Did I really burned 400 cal by walking 1hr?

lakshva

I'm 68kg and 5' 5". I went for a walk today and covered 6 km in 1hr. I don't have any tracker with me so used some websites to figure out cal burned. I'm getting between 420-450.
Can I safely log 400 cal in my workout?

siluridae

You can log that, but probably shouldn't eat all of it back.

kk_inprogress

Lots of websites, MFP and machines overestimate burns. Many people recommend eating back (or logging) half to three quarters of what they say.

Francl27

Sounds a bit too much, honestly. My HRM used to tell me that I burned 220 calories in 30 minutes but I was 77 kilos at the time (I'm 5'5" too).

earlnabby

I would log something closer to 250 calories. I am 191 lb (compared to your 150) and my tracker gives me a burn of about 280 calories at 3.5 mph (your 6 km comes out to about 3.7 mph)

moonagedaydream72

If you are walking to burn calories, I would recommend using the Pacer app. It tracks calories much more accurately than the entries in MFP and can be synced with MFP.

lakshva

Huh! I thought its too good to be real. will go with 250 cal for the day and no I don't plan to eat it back.
Pacer sounds interesting. Will set it up and see how it goes.

SezxyStef

my jawbone gives me about that for walking an hour...it's not just time tho it's the pace you are going as well.

yarwell

Tracks on my phone says 142 cals for 2.9 km at 6.26 km/h. 83 kg.

minties82

My fitbit charge HR gives me 300 for a very brisk 40 minute walk over hilly terrain, it seems pretty accurate in the time I have had it (I'm 75kg).

earlnabby

SezxyStef wrote: »

my jawbone gives me about that for walking an hour...it's not just time tho it's the pace you are going as well.

It also is your weight. heavier people will burn more than lighter ones at the same pace.

Yi5hedr3

Log 1/2, and you'll be close.

Liftng4Lis

Log it, eat back half, BAM! You're safe!

brianpperkins

At roughly 150 pounds you net somewhere around 44 calories per mile based on METs and the study used for this article.

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

OldAssDude

There are several factors involved. pace, heart rate, weight, height, etc...

I wear a Garmin fenix 3 and chest strap heart rate monitor. I am 5' 9", and weigh 178 lbs. I did a 6.3 mile walk today in 1 hour 32 minutes. That is a 4.1 mph pace, and I burned 765 calories according to my Garmin.

PinkPixiexox

I'd be very weary about logging it as 450 without my tracker confirming it but then I have been known to doubt myself at times! If it were me, I would probably half that number - log it at around 225 and be a lot more comfortable with that. I wouldn't like to over-estimate and then eat more than my allowance as a result.

Orphia

Liftng4Lis wrote: »

Log it, eat back half, BAM! You're safe!

This!

Make sure you always eat back at least half of your exercise calories.

You must fuel your burns.

MFP calorie limits are already set to make you lose weight.

If you don't eat what you earn exercising, you'll be undereating and risking serious health problems and running out of steam.

Slow and sustainable wins the weight loss battle.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

markiend

pace , time taken , hills or flat , general fitness , weight... all these things add up

i walk a lot, allow myself 50 cals per mile but that will be an estimate only

remember you are burning calories while searching for the answer and you do need to fuel your body especially when you start out not knowing how it will react to new exercise , fitness and diet changes etc

charlieandcarol

I am an inch taller than you but weigh 30 odd kgs more and I burn about 4 cals a minute at that pace according to my HRM, so 240 in an hour. Fitbit gives me about the same.

LivingtheLeanDream

I burn on average 100 per mile (2.2 kms) which takes me just under 15 mins - so that actually sounds about right for your burn The faster you walk the more you burn

Francl27

6 kilometers in an hour is pretty fast though, I'm quite sure a lot of people don't walk anywhere that fast for an hour.

RunRutheeRun wrote: »

I burn on average 100 per mile (2.2 kms) which takes me just under 15 mins - so that actually sounds about right for your burn The faster you walk the more you burn

One mile is not 2.2 km.

LivingtheLeanDream

Francl27 wrote: »

6 kilometers in an hour is pretty fast though, I'm quite sure a lot of people don't walk anywhere that fast for an hour.

RunRutheeRun wrote: »

I burn on average 100 per mile (2.2 kms) which takes me just under 15 mins - so that actually sounds about right for your burn The faster you walk the more you burn

One mile is not 2.2 km.

actually you're right, its 1.6kms doh..I was thinking of 2.2lbs in 1kg I think

Francl27

RunRutheeRun wrote: »

Francl27 wrote: »

6 kilometers in an hour is pretty fast though, I'm quite sure a lot of people don't walk anywhere that fast for an hour.

RunRutheeRun wrote: »

I burn on average 100 per mile (2.2 kms) which takes me just under 15 mins - so that actually sounds about right for your burn The faster you walk the more you burn

One mile is not 2.2 km.

actually you're right, its 1.6kms doh..I was thinking of 2.2lbs in 1kg I think

Haha no worries.

I just meant that most people I know don't walk at 3.7 mph (6 kph). It's hard to tell how fast you're walking unless you're a treadmill, but I know from my experience with one that anything above 3.6 mph is really fast for me, and would be tough for me to keep for an hour (unless I have to keep up with someone faster or something).

So I'm guessing the people who say they burn 250 calories in an hour while being heavier than OP are probably not walking that fast.

The real burn obviously will depend on the terrain... walking at an incline burns more calories than walking faster, generally (that's why I do 90% of my walking on the treadmill now).

charlieandcarol

Well I guess I am only a sample size of 1 but I measure my walking distance and time so know how far I walk in an hour....

Kalikel

When I'm hungry, I eat all the exercise calories and sometimes more. When I'm not hungry, I eat none of them or less than I'm originally given. I've spent a lot of time playing with my weight, thinking long-term and seeing what works for me, though.

Starting out, try eating your exercise calories for a few weeks. See how that goes. If you lose nothing, try eating half or 75% of them and see how that goes. You're going to be at this for a while, so try the easiest way first and then do it the harder way if you need to do that. You're going to be at this for a while, so pay attention to what you're doing, how it's working and how you feel. Make some notes. You have to find what works for you and that takes some time.

Stick with it, even when it's confusing and especially when you struggle. It'll be worth it in the end!!

mbaker566

go ahead an log it but eat about half. most apps overestimate.

mccindy72

Liftng4Lis wrote: »

Log it, eat back half, BAM! You're safe!

This. You always want to eat back some, so you're fueling your exercise, and eating back half ensures a good fuel, but not overeating calories in case of overestimation of calorie burn.

missblondi2u

I use the app Map my Walk, which gave me 577 calories for 78 minutes of walking about 3 mph this morning. This is close to what MFP estimates as well. I am 34, 5'2", and weight about 180 pounds as of today.

I have followed the advice to only eat back 50-75% of the MFP exercise calories, but I have been losing weight much faster than the 1 pound/week I signed up for over the last 3 months. This leads me to believe that either I am overestimating calories consumed (unlikely I think) or I'm underestimating calories burned. So maybe the MFP estimate is more accurate for me than most people? I may start eating more of those precious exercise calories to confirm.

ModernRock

missblondi2u wrote: »

I use the app Map my Walk, which gave me 577 calories for 78 minutes of walking about 3 mph this morning. This is close to what MFP estimates as well. I am 34, 5'2", and weight about 180 pounds as of today.

I have followed the advice to only eat back 50-75% of the MFP exercise calories, but I have been losing weight much faster than the 1 pound/week I signed up for over the last 3 months. This leads me to believe that either I am overestimating calories consumed (unlikely I think) or I'm underestimating calories burned. So maybe the MFP estimate is more accurate for me than most people? I may start eating more of those precious exercise calories to confirm.

The base level of activity is another part of the equation. Perhaps your average base level of activity should be set higher. That would allow you more calories and slow down the weight loss.

Francl27

ModernRock wrote: »

missblondi2u wrote: »

I use the app Map my Walk, which gave me 577 calories for 78 minutes of walking about 3 mph this morning. This is close to what MFP estimates as well. I am 34, 5'2", and weight about 180 pounds as of today.

I have followed the advice to only eat back 50-75% of the MFP exercise calories, but I have been losing weight much faster than the 1 pound/week I signed up for over the last 3 months. This leads me to believe that either I am overestimating calories consumed (unlikely I think) or I'm underestimating calories burned. So maybe the MFP estimate is more accurate for me than most people? I may start eating more of those precious exercise calories to confirm.

The base level of activity is another part of the equation. Perhaps your average base level of activity should be set higher. That would allow you more calories and slow down the weight loss.

This.

250 calories in an hour walk isn't much compared to all the calories you would burn if you were on your feet all day, for example.