Something doesn't seem quite right with the calories burned calculation

jaqcan

If I walk 1 mile at 2.5 miles per hour I get 162 calories burned.
But if I walk that same mile at 3 MPH the calculator says I only burn 150 calories. WHY on earth would I walk faster then?

Azdak

When you walk at a faster speed, it takes less time to walk the mile. This holds true, more or less, for all walking speeds--i.e. the higher calorie burn at the faster speed is offset by the lesser amount of time to complete the distance. So, if you measure calories by distance (in this case for 1 mile) then calorie burn will be roughly equal, no matter what the speed.

A better way to look at it and to do it is to keep the TIME spent exercising constant. Instead of walking "1 mile", walk for 20 minutes. That way you will walk a greater distance at the faster speed and thus see more of an increase in calorie burn.

chemlabdoc

Yes it is about the time. The first mile took you 24 minutes and the second mile only 20 minutes. If you continue at 3MPH for 24 min you will have gone 1.2 miles and burned more calories.

jaqcan

Well as a family, with a little dog that can't walk farther, we've been going 1 mile in the evenings. I'll have to either walk by myself, or I'll continue to go slower if I'm not getting the calorie benefit from going faster.

SueInAz

jaqcan wrote: »

Well as a family, with a little dog that can't walk farther, we've been going 1 mile in the evenings. I'll have to either walk by myself, or I'll continue to go slower if I'm not getting the calorie benefit from going faster.

It's not that there's no benefit. Walking faster gets your heartrate up higher so you're seeing more of a cardiovascular benefit even if you're not burning more calories. So if the calorie burn is the only thing that matters then the speed you walk is nearly irrelevant. If, however, you're actually trying to get more fit and build more stamina, walking faster is better overall.

Jruzer

I do believe the calculation is correct. I looked into this when I first started losing weight and exercising.

For most people, around 3-3.5 MPH is the most efficient speed at which to walk. That means it burns the fewest calories per distance. Slower speeds than that involve more deliberate action and loss of momentum with each step, and faster speeds require more motion of the body to maintain the speed.

One thing to note: the difference between 150 and 162 is pretty minor--12 calories is well within the uncertainties of the measurements.

As others have said, the reasons to walk faster are improved cardiovascular function and more time to walk longer distances and burn more calories.

rileysowner

jaqcan wrote: »

Well as a family, with a little dog that can't walk farther, we've been going 1 mile in the evenings. I'll have to either walk by myself, or I'll continue to go slower if I'm not getting the calorie benefit from going faster.

Why not just pick up the little dog when it gets tired and walk longer?

jaqcan

The 12 calories is definitely minor, but I was leaving my kids in the dust and practically dragging my poor dog home. My heart rate was definitely up more. I guess I was just disappointed it was less and not 12 calories MORE. Ya know.
I'll try to go for a longer, faster walk in the mornings and go on the "pleasure" walk in the evenings. Whatever gets us out of the house and off the couch right?

jaqcan

rileysowner wrote: »

Why not just pick up the little dog when it gets tired and walk longer?

It's a 20lb dog. She's too big to carry. At least for now. She's a priss and we're all just starting out.

mirrim52

http://www.petsmart.ca/featured-shops/strollers/top-paw-pet-stroller-zid36-7516/cat-36-catid-100089?var_id=36-7516&_t=pfm=category

Jruzer

jaqcan wrote: »

The 12 calories is definitely minor, but I was leaving my kids in the dust and practically dragging my poor dog home. My heart rate was definitely up more. I guess I was just disappointed it was less and not 12 calories MORE. Ya know.
I'll try to go for a longer, faster walk in the mornings and go on the "pleasure" walk in the evenings. Whatever gets us out of the house and off the couch right?

Exactly right!

Now that the weather is warming up I love to go for long bike rides in the countryside, and though I'm not an avid cyclist I can happily go for 60-90 minutes and burn hundreds of calories. But my youngest is just learning to ride a bike and he loves to go for rides with me. Often when I announce I'm going out for a ride he wants to go too. So I wind up going for a ride around the neighborhood with him at 5 MPH instead of my planned excursion. Moving is better than not moving!

Mr_Knight

jaqcan wrote: »

If I walk 1 mile at 2.5 miles per hour I get 162 calories burned.
But if I walk that same mile at 3 MPH the calculator says I only burn 150 calories. WHY on earth would I walk faster then?

It's (essentially) rounding off error in the models they use behind the scenes. Neither number is "right" to within 10 calories anyway - but the good news is that 10 calories is an irrelevant difference and you can safely ignore it.

The bigger issue is that you'll have to cut either number in (roughly) half, or you'll be double-counting your BMR burn.

Bellodesiderare

jaqcan wrote: »

Well as a family, with a little dog that can't walk farther, we've been going 1 mile in the evenings. I'll have to either walk by myself, or I'll continue to go slower if I'm not getting the calorie benefit from going faster.

I have two dogs: a very hyperactive Pomeranian and a chunky dachshund. We all go to the park together and walk a 1 mile trail, then I get the doggy stroller out for my chunky girl and push her while the Pom and I run a mile Best. Solution. Ever.

farfromthetree

mirrim52 wrote: »

http://www.petsmart.ca/featured-shops/strollers/top-paw-pet-stroller-zid36-7516/cat-36-catid-100089?var_id=36-7516&_t=pfm=category

I soooooo WANT this!!! I am just afraid my husband and neighbors will think I have lost my mind