What should I log for a 45 minute walk?
Replies
-
If one INTENTIONALLY goes out to walk for a time limit, then it should be counted as exercise. You don't count walking to the bathroom, kitchen, to and fro from your chair at work as exercise. That's your NEAT.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Exactly. I don't count all the times I walk to a desk or the bathroom at work, from car at parking to work or vice versa, stroll down to the coffee shop at lunch, walking through the mall during a break.
I agree with this. I don't count my household walking. But if I run 4 miles and walk the 4 miles back to my house, I'm accounting for all 8 miles! Lol
0 -
So if I run 3 days a week for 45 minutes and walk the other 4 days for 60 minutes, when configuring TDEE should I not have calculated it as exercising 6-7 days a week? I strength train on 2 of those walk days.
I'm in maintenance now, so I guess it doesn't really matter seeing as how I made it to goal, but curious.0 -
So Christine shouldn't eat back an extra 1000 calories from walking?GuitarJerry wrote: »So, what's the point of your post?
Should I eat back the approximately 700 extra calories I get from walking?
The newbies reading posts that say "walking? I wouldn't log that" or "you could log walking if you really want to; but, I don't", shouldn't log and eat back their walking calories when they are set up as sedentary with 1000cal deficits?
I don't see where he said that.
You both must walk many miles each day to burn so many calories from walking. I'm 139 pounds and I burn approximately 250 calories for 45 minutes of brisk walking (4.2-4.5 mph). Both you and Christine look pretty trim, so I wonder where those big calorie burns are coming from.
Nobody said you should not log those. You should do what you feel is right.
However, if you read my post prior to this, you will see I am set at active and I also count my cardio burns, AND I work a desk job. By your definition, I should be set at sedentary. I was at first, and I lost weight way too quickly. : )
I don't believe the MFP activity settings are a "one size fits all," and that trial and error is often necessary.
"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" Is exactly what was said.
That's right. Because walking is a slow burn exercise, it *isn't* necessary to eat them back because the body can support the effort largely through fat oxidation, and the effort level isn't high enough to trigger meaningful amounts of muscle repair.
That isn't even remotely the same thing as saying walking is "useless".Walking 5 miles takes me 90 minutes. So according to this statement, I should not log it, not count it and continue to eat 1200 calories.
You're conflating all kinds of things here. A 150 pound person walking 5 miles is burning just over 200 calories - if you *want* to eat those back, go for it, but your body doesn't *need* to eat those back. You can walk that 5 miles a day indefinitely, without eating any of it back, and without starting to strip away lean body mass.
Running the same number of calories is different because that energy has to come from parts of your body that *need* to be replenished if you're going to keep doing the activity.
I never said DO or DO NOT - I said there was no compelling reason, as there is for running or other higher-intensity exercise. The choice is yours.
There's no way anyone of of any size can burn less than 200 calories for a five mile walk. Where are you getting this?0 -
So Christine shouldn't eat back an extra 1000 calories from walking?GuitarJerry wrote: »So, what's the point of your post?
Should I eat back the approximately 700 extra calories I get from walking?
The newbies reading posts that say "walking? I wouldn't log that" or "you could log walking if you really want to; but, I don't", shouldn't log and eat back their walking calories when they are set up as sedentary with 1000cal deficits?
I don't see where he said that.
You both must walk many miles each day to burn so many calories from walking. I'm 139 pounds and I burn approximately 250 calories for 45 minutes of brisk walking (4.2-4.5 mph). Both you and Christine look pretty trim, so I wonder where those big calorie burns are coming from.
I wouldn't pay attention if someone says not to log your long walks as exercise, unless you're just strolling along and smelling the flowers (which I doubt).
However, if you read my post prior to this, you will see I am set at active and I also count my cardio burns, AND I work a desk job. By your definition, I should be set at sedentary. I was at first, and I lost weight way too quickly. : )
I don't believe the MFP activity settings are a "one size fits all," and that trial and error is often necessary.
I'm walking around 15kms (9 miles) everyday. Those steps sync to mfp which gives me my "supposed" calorie burns....
0 -
I can't find any formula or calculator anywhere online that isn't at least 33% higher than the (miles * weight * .3) formula.
From where did that formula come?0 -
higgins8283801 wrote: »So if I run 3 days a week for 45 minutes and walk the other 4 days for 60 minutes, when configuring TDEE should I not have calculated it as exercising 6-7 days a week? I strength train on 2 of those walk days.
I'm in maintenance now, so I guess it doesn't really matter seeing as how I made it to goal, but curious.
So, without exercise what were your maintenance calories? BMR, NEAT, and TEF i.e.-- (the MFP way). If you know this you can estimate the exercise cals for running and walking fairly easily(EAT). The strength training for 2 days depends on what strength training you are doing. OR if at maintenance with these exercise days what are your calories?
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »higgins8283801 wrote: »So if I run 3 days a week for 45 minutes and walk the other 4 days for 60 minutes, when configuring TDEE should I not have calculated it as exercising 6-7 days a week? I strength train on 2 of those walk days.
I'm in maintenance now, so I guess it doesn't really matter seeing as how I made it to goal, but curious.
So, without exercise what were your maintenance calories? BMR, NEAT, and TEF i.e.-- (the MFP way). If you know this you can estimate the exercise cals for running and walking fairly easily(EAT). The strength training for 2 days depends on what strength training you are doing. OR if at maintenance with these exercise days what are your calories?
I am in maintenance now.
Using mfp I would be allowed 1530 calories a day before exercise.
However I use scooby.
Scooby allots me 2280 to maintain. With a bmr of 1321. I eat roughly 2003 -2100 a day and have been maintaining for 3 months now between 119-123. I have found closer to 2003 I start to dip a little in weight but to hold steady I need about 2050 or so.
Scoobys is based on 5-6 hours a week of exercise for me being 5'2, 32 years old and weighing 122.
0 -
higgins8283801 wrote: »So if I run 3 days a week for 45 minutes and walk the other 4 days for 60 minutes, when configuring TDEE should I not have calculated it as exercising 6-7 days a week? I strength train on 2 of those walk days.
I'm in maintenance now, so I guess it doesn't really matter seeing as how I made it to goal, but curious.
I don't think anyone's saying you should or shouldn't do something.
If you are in maintenance you should eat back your TDEE, and the walking is part of the TDEE.
The issue is more about how steep a deficit is reasonable, I think.
If I'm following, the argument is that if you are exercising intensely you don't want to get too significant a deficit (no one has given actual numbers, and it's going to vary) without eating back the calories.
If you are adding to your TDEE through walking, you can probably maintain a higher deficit, although there are limits on how high you'd want it (IMO, at least), since there's less risk that you are hurting yourself by not feeding yourself calories needed for recovery or encouraging your body to consume muscle mass. (So nothing negative about walking at all.)
But in that one of the benefits of increasing your TDEE is so that you can eat at a sustainable level, that alone might be good reason to eat back the calories, even if you don't need it for these other purposes.
Ultimately, results are what matter--if someone is aiming to lose 1 lb/week and doing so, great. If not, then the calculation may be off, that's all.0 -
One issue with walking calories, that comes into play with long run or biking calories too is the difference between net and gross. The usual calculations give gross, which is overstated.
Even with a net adjustment the calculations I've found are higher than the ones Mr. Knight gives, but really why does it matter? Ultimately your results tell you what the right numbers are.0 -
higgins8283801 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »higgins8283801 wrote: »So if I run 3 days a week for 45 minutes and walk the other 4 days for 60 minutes, when configuring TDEE should I not have calculated it as exercising 6-7 days a week? I strength train on 2 of those walk days.
I'm in maintenance now, so I guess it doesn't really matter seeing as how I made it to goal, but curious.
So, without exercise what were your maintenance calories? BMR, NEAT, and TEF i.e.-- (the MFP way). If you know this you can estimate the exercise cals for running and walking fairly easily(EAT). The strength training for 2 days depends on what strength training you are doing. OR if at maintenance with these exercise days what are your calories?
I am in maintenance now.
Using mfp I would be allowed 1530 calories a day before exercise.
However I use scooby.
Scooby allots me 2280 to maintain. With a bmr of 1321. I eat roughly 2003 -2100 a day and have been maintaining for 3 months now between 119-123. I have found closer to 2003 I start to dip a little in weight but to hold steady I need about 2050 or so.
Scoobys is based on 5-6 hours a week of exercise for me being 5'2, 32 years old and weighing 122.
Hats off, tip of the cap. Well done. Very well done. 2280 is a great maintenance number.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Nice try on the calorie burn dig, but I'll just note that I only ever eat back about... oh 50 calories of what I log for my burns.
I go through periods where I can't exercise due to health reasons. My scale still moves, but not as quickly as it does when I can exercise. The losses I get during periods of exercise would correlate with a greater burn than the calculations some are stating in this thread.
Yeah, I know that you have found a way to make 1200 work for you, and I would like to accomplish that too. But in the meantime, I do eat back some of the calories I get granted for walking over 10K steps. I don't "log" anything so I am not looking for inflated numbers. I thought I was doing a good thing by making a determined effort to get to 10K each day, knowing I would have to take a purposeful walk to achieve that, thinking I was increasing my TDEE. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but what I see is, "Nope, walking burns next to nothing." I mean trust me, I will continue the walks, I know they're good for me regardless of calorie burn. I'm just second guessing my game plan now.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Nice try on the calorie burn dig, but I'll just note that I only ever eat back about... oh 50 calories of what I log for my burns.
I go through periods where I can't exercise due to health reasons. My scale still moves, but not as quickly as it does when I can exercise. The losses I get during periods of exercise would correlate with a greater burn than the calculations some are stating in this thread.
Yeah, I know that you have found a way to make 1200 work for you, and I would like to accomplish that too. But in the meantime, I do eat back some of the calories I get granted for walking over 10K steps. I don't "log" anything so I am not looking for inflated numbers. I thought I was doing a good thing by making a determined effort to get to 10K each day, knowing I would have to take a purposeful walk to achieve that, thinking I was increasing my TDEE. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but what I see is, "Nope, walking burns next to nothing." I mean trust me, I will continue the walks, I know they're good for me regardless of calorie burn. I'm just second guessing my game plan now.
Well, I'm a few years older than you too And less active. I don't get 10,000 steps.
Don't rethink your game plan if you're making progress.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Nice try on the calorie burn dig, but I'll just note that I only ever eat back about... oh 50 calories of what I log for my burns.
I go through periods where I can't exercise due to health reasons. My scale still moves, but not as quickly as it does when I can exercise. The losses I get during periods of exercise would correlate with a greater burn than the calculations some are stating in this thread.
Yeah, I know that you have found a way to make 1200 work for you, and I would like to accomplish that too. But in the meantime, I do eat back some of the calories I get granted for walking over 10K steps. I don't "log" anything so I am not looking for inflated numbers. I thought I was doing a good thing by making a determined effort to get to 10K each day, knowing I would have to take a purposeful walk to achieve that, thinking I was increasing my TDEE. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but what I see is, "Nope, walking burns next to nothing." I mean trust me, I will continue the walks, I know they're good for me regardless of calorie burn. I'm just second guessing my game plan now.
Yeah me too..
My bubble has been completely burst after reading this thread
I was so proud of myself...
I guess the proof of the pudding will be on weigh day! I'm already shaking in my boots anticipating that day
0 -
Don't second guess. I have lost 27# by walking and reduced calories! Walking does burn calories!0
-
-
It's from a Runner's World article that gets quoted here all the time. And the author pulled it out of his *kitten*, from all I can tell. The sources listed for the article don't discuss anything like it at all. The formulas in the article only make sense if your BMR is way higher than anyone's is.DeguelloTex wrote: »I can't find any formula or calculator anywhere online that isn't at least 33% higher than the (miles * weight * .3) formula.
From where did that formula come?
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
It says your total burn per mile is .53 times weight and net is .30. So your BMR is implied to be .23 times your weight in pounds per 20 minutes or so (assuming walking 3mph). Mine is about half that. So it's deducing almost twice as much in BMR calories as it should.
Does anyone here have a BMR that is .23 times your weight, for 20 minutes? If you're 160 lbs., it implies a daily BMR of (160x.23x3x24)=2650. Not likely.
0 -
If one INTENTIONALLY goes out to walk for a time limit, then it should be counted as exercise. You don't count walking to the bathroom, kitchen, to and fro from your chair at work as exercise. That's your NEAT.
THIS
Normal daily activity is part of your activity level. A walk is a walk and considered exercise.
What IS the point of the post?0 -
I do not eat back calories "earned" from walking. However, if you DO and you are still losing weight at a pace you are happy with then by all means eat them up! If you aren't losing or losing too slowly then don't eat them.0
-
The same Runner's World that published the article advancing the idea that walking speed matters greatly to calorie burn. Lovely.WalkingAlong wrote: »
It's from a Runner's World article that gets quoted here all the time. And the author pulled it out of his *kitten*, from all I can tell. The sources listed for the article don't discuss anything like it at all. The formulas in the article only make sense if your BMR is way higher than anyone's is.DeguelloTex wrote: »I can't find any formula or calculator anywhere online that isn't at least 33% higher than the (miles * weight * .3) formula.
From where did that formula come?
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
It says your total burn per mile is .53 times weight and net is .30. So your BMR is implied to be .23 times your weight in pounds per 20 minutes or so (assuming walking 3mph). Mine is about half that. So it's deducing almost twice as much in BMR calories as it should.
Does anyone here have a BMR that is .23 times your weight, for 20 minutes? If you're 160 lbs., it implies a daily BMR of (160x.23x3x24)=2650. Not likely.
If I were walking for a specific goal, rather than just to get exercise and add whatever burn happened to happen, I'd probably be pulling out my hair in frustration by now. You'd think, or at least I would, that this is a sufficiently straightforward question to have a relatively definitive answer.
Just for the heck of it, I did my evening mile and a half at a 12:36 pace. There's no way, at this point, that I could keep that pace for very long.
0 -
cindyangotti wrote: »I do not eat back calories "earned" from walking. However, if you DO and you are still losing weight at a pace you are happy with then by all means eat them up! If you aren't losing or losing too slowly then don't eat them.
I eat back about 75% because I trust the numbers from Fitbit more than I trust the numbers from MFP and am losing steadily. (I eat back closer to 25% of my swimming calories for an overall of about 50% from all sources)
0 -
cindyangotti wrote: »I do not eat back calories "earned" from walking. However, if you DO and you are still losing weight at a pace you are happy with then by all means eat them up! If you aren't losing or losing too slowly then don't eat them.
I eat back about 75% because I trust the numbers from Fitbit more than I trust the numbers from MFP and am losing steadily. (I eat back closer to 25% of my swimming calories for an overall of about 50% from all sources)
Earl do you have your fitbit synced with mfp?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Don't rethink your game plan if you're making progress.
This.
I always burned more than MFP predicted (and right in line with my Fitbit) when walking only.
I also synced my Fitbit with MFP.
(I still don't think people argue that walking isn't relevant to calorie burning, though, so I'm not sure why everyone thinks walking is being dissed. Mr. Knight seems to think everyone is likely to overestimate exercise calories is my impression, but who cares--it's only an issue if you are eating them back and also losing less than expected.)
Some people like to count walking as daily activity and eat it back by having a higher base number and some like to count it as exercise and eat it back that way (the easiest thing if you have a Fitbit) and I guess some like to count it as exercise and not eat it back.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »cindyangotti wrote: »I do not eat back calories "earned" from walking. However, if you DO and you are still losing weight at a pace you are happy with then by all means eat them up! If you aren't losing or losing too slowly then don't eat them.
I eat back about 75% because I trust the numbers from Fitbit more than I trust the numbers from MFP and am losing steadily. (I eat back closer to 25% of my swimming calories for an overall of about 50% from all sources)
Earl do you have your fitbit synced with mfp?
The reason I ask is... so far this morning I've walked 4,508 steps for which mfp has given me 121 calories burned.
If I look on my fitbit device it says I've burned 822 calories which is obviously wrong! Which is why I've been believing what mfp has been giving me.
sorry about the mumbled mess^^^ This whole thing has got my head swimming....
0 -
I went to the full text of the source study for the RW article and I think I do see where they're sort of getting the BMR type estimate now. If I'm converting kilojoules to calories correctly, the study says the females do have almost a 2 calorie per minute RMR (though they're actually using 'sitting energy expenditure').DeguelloTex wrote: »
The same Runner's World that published the article advancing the idea that walking speed matters greatly to calorie burn. Lovely.WalkingAlong wrote: »
It's from a Runner's World article that gets quoted here all the time. And the author pulled it out of his *kitten*, from all I can tell. The sources listed for the article don't discuss anything like it at all. The formulas in the article only make sense if your BMR is way higher than anyone's is.DeguelloTex wrote: »I can't find any formula or calculator anywhere online that isn't at least 33% higher than the (miles * weight * .3) formula.
From where did that formula come?
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
It says your total burn per mile is .53 times weight and net is .30. So your BMR is implied to be .23 times your weight in pounds per 20 minutes or so (assuming walking 3mph). Mine is about half that. So it's deducing almost twice as much in BMR calories as it should.
Does anyone here have a BMR that is .23 times your weight, for 20 minutes? If you're 160 lbs., it implies a daily BMR of (160x.23x3x24)=2650. Not likely.
If I were walking for a specific goal, rather than just to get exercise and add whatever burn happened to happen, I'd probably be pulling out my hair in frustration by now. You'd think, or at least I would, that this is a sufficiently straightforward question to have a relatively definitive answer.
Just for the heck of it, I did my evening mile and a half at a 12:36 pace. There's no way, at this point, that I could keep that pace for very long.
They used 12 females, mean age 21, mean weight 64kg, for the female data. My RMR is nowhere near 2 calories a minute but I'm not 21 and 64kg. Somehow RW extrapolated that data to their formulas that should apply to all people.
0 -
You would certainly be able to bump to above active... assuming you don't add in your exercise.I log my walking as exercise when I actually go out and walk for a set amount of time. I do not log walking around the house (chasing children, doing chores, etc) as exercise, but my vivofit counts the steps. I've been averaging over 20k/day, but that includes my exercises. Would I be able to bump up to active?
Conceptually there are two things contesting with each other here.
An attempt to calculate TDEE which step counters perform by calculating your total amount of daily steps. And the MFP way which adds deliberate exercise to your non exercise activity.
I am more familiar with Fitbit than Garmin.
If I were to record all my exercise in Fitbit instead of MFP, the Fitbit adjustment would then send my total daily energy expenditure to MFP.
Based on a 20,000 step day I would probably be earning a "positive" adjustment to MFP's "active" setting.
0 -
You are absolutely correct. Furthermore incline and whether you are carrying anything has a role too!DeguelloTex wrote: »My understanding is that the speed at which you walk makes a significant difference. An 18:30 mile is not a 13:30 mile.
Is that not the case?
0 -
0
-
christinev297 wrote: »
So Christine shouldn't eat back an extra 1000 calories from walking?GuitarJerry wrote: »So, what's the point of your post?
Should I eat back the approximately 700 extra calories I get from walking?
The newbies reading posts that say "walking? I wouldn't log that" or "you could log walking if you really want to; but, I don't", shouldn't log and eat back their walking calories when they are set up as sedentary with 1000cal deficits?
I don't see where he said that.
You both must walk many miles each day to burn so many calories from walking. I'm 139 pounds and I burn approximately 250 calories for 45 minutes of brisk walking (4.2-4.5 mph). Both you and Christine look pretty trim, so I wonder where those big calorie burns are coming from.
I wouldn't pay attention if someone says not to log your long walks as exercise, unless you're just strolling along and smelling the flowers (which I doubt).
However, if you read my post prior to this, you will see I am set at active and I also count my cardio burns, AND I work a desk job. By your definition, I should be set at sedentary. I was at first, and I lost weight way too quickly. : )
I don't believe the MFP activity settings are a "one size fits all," and that trial and error is often necessary.
I'm walking around 15kms (9 miles) everyday. Those steps sync to mfp which gives me my "supposed" calorie burns....
Wow! 9 miles is impressive. 0 -
higgins8283801 wrote: »If one INTENTIONALLY goes out to walk for a time limit, then it should be counted as exercise. You don't count walking to the bathroom, kitchen, to and fro from your chair at work as exercise. That's your NEAT.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Exactly. I don't count all the times I walk to a desk or the bathroom at work, from car at parking to work or vice versa, stroll down to the coffee shop at lunch, walking through the mall during a break.
I agree with this. I don't count my household walking. But if I run 4 miles and walk the 4 miles back to my house, I'm accounting for all 8 miles! Lol
I count the entire time for my running, and if my heartbeat is still up to minimum (115 beats per minute, because I'm old) when I walk after my run, I count that too. If my heartbeat is not up to minimum, the walk is part of my regular activity and is not included in my exercise burns. I use a heart rate monitor to track.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions