. But the universe is what it is...
:drinker:
From where are you getting that formula? It's lower than any I've seen.
I like this chart, but I don't know if it's accurate. It factors in speed, too.
http://nj2ny50.org/calorie-estimator-how-many-calories-do-you-burn-walking
He's always dissing walking as being nigh unto ineffective.
That's an outright lie.
Walking is a wonderful way to get the body moving, and I do lots of it myself - probably a lot more than the typical MFPer.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »Miles walked * body weight in pounds * 0.3 => calories burned walking
There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise and doesn't draw on the internal batteries the way something like running does. But if you want to - go for it! :drinker:
Plus *so* *many* MFPers end up with such huge overestimates for walking calories that even eating back "only" 50% still ends up being more than they burned.
Interesting formula.
A lot of people hate it, because the numbers are smaller than we'd all like. But the universe is what it is...
:drinker:
From where are you getting that formula? It's lower than any I've seen.
I like this chart, but I don't know if it's accurate. It factors in speed, too.
http://nj2ny50.org/calorie-estimator-how-many-calories-do-you-burn-walking
He's always dissing walking as being nigh unto ineffective.
That's an outright lie.
Walking is a wonderful way to get the body moving, and I do lots of it myself - probably a lot more than the typical MFPer.
Semantics.
You greatly downplay it as being nigh unto nothing on the regular in terms of calorie burns.
That's dissing it, imo.
To use your typical way of thinking, if you're of the opinion that it's not dissing, that's your prerogative.
0 -
FTR, I'm not claiming that walking will give you gangbuster calorie burns, but it doesn't do as little as you claim it does either.
It obviously works great for the long-term maintainers.
0 -
Out of curiosity, how much? Daily or weekly I think it would be of benefit to know how much you walk.mamapeach910 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »Miles walked * body weight in pounds * 0.3 => calories burned walking
There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise and doesn't draw on the internal batteries the way something like running does. But if you want to - go for it! :drinker:
Plus *so* *many* MFPers end up with such huge overestimates for walking calories that even eating back "only" 50% still ends up being more than they burned.
Interesting formula.
A lot of people hate it, because the numbers are smaller than we'd all like. But the universe is what it is...
:drinker:
From where are you getting that formula? It's lower than any I've seen.
I like this chart, but I don't know if it's accurate. It factors in speed, too.
http://nj2ny50.org/calorie-estimator-how-many-calories-do-you-burn-walking
He's always dissing walking as being nigh unto ineffective.
That's an outright lie.
Walking is a wonderful way to get the body moving, and I do lots of it myself - probably a lot more than the typical MFPer.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
Out of curiosity, how much? Daily or weekly I think it would be of benefit to know how much you walk.mamapeach910 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »Miles walked * body weight in pounds * 0.3 => calories burned walking
There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise and doesn't draw on the internal batteries the way something like running does. But if you want to - go for it! :drinker:
Plus *so* *many* MFPers end up with such huge overestimates for walking calories that even eating back "only" 50% still ends up being more than they burned.
Interesting formula.
A lot of people hate it, because the numbers are smaller than we'd all like. But the universe is what it is...
:drinker:
From where are you getting that formula? It's lower than any I've seen.
I like this chart, but I don't know if it's accurate. It factors in speed, too.
http://nj2ny50.org/calorie-estimator-how-many-calories-do-you-burn-walking
He's always dissing walking as being nigh unto ineffective.
That's an outright lie.
Walking is a wonderful way to get the body moving, and I do lots of it myself - probably a lot more than the typical MFPer.
Two to three 2-3 hour walks a week.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »Miles walked * body weight in pounds * 0.3 => calories burned walking
There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise and doesn't draw on the internal batteries the way something like running does. But if you want to - go for it! :drinker:
Plus *so* *many* MFPers end up with such huge overestimates for walking calories that even eating back "only" 50% still ends up being more than they burned.
Interesting formula.
A lot of people hate it, because the numbers are smaller than we'd all like. But the universe is what it is...
:drinker:
From where are you getting that formula? It's lower than any I've seen.
I like this chart, but I don't know if it's accurate. It factors in speed, too.
http://nj2ny50.org/calorie-estimator-how-many-calories-do-you-burn-walking
He's always dissing walking as being nigh unto ineffective.
That's an outright lie.
Walking is a wonderful way to get the body moving, and I do lots of it myself - probably a lot more than the typical MFPer.
Semantics.
No, it's a flat-out lie.
-1 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »Miles walked * body weight in pounds * 0.3 => calories burned walking
There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise and doesn't draw on the internal batteries the way something like running does. But if you want to - go for it! :drinker:
Plus *so* *many* MFPers end up with such huge overestimates for walking calories that even eating back "only" 50% still ends up being more than they burned.
Interesting formula.
A lot of people hate it, because the numbers are smaller than we'd all like. But the universe is what it is...
:drinker:
From where are you getting that formula? It's lower than any I've seen.
I like this chart, but I don't know if it's accurate. It factors in speed, too.
http://nj2ny50.org/calorie-estimator-how-many-calories-do-you-burn-walking
He's always dissing walking as being nigh unto ineffective.
That's an outright lie.
Walking is a wonderful way to get the body moving, and I do lots of it myself - probably a lot more than the typical MFPer.
Semantics.
No, it's a flat-out lie.
My opinion of what you say can't be a lie. It's simply an opinion.
0 -
OK, let me explain my confusion. On a typical day of doing not much, my Fitbit gives me a burn of around 1600. So I must eat 1200 to get any sort of decent deficit. Now, on a day that I get 10K+ steps, I start to get into a 2200 day, which means I can eat a little bit more. However, the assertion that nah, you're not doing much by getting those steps in, I wouldn't count them, or only count 25% or whatever, tells me I am wasting my time. Sure, I still want to get a daily walk for my physical and mental well-being. But if it "doesn't matter" how fast or how far I go, I could do a leisurely 30-minute stroll and call it a day instead of going out there and busting my hump for five miles. And hey, keep on eating that 1200 calories that I am constantly being told is too little.0
-
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
Out of curiosity, how much? Daily or weekly I think it would be of benefit to know how much you walk.mamapeach910 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »Miles walked * body weight in pounds * 0.3 => calories burned walking
There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise and doesn't draw on the internal batteries the way something like running does. But if you want to - go for it! :drinker:
Plus *so* *many* MFPers end up with such huge overestimates for walking calories that even eating back "only" 50% still ends up being more than they burned.
Interesting formula.
A lot of people hate it, because the numbers are smaller than we'd all like. But the universe is what it is...
:drinker:
From where are you getting that formula? It's lower than any I've seen.
I like this chart, but I don't know if it's accurate. It factors in speed, too.
http://nj2ny50.org/calorie-estimator-how-many-calories-do-you-burn-walking
He's always dissing walking as being nigh unto ineffective.
That's an outright lie.
Walking is a wonderful way to get the body moving, and I do lots of it myself - probably a lot more than the typical MFPer.
Two to three 2-3 hour walks a week.
That is a poopload more then me, but I do not know what is average on MFP.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »Miles walked * body weight in pounds * 0.3 => calories burned walking
There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise and doesn't draw on the internal batteries the way something like running does. But if you want to - go for it! :drinker:
Plus *so* *many* MFPers end up with such huge overestimates for walking calories that even eating back "only" 50% still ends up being more than they burned.
Interesting formula.
A lot of people hate it, because the numbers are smaller than we'd all like. But the universe is what it is...
:drinker:
From where are you getting that formula? It's lower than any I've seen.
I like this chart, but I don't know if it's accurate. It factors in speed, too.
http://nj2ny50.org/calorie-estimator-how-many-calories-do-you-burn-walking
He's always dissing walking as being nigh unto ineffective.
That's an outright lie.
Walking is a wonderful way to get the body moving, and I do lots of it myself - probably a lot more than the typical MFPer.
Semantics.
No, it's a flat-out lie.
My opinion of what you say can't be a lie. It's simply an opinion.
For the record, I agree with her opinion. It does come across as completely discounting walking as exercise. At least to the two of us.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »
Out of curiosity, how much? Daily or weekly I think it would be of benefit to know how much you walk.mamapeach910 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »Miles walked * body weight in pounds * 0.3 => calories burned walking
There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise and doesn't draw on the internal batteries the way something like running does. But if you want to - go for it! :drinker:
Plus *so* *many* MFPers end up with such huge overestimates for walking calories that even eating back "only" 50% still ends up being more than they burned.
Interesting formula.
A lot of people hate it, because the numbers are smaller than we'd all like. But the universe is what it is...
:drinker:
From where are you getting that formula? It's lower than any I've seen.
I like this chart, but I don't know if it's accurate. It factors in speed, too.
http://nj2ny50.org/calorie-estimator-how-many-calories-do-you-burn-walking
He's always dissing walking as being nigh unto ineffective.
That's an outright lie.
Walking is a wonderful way to get the body moving, and I do lots of it myself - probably a lot more than the typical MFPer.
Two to three 2-3 hour walks a week.
That is a poopload more then me, but I do not know what is average on MFP.
The great thing about walking is it is largely fuelled without having to draw on much glycogen, so it's especially good for those whose calorie intake is towards the lower end, or who are low-/no-carbing. Burn wise, it's roughly 4 minutes of walking for 1 minute of running, so if you have the time, you can get the total burns up to a pretty substantial level.
:drinker:
Damn, there I go again, dissing walking....
0 -
Walking is my main form of exercise. I would never dream of not logging it! I'm morbidly obese and I'm sure it takes a bit of effort to move my giant body.0
-
Yeah, I love walking. I & the dog go anywhere from 4 to 8 miles a day - broken up into 2 long walks and a bunch of medium ones ... then that quarter mile "business trip" at 0dark:thirty before I call it a night. Thank goodness for warmer weather and no more ice!0
-
However, the assertion that nah, you're not doing much by getting those steps in, I wouldn't count them, or only count 25% or whatever, tells me I am wasting my time. Sure, I still want to get a daily walk for my physical and mental well-being. But if it "doesn't matter" how fast or how far I go, I could do a leisurely 30-minute stroll and call it a day instead of going out there and busting my hump for five miles. And hey, keep on eating that 1200 calories that I am constantly being told is too little.
Do people really say this to you? I'd ignore it.
I usually say (if asked) that I don't log walks even when logging exercise, because I think the better way to handle it, for ME specifically, not anyone else, is to factor it into daily activity. I walk enough to be lightly active, which on its own changes my TDEE to a higher number even before I log exercise. But handling it through a Fitbit makes sense to me too.
How fast you go matters because it helps you get in better shape regardless of the calories burned and it takes less time. I suspect it doesn't burn more calories, at least not much, vs. walking the same distance more slowly, but what difference does it make? I don't think anyone is saying walking 1 mile in 30 mins and calling it a day burns the same calories as walking 5 miles, just that doing a 5-mile walk vs. working 5 extra miles into your day through just extra errands or other extra walking probably even out.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions