What should I log for a 45 minute walk?
Replies
-
you are burning calories! You are doing good. To calculate you burn you can take the steps from your tracker and go to a step calculator and see! Most benefit is walking a hour. And if you get a walking plan (google it) you cam burn more by alternating walking slow then fast pace which puts you I n the fat burning zone. And the length of walks changes too. So take your hubby walking with you!(if hre will go mine won't) I love my walks and get my self a bit of relaxation too. Its great for mental health too.christinev297 wrote: »
0 -
what if you're not using a Fitbit but using map my fitness to get your walking burn?0
-
Imho everyhing is just an indication unless you cross reference with your actual weight changes.
In a previous post I posted **some** MET values from the compedium of physical activities.
I suspect that most calculators use the values found in the compendium for their GROSS caloric estimates.
Grades/inclines and speed variations make it hard and tedious to pick exact values by hand and i am not so sure whether the various apps break down activities into smaller chunks behind the scenes or just use the average time and distance.
The compedium derived values would be gross burns.
Don't forget to deduct (at least) 1 MET when calculating your NET burn value (the deduction would be just about 1 MET if you're setup as sedentary in MFP, but slightly more if you're setup as other than sedentary)
So double check what Mapmy.... gives you. See if any differences possibky make sense because of terrain or speed variation, and take it from there.
I suspect that there are so many measurement errors on both sides of the CICO equation that we are just muddling through an error cloud with errors cancelling each other out and us being happy we're accurate when that happens, and "stalling" when the errors add up the wrong way--but I am a bit of a pessimist by nature!
what if you're not using a Fitbit but using map my fitness to get your walking burn?
0 -
So, well yes, the formula is NET calories meaning take your BMR and subtract this from your total._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:
While I understand it, and I understand the vast majority of people will not be doing this, I understand it. . . .now. Probably would have made sense to state the formula most of us were struggling with uses a NET calculation. So while I burn over a 100 calories on a 15 minute walk I could take my BMR divide by 96 and subtract this number from the gross of 100 plus or I could just say. . .'around a 100' calories burned for 15 minutes.0 -
'substantial gap' was someone else's terminology. It probably would help when you post a formula where the numbers are coming from; like 'hey they subtract out the BMR' so the numbers can make sense to folks._Terrapin_ 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:
I'm looking at MFP at 3MPH 103, and 4 mph 117. While I think brian p. or heybales may give an explanation as to the difference I am a little surprised at the substantial gap.
14 calories is a substantial gap...?
0 -
use this:
http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator
Even though it says runners world, it takes into account only the distance and pace so walking would obviously give you a slower pace. It calculates exactly how many calories are burned based on your gender, height, weight and distance and pace.
A lot more precise than number of steps walked or using the number MFP provides. Best option is obviously getting a HR monitor for doing cardio exercises though.0 -
Through trial and error, I'm burning (currently) about 80 calories a mile. (Gross. I just learned about the net thing, and am planning on trying it on my next walk.) I walk 5 a day. I count it, because damnit, I'm hungry at only 1200 calories. I don't usually have all of it, though---unless it's a special occasion. But I'm also pushing a 60 lb stroller and a 25lb kid, and the path isn't totally flat. The time I walked with my H and he pushed the stroller, I got no core work, no arms out of it, and felt like I could walk an additional five miles.0
-
amyrebeccah wrote: »JessNelson_ wrote: »use this:
http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator
Even though it says runners world, it takes into account only the distance and pace so walking would obviously give you a slower pace. It calculates exactly how many calories are burned based on your gender, height, weight and distance and pace.
A lot more precise than number of steps walked or using the number MFP provides. Best option is obviously getting a HR monitor for doing cardio exercises though.
That gives me way more calories than MFP, actually.
Isn't this fun? My recommendation humbly I say this: use one (equation) and keeping using it. Somehow, probably by dumb luck, I managed to dump some weight lose BF from 30% to 21% by eating a deficit and working out. I didn't get too concerned about net calories but I have a fairly high TDEE and for some people this luxury doesn't exist. So, precision is probably more important if you have a low BMR and you either workout very little or not at all. Make sense?
0 -
JessNelson_ wrote: »use this:
http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator
Even though it says runners world, it takes into account only the distance and pace so walking would obviously give you a slower pace. It calculates exactly how many calories are burned based on your gender, height, weight and distance and pace.
A lot more precise than number of steps walked or using the number MFP provides. Best option is obviously getting a HR monitor for doing cardio exercises though.
This is for running. One of the arguments is whether walking calories are the same as running (as is commonly claimed) or less (as others claim).
It matches up with what I get for running calories from MFP or Runkeeper (which is actually what I use when I count running calories). It gets off for longer runs (especially long slow runs) due to the gross vs. net problem. Walking is more distorted than running by gross vs. net since it simply burns fewer calories per minute.
I think Fitbit is actually an excellent source for walking calories and probably much better than trying to use a HRM for something like walking. Fitbit has always been extremely accurate for me.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »amyrebeccah wrote: »JessNelson_ wrote: »use this:
http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator
Even though it says runners world, it takes into account only the distance and pace so walking would obviously give you a slower pace. It calculates exactly how many calories are burned based on your gender, height, weight and distance and pace.
A lot more precise than number of steps walked or using the number MFP provides. Best option is obviously getting a HR monitor for doing cardio exercises though.
That gives me way more calories than MFP, actually.
Isn't this fun? My recommendation humbly I say this: use one (equation) and keeping using it.
Absolutely this. You drive yourself crazy if you try to figure out the real number. People should just pick a consistent method and adjust if necessary.0 -
JessNelson_ wrote: »use this: http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator
A lot more precise than number of steps walked or using the number MFP provides.
Please double check whatever calculator you use against the Compendium of Physical Activities: https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/walking
Then look for a MET to calorie calculator
(a random suggestion: http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/MetsCaloriesCalculator/MetsCaloriesCalculator.htm)
Then deduct 1/1440 of your MFP maintenance calories per minute of exercise to get your NET burn compared to your base activity level.
(or approximate your NET burn by entering -1 MET value in the MET to calorie calculator)
0 -
Just going back to the 'don't count going to the bathroom' thing (which for most I'd completely agree with!), I thought I'd share what that involves for me today so I tracked it on map my walk. 2.16 km round trip at a speed of around 11 mins per km, terrain compact sand. The decision as to whether to eat those cals will be based on how hungry I am at dinner time.
I don't recall Indiana Jones having to make those kinds of trips to the loo.0 -
bump!0
-
Most people do not even walk 5,000 steps per day let alone 10,000...unless they DELIBERATELY make it a point to walk a set time/distance every day. I live in a city and don't have a car...which means I always have to walk several blocks to the subway, walk over half a mile one way to the grocery store I like, walk 5-10 minutes one way just to go to the drugstore, or run any errands in the neighborhood, etc. And on days I don't exercise, I am still usually not quite to 5,000 steps.
So yes, I think people who walk 5, 6 or 10 miles a day either because they walk for their commute or make it a point to walk an hour or two after dinner should log it as exercise. But people like me should not.0 -
KBMoment? What would you like to bump about all this?
My current thinking on this:http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/PAV8888/view/step-eat-back-7422930 -
I just did some reading on Azdaks blog too. Funny thing. He said that for a treadmill where you could enter weight, the calculated calorie burn for walking should be fairly accurate as long as you're not holding on.
The interesting thing is that the numbers at my gym do agree with numbers I got from a heart rate calculation and shapesense and exrx.
I've never been one much for eating back exercise calories, but this is all good to know because I do plan to rely on them a bit more looking ahead towards maintenance.0 -
bump0
-
I have always logged my walks. Every little bit helps. MFP is a little high. Now I'm just logging active calories via my Garmin. I think the key is to just be consistent with whichever system you use to account for the burn and adjust per results.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
- 426 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