How do I figure out how many calories burned when walking
Options
Replies
-
Just download a free pedometer for your phone. I use one called Pacer. It syncs automatically to MPF. and did I mention free? When I started, my goal was 10K steps a day tracked on that app (Pacer)... that was 68lbs ago. So its a good start. Welcome and good luck!!0
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »TheReloader wrote: »100 cals per mile is a generally accepted rule of thumb.
Generally accepted where? As my point immediately above, the metabolic equivalents are quite significantly different for the same pace.MeanderingMammal wrote: »AllanMisner wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »TheReloader wrote: »Generally speaking, you can do about 100 calories per mile.
That would be unlikely, unless one is significantly overweight.
Personally I factor about 100 cals per mile for running, and about 50 per mile for walking.
You’re moving the same mass a given distance, why would you think it would be significantly more energy to do it quickly or slowly? The only difference is the amount of time and the muscular energy system you’re tapping.
Walking at 5mph has a MET of 5.0, running at 5mph has a MET of 8.0, going to 6mph has a MET of 9.8
Calories can be determined by multiplying the MET x weight in Kgs x time in hours.
So walking has a significantly lower MET to that of running at the same speed, leading to a significantly lower calorie expenditure.
Based on a 190lb human being, (Source: cornell university mets to calories calculator) (MET data from applied Research, NCI)
General data:
Walking is 3.8 METS
Running is 7.50 METS
MPH is not indicated. For the sake of simplicity, Running is likely twice as fast as walking.
Therefore, we compare 1 hour of walking against 30 minutes of running, since we are discussing distance, not time.
Walking 1 hour burns 328 calories
Running 30 minutes burns 324 calories
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
0 -
BramageOMG wrote: »Just download a free pedometer for your phone. I use one called Pacer. It syncs automatically to MPF. and did I mention free? When I started, my goal was 10K steps a day tracked on that app (Pacer)... that was 68lbs ago. So its a good start. Welcome and good luck!!
thanks! I just downloaded this onto my android phone.
0 -
TheReloader wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »TheReloader wrote: »100 cals per mile is a generally accepted rule of thumb.
Generally accepted where? As my point immediately above, the metabolic equivalents are quite significantly different for the same pace.MeanderingMammal wrote: »AllanMisner wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »TheReloader wrote: »Generally speaking, you can do about 100 calories per mile.
That would be unlikely, unless one is significantly overweight.
Personally I factor about 100 cals per mile for running, and about 50 per mile for walking.
You’re moving the same mass a given distance, why would you think it would be significantly more energy to do it quickly or slowly? The only difference is the amount of time and the muscular energy system you’re tapping.
Walking at 5mph has a MET of 5.0, running at 5mph has a MET of 8.0, going to 6mph has a MET of 9.8
Calories can be determined by multiplying the MET x weight in Kgs x time in hours.
So walking has a significantly lower MET to that of running at the same speed, leading to a significantly lower calorie expenditure.
Based on a 190lb human being, (Source: cornell university mets to calories calculator) (MET data from applied Research, NCI)
General data:
Walking is 3.8 METS
Running is 7.50 METS
MPH is not indicated. For the sake of simplicity, Running is likely twice as fast as walking.
Therefore, we compare 1 hour of walking against 30 minutes of running, since we are discussing distance, not time.
Walking 1 hour burns 328 calories
Running 30 minutes burns 324 calories
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
So you go with assumptions, rather than fact.
A 100kg person walking for one hour nets 280 calories ... that same 100kg person running for one hour nets 650 calories ... both using MET tables (can't forget to subtract out RMR to calculate net calories as you did in your examples).
Using the study reported in Runner's World, a person will net over twice as many calories per mile running than walking.
Either way you cut it, your "rule of thumb" doesn't hold up.0 -
TheReloader wrote: »
General data:
Walking is 3.8 METS
Running is 7.50 METS
MPH is not indicated. For the sake of simplicity, Running is likely twice as fast as walking.
Those MET values are for around 4mph, extrapolated as neither is explicitly identified in the tables, so moderate paced walk, or very slow run, both the same pace.
Note that in my post that I was comparing like for like, so no requirement to assume any difference in pace that supports your assumption.
0 -
here's a thought don't count them and eat at maintenance for a month!!0
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »TheReloader wrote: »
General data:
Walking is 3.8 METS
Running is 7.50 METS
MPH is not indicated. For the sake of simplicity, Running is likely twice as fast as walking.
Those MET values are for around 4mph, extrapolated as neither is explicitly identified in the tables,, so moderate paced walk, or very slow run,, both both the same pace.
Note that in my post that I was comparing like for like, so no requirement to assume any difference in pace that supports your assumption.
Haven't seen your sources. But the idea that "running at 5mph" is significantly different than "walking at 5mph" indicates a mistake in how the data was recorded (clerical error I bet,) which is obvious if you think about it for a second.
0 -
TheReloader wrote: »Haven't seen your sources.
Compendium of Physical Activities, Stanford, 1993. Updated in 2000 and 2011.
0 -
Just checking around and it appears that there is a significant difference between the 2000 and the 2011 version of the compendium. The 2000 version has a much closer alignment, although it's noticeable that there is a significant inflection point where walking suddenly burns a lot more between 4mph and 5mph.0
-
TheReloader wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »TheReloader wrote: »
General data:
Walking is 3.8 METS
Running is 7.50 METS
MPH is not indicated. For the sake of simplicity, Running is likely twice as fast as walking.
Those MET values are for around 4mph, extrapolated as neither is explicitly identified in the tables,, so moderate paced walk, or very slow run,, both both the same pace.
Note that in my post that I was comparing like for like, so no requirement to assume any difference in pace that supports your assumption.
Haven't seen your sources. But the idea that "running at 5mph" is significantly different than "walking at 5mph" indicates a mistake in how the data was recorded (clerical error I bet,) which is obvious if you think about it for a second.
No - running and walking are very different movements with different METS (and calories).0 -
HR - but you don't need a HR monitor to do that for you - you just need to know the average HR over the course of your routine - and then there's charting available that estimates based upon the HRAvg how much you are actually burning.
It's all based on HR in the end - but the monitors aren't that great in doing the calculation. You just need to know your avg HR and then see what the estimation is per that avg over the course of exercise time.0 -
My HRM gives me a way more accurate calorie count than the mfp calculations. But when I walk, my heart rate is up....
That is based on using mfp estimates for 4 months vs using HRM for 4 months. So I guess my proof would be in my results?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions