Curious what others burn for walking at speeds of 3.5 to 4 + mph
uvi5
Posts: 710 Member
I don't have an activity tracker and only count with 1/2 my exercise calories (the majority of the time), but am trying to get a basic idea of the burns others get. Those with fitbits, pacers, polar... etc I am getting faster (walking just over 4 mph). Just want to compare my progress for even more inspiration 
0
Replies
-
Calories burned for me will not be the same for you...
Height, weight, age, stride, distance and effort will ALL be different I do have a fitbit charge.. but giving you a number based on a walk I did say yesterday will not help..way too many variables..0 -
Calories burned for me will not be the same for you...
Height, weight, age, stride and effort will ALL be different..
I understand that, so maybe i should ask this with my stats (thank you for pointing that out). I'm 47, 5.5" (stride 2.5 feet) 150 (that I know of since last weight in). Effort, I push through the first 1.5 miles feeling the throbbing burn, start sweating (run short burst walk most)... etc. Thank you again 0 -
-
At 3.7mph I was burning an average of 130 cals per mile.
At 4.2mph I was burning an average of 137 cals per mile.
At 5.4mph I was burning an average of 156 cals per mile.
This was at the height of my moonwalk training when I was fitter than I am now and weighed about 165lbs.
This was tracked with a Polar HRM and the Endomondo app (for my speeds, times etc).0 -
Great burn! Mfp gives 510 burn for the 90 minutes I get at 4 mph. I actually just started finishing the walks at 87 minutes and cruise my driveway for the last 3 minutes to make up the time. This is making me curious about an activity tracker again. I am digging on the speed walking more and more. It's like a marathon with myself to see if I can do it everytime. I calculated my miles by mapping the two blocks I circle at 0.336 (3 times around = 1 mile) I get around 3 times in less than 15 minutes now (just added short running spurts). This is good info, thank you.0 -
How do you propose we measure that? Most of us are using estimators to calculate calorie burns, not measuring oxygen usage. You can plug your own stats into an estimator. Comparing it to what other people are getting from estimators will not verify the accuracy.0
-
euronorris wrote: »At 3.7mph I was burning an average of 130 cals per mile.
At 4.2mph I was burning an average of 137 cals per mile.
At 5.4mph I was burning an average of 156 cals per mile.
This was at the height of my moonwalk training when I was fitter than I am now and weighed about 165lbs.
This was tracked with a Polar HRM and the Endomondo app (for my speeds, times etc).
Thank you0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »How do you propose we measure that? Most of us are using estimators to calculate calorie burns, not measuring oxygen usage. You can plug your own stats into an estimator. Comparing it to what other people are getting from estimators will not verify the accuracy.
I understand that. I asked for curiousity for more inspiration. I'm getting that. I find it interesting to know what others get for a burn, but Thank you
0 -
If I calculate using MET formulas, I'd burn ~195 calories for 30 minutes of walking at that pace (or between 1.5 and 2 miles). To be safe I'd record that in my diary as 180 calories, and then only if the rest of my day had been pretty active as well.0
-
Great burn! Mfp gives 510 burn for the 90 minutes I get at 4 mph. I actually just started finishing the walks at 87 minutes and cruise my driveway for the last 3 minutes to make up the time. This is making me curious about an activity tracker again. I am digging on the speed walking more and more. It's like a marathon with myself to see if I can do it everytime. I calculated my miles by mapping the two blocks I circle at 0.336 (3 times around = 1 mile) I get around 3 times in less than 15 minutes now (just added short running spurts). This is good info, thank you.
THis is using my jawbone activity tracker. Not sure of stride but I calibrate the jawbone after each walk so it's pretty accurate for me.
0 -
If I calculate using MET formulas, I'd burn ~195 calories for 30 minutes of walking at that pace (or between 1.5 and 2 miles). To be safe I'd record that in my diary as 180 calories, and then only if the rest of my day had been pretty active as well.
Ty, would you think Mfp is close for this. For my 90 minutes total at 4mph it gives 510 (170/2miles)?0 -
If you're enjoying the power walking and are looking for a challenge, why not sign up to a power walking event. Moonwalk is one, but I know there are others and there's bound to be one in your area 0
-
Great burn! Mfp gives 510 burn for the 90 minutes I get at 4 mph. I actually just started finishing the walks at 87 minutes and cruise my driveway for the last 3 minutes to make up the time. This is making me curious about an activity tracker again. I am digging on the speed walking more and more. It's like a marathon with myself to see if I can do it everytime. I calculated my miles by mapping the two blocks I circle at 0.336 (3 times around = 1 mile) I get around 3 times in less than 15 minutes now (just added short running spurts). This is good info, thank you.
THis is using my jawbone activity tracker. Not sure of stride but I calibrate the jawbone after each walk so it's pretty accurate for me.
Gtk, thank you. It looks like mfp may be close for this than. I get 170 burn for 2 miles @ 4mph for my age, height, stride etc... Thanks again. Getting inspired to hit it again in a couple of hours 0 -
euronorris wrote: »If you're enjoying the power walking and are looking for a challenge, why not sign up to a power walking event. Moonwalk is one, but I know there are others and there's bound to be one in your area
A neighbor who see's me out there walking asked me the other day if I was training for some walking marathon. I said I'm in competition with myself. Who knows where this will go. I feel so accomplished at the end of a six mile walk at that speed. I just started challenging to make the 6 miles just under 90 minutes. It just feels great. 0 -
euronorris wrote: »If you're enjoying the power walking and are looking for a challenge, why not sign up to a power walking event. Moonwalk is one, but I know there are others and there's bound to be one in your area
A neighbor who see's me out there walking asked me the other day if I was training for some walking marathon. I said I'm in competition with myself. Who knows where this will go. I feel so accomplished at the end of a six mile walk at that speed. I just started challenging to make the 6 miles just under 90 minutes. It just feels great.
I had to holler at her, because I did not want to slow my pace
0 -
I do a lot of walking, 158lb 46 year old male , I allow myself 50 cals per mile and I usually walk at slightly above or below 4 mph
So , an hour of exercise 200 cals , not including the 90 or so I would have burned sitting around doing nothing0 -
If I calculate using MET formulas, I'd burn ~195 calories for 30 minutes of walking at that pace (or between 1.5 and 2 miles). To be safe I'd record that in my diary as 180 calories, and then only if the rest of my day had been pretty active as well.
Ty, would you think Mfp is close for this. For my 90 minutes total at 4mph it gives 510 (170/2miles)?
I have not found MFP to be anywhere near the results I see using METs to calculate calorie burn, and even that formula isn't perfectly accurate. When I log an hour of walking (I do a 5K every Saturday) MFP gives me almost 400 calories; my formula tells me I burn more like 300 (so that's a significant difference) and I usually log 225-250.
I do stationary cycling most weekdays and that's even worse. MFP tries to give me 375 calories for 30 minutes of stationary cycling; my formula gives me more like 155, and I log 115-125. I know it sucks to hear this, but the calories MFP allots you for exercise are wildly overstated, and on top of that you're likely overestimating the intensity of your exercise. That's not a slam against you -- almost everyone does it.
0 -
If I calculate using MET formulas, I'd burn ~195 calories for 30 minutes of walking at that pace (or between 1.5 and 2 miles). To be safe I'd record that in my diary as 180 calories, and then only if the rest of my day had been pretty active as well.
Ty, would you think Mfp is close for this. For my 90 minutes total at 4mph it gives 510 (170/2miles)?
I have not found MFP to be anywhere near the results I see using METs to calculate calorie burn, and even that formula isn't perfectly accurate. When I log an hour of walking (I do a 5K every Saturday) MFP gives me almost 400 calories; my formula tells me I burn more like 300 (so that's a significant difference) and I usually log 225-250.
I do stationary cycling most weekdays and that's even worse. MFP tries to give me 375 calories for 30 minutes of stationary cycling; my formula gives me more like 155, and I log 115-125. I know it sucks to hear this, but the calories MFP allots you for exercise are wildly overstated, and on top of that you're likely overestimating the intensity of your exercise. That's not a slam against you -- almost everyone does it.
So mfp gives you almost 400 burn for 3 miles (5 km) and 300 for 3 miles w/ your formula. Also, thank you for your imput. Inspires me to push it! 0 -
I'm not worried (just interested) about the actual calorie burn. I feel and see the effort. I am just learning what I'm actually doing and loving it. I get inspired and learn more by asking. I so appreciate the responses and I'm learning more and getting pumped and inspired to go hit it again today. So far (aside from one poster) mfp gives me 170 burn for 30 min @4 mph. Thanks so much for the imput everyone. All awesomeness!0
-
Is this gross or net?euronorris wrote: »At 3.7mph I was burning an average of 130 cals per mile.
At 4.2mph I was burning an average of 137 cals per mile.
At 5.4mph I was burning an average of 156 cals per mile.
This was at the height of my moonwalk training when I was fitter than I am now and weighed about 165lbs.
This was tracked with a Polar HRM and the Endomondo app (for my speeds, times etc).
At 6'9", 231, I burn about 70 calories a mile, net.
At 4.5 mph, MFP says I burn 996 calories an hour (221.3 calories per mile). I am doubtful.
0 -
I tend to walk a ton while at my university. According to MapMyWalk for an average pace of about 3.5mph (maybe a little faster -I need to recalculate my average walk speed), I burn about 87 Calories per mile walked.0
-
If I calculate using MET formulas, I'd burn ~195 calories for 30 minutes of walking at that pace (or between 1.5 and 2 miles). To be safe I'd record that in my diary as 180 calories, and then only if the rest of my day had been pretty active as well.
Ty, would you think Mfp is close for this. For my 90 minutes total at 4mph it gives 510 (170/2miles)?
I have not found MFP to be anywhere near the results I see using METs to calculate calorie burn, and even that formula isn't perfectly accurate. When I log an hour of walking (I do a 5K every Saturday) MFP gives me almost 400 calories; my formula tells me I burn more like 300 (so that's a significant difference) and I usually log 225-250.
I do stationary cycling most weekdays and that's even worse. MFP tries to give me 375 calories for 30 minutes of stationary cycling; my formula gives me more like 155, and I log 115-125. I know it sucks to hear this, but the calories MFP allots you for exercise are wildly overstated, and on top of that you're likely overestimating the intensity of your exercise. That's not a slam against you -- almost everyone does it.
So mfp gives you almost 400 burn for 3 miles (5 km) and 300 for 3 miles w/ your formula. Also, thank you for your imput. Inspires me to push it!
Not quite, but I can see where it would be unclear. The pace (or really, the MET) I discussed would give a distance range, which is why I originally said "between 1.5 and 2 miles [in 30 minutes]." Walking in that speed range I'd cover something like 1.75 or 1.8 miles in half an hour (or between 3.5 and 3.6 miles in an hour), for which MFP would give me approximately 400 calories. For my 5K, which is 3 miles in a full hour, MFP wants to give me approximately 300. The speed difference seems negligible, but when we're talking time AND speed it adds enough distance that MFP tries to give me another 100 calories.0 -
I tend to walk a ton while at my university. According to MapMyWalk for an average pace of about 3.5mph (maybe a little faster -I need to recalculate my average walk speed), I burn about 87 Calories per mile walked.
mfp gives me (Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace) 85 calories burned/mile, so I log it 6 miles @ 510 (i don't usually eat back more than 25 to 50%), but it's great to have an idea0 -
you ask an interesting question, and yes, the burn is different for everyone. I have a problem trying to figure out what data to believe. I have a SyncBurn watch that will show heart rate, calories burned, steps, and distance. I also use MapMyRun with an App on my iPhone which will give distance via GPS, pace, split times, distance via GPS, calculated steps, calculated calorie burn, and it even draws a map of the route I walked. Last, many times I'll wear my HRM with a chest strap. That gives me HR, calories burned and time of exercise. When it comes to calories burned, the three do not agree and the values can be considerably different. I believe my HRM gives the most accurate reading for calories burned, the SyncBurn watch the least accurate and the MapMyRun App seems to be in the middle and closer to the HRM value than the SyncBurn value. Having said all this, during lunch I'll walk anywhere from 2.54 miles to 3.26 miles at a typical pace of 13:30 to 14:20 minutes per mile and burn anywhere from 433 calories to well over 500 calories depending upon the distance, and speed that day. I have the coaching feature on MapMyRun set to 14 minutes per mile and I'm usually walking much faster than my setting.0
-
If I calculate using MET formulas, I'd burn ~195 calories for 30 minutes of walking at that pace (or between 1.5 and 2 miles). To be safe I'd record that in my diary as 180 calories, and then only if the rest of my day had been pretty active as well.
Ty, would you think Mfp is close for this. For my 90 minutes total at 4mph it gives 510 (170/2miles)?
I have not found MFP to be anywhere near the results I see using METs to calculate calorie burn, and even that formula isn't perfectly accurate. When I log an hour of walking (I do a 5K every Saturday) MFP gives me almost 400 calories; my formula tells me I burn more like 300 (so that's a significant difference) and I usually log 225-250.
I do stationary cycling most weekdays and that's even worse. MFP tries to give me 375 calories for 30 minutes of stationary cycling; my formula gives me more like 155, and I log 115-125. I know it sucks to hear this, but the calories MFP allots you for exercise are wildly overstated, and on top of that you're likely overestimating the intensity of your exercise. That's not a slam against you -- almost everyone does it.
So mfp gives you almost 400 burn for 3 miles (5 km) and 300 for 3 miles w/ your formula. Also, thank you for your imput. Inspires me to push it!
Not quite, but I can see where it would be unclear. The pace (or really, the MET) I discussed would give a distance range, which is why I originally said "between 1.5 and 2 miles [in 30 minutes]." Walking in that speed range I'd cover something like 1.75 or 1.8 miles in half an hour (or between 3.5 and 3.6 miles in an hour), for which MFP would give me approximately 400 calories. For my 5K, which is 3 miles in a full hour, MFP wants to give me approximately 300. The speed difference seems negligible, but when we're talking time AND speed it adds enough distance that MFP tries to give me another 100 calories.
I'm logging mine from this in the mfp database "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace" and get 85 burnd for 15 min mile. so seems close for the 4 mph.
Here's what I get from mfp for mph walking from 2.5 to 4 mph @ 1 mile for 15 minutes.
0 -
Im_gonna_lose wrote: »you ask an interesting question, and yes, the burn is different for everyone. I have a problem trying to figure out what data to believe. I have a SyncBurn watch that will show heart rate, calories burned, steps, and distance. I also use MapMyRun with an App on my iPhone which will give distance via GPS, pace, split times, distance via GPS, calculated steps, calculated calorie burn, and it even draws a map of the route I walked. Last, many times I'll wear my HRM with a chest strap. That gives me HR, calories burned and time of exercise. When it comes to calories burned, the three do not agree and the values can be considerably different. I believe my HRM gives the most accurate reading for calories burned, the SyncBurn watch the least accurate and the MapMyRun App seems to be in the middle and closer to the HRM value than the SyncBurn value. Having said all this, during lunch I'll walk anywhere from 2.54 miles to 3.26 miles at a typical pace of 13:30 to 14:20 minutes per mile and burn anywhere from 433 calories to well over 500 calories depending upon the distance, and speed that day. I have the coaching feature on MapMyRun set to 14 minutes per mile and I'm usually walking much faster than my setting.
Thank you for this. Maybe I am burning 510 for 6, 15 minute miles. I've also, just started finishing the 6 miles in 87 minutes so I'm getting faster Thanks again 0 -
Female, 56, 5'8", 132 pounds. I burn about 80 calories a mile at a 4.0 pace according to my BodyMedia Fit.0
-
If I calculate using MET formulas, I'd burn ~195 calories for 30 minutes of walking at that pace (or between 1.5 and 2 miles). To be safe I'd record that in my diary as 180 calories, and then only if the rest of my day had been pretty active as well.
Ty, would you think Mfp is close for this. For my 90 minutes total at 4mph it gives 510 (170/2miles)?
I have not found MFP to be anywhere near the results I see using METs to calculate calorie burn, and even that formula isn't perfectly accurate. When I log an hour of walking (I do a 5K every Saturday) MFP gives me almost 400 calories; my formula tells me I burn more like 300 (so that's a significant difference) and I usually log 225-250.
I do stationary cycling most weekdays and that's even worse. MFP tries to give me 375 calories for 30 minutes of stationary cycling; my formula gives me more like 155, and I log 115-125. I know it sucks to hear this, but the calories MFP allots you for exercise are wildly overstated, and on top of that you're likely overestimating the intensity of your exercise. That's not a slam against you -- almost everyone does it.
So mfp gives you almost 400 burn for 3 miles (5 km) and 300 for 3 miles w/ your formula. Also, thank you for your imput. Inspires me to push it!
Not quite, but I can see where it would be unclear. The pace (or really, the MET) I discussed would give a distance range, which is why I originally said "between 1.5 and 2 miles [in 30 minutes]." Walking in that speed range I'd cover something like 1.75 or 1.8 miles in half an hour (or between 3.5 and 3.6 miles in an hour), for which MFP would give me approximately 400 calories. For my 5K, which is 3 miles in a full hour, MFP wants to give me approximately 300. The speed difference seems negligible, but when we're talking time AND speed it adds enough distance that MFP tries to give me another 100 calories.
I'm logging mine from this in the mfp database "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace" and get 85 burnd for 15 min mile. so seems close for the 4 mph.
Here's what I get from mfp for mph walking from 2.5 to 4 mph @ 1 mile for 15 minutes.
Yes, that does appear to be pretty close -- for me. If I entered my walking into MFP and it gave me those numbers, I would be content and not need to use MET formulas. Are you also 5'8" and 230 pounds? If not, it's not accurate for you and you'd be better off using MET formulas or cutting what MFP gives you by some percentage.
That's what others here have been trying to tell you. These estimates vary by person and calculator, so polling us for our results is fairly useless to you. MET formulas, for instance, use not only your exercise intensity but also your weight in kilograms and the time spent to determine a calorie burn, so the fact that your MFP estimates match my body is concerning, don't you think?
0 -
I think 100 cal per mile is pretty close as a sanity check, regardless of speed. On runner world calc: at 170lbs, 1 Mile / Any Speed = 129 cal. http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator0
-
This is why I never want to eat my calories back after exercising! I don't like the fact that MFP underestimates the calorie burn!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 440 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions