Did I really burned 400 cal by walking 1hr?

245

Replies

  • LivingtheLeanDream
    LivingtheLeanDream Posts: 13,342 Member
    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 :smile: The faster you walk the more you burn :smiley:

    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 :wink:
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    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 :smile: The faster you walk the more you burn :smiley:

    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 :wink:

    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
    charlieandcarol Posts: 302 Member
    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
    Kalikel Posts: 9,603 Member
    edited September 2015
    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
    mbaker566 Posts: 11,233 Member
    go ahead an log it but eat about half. most apps overestimate.
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    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
    missblondi2u Posts: 851 Member
    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
    ModernRock Posts: 372 Member
    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
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    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.
  • Aani15
    Aani15 Posts: 172 Member
    Once using Runkeeper app (back in 2013), I clocked 765 calories for 100-105 minutes (10 miles) of run @ 9 km/hour (5.6 miles/hour). It was a feat never repeated, haha!
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    lakshva wrote: »
    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?

    No.

    At your weight, you're 45 calories/mile, 30 calories/km.
  • missblondi2u
    missblondi2u Posts: 851 Member
    Perhaps, but I have a desk job and sit for more than 8 hours daily during the week. I do have a 2-year-old at home, but we do a lot of reading and playing on the floor as opposed to running around.

    Also, I started exercising only about 2 months ago, which is when my weight loss seemed to accelerate. For the first month, I just ate under my calories and had about a pound/week loss as expected, which leads me to believe that my increased deficit is due to exercise and not eating as many of the calories back.
  • lakshva
    lakshva Posts: 44 Member
    Francl27 wrote: »
    ModernRock wrote: »
    [quote="

    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.

    I so agree with you.
    I installed Pacer app as suggested above and was surprised to see a burn of 290 for the day. And i didnt put that super effort i took to cover 6km. I must say that I have a desk job. And still I managed to walk around. Not sure how much correct the cal count is though.
  • Osiris275
    Osiris275 Posts: 228 Member
    I weigh 89kg, 5.5ft tall and I burn 295 calories walking in an hour. :/
  • SuggaD
    SuggaD Posts: 1,369 Member
    Sounds high. I walked 10.6 miles today in 3 hours. I used a good calc online and it said I burned 660 cals. I'm 5'6, 123
  • Binky_Muffin
    Binky_Muffin Posts: 191 Member
    I'm 5ft7" and weigh 151 lbs. I have the FitBit Surge and it records approx 350/400 calories for a 5km walk, which takes me approx 50 minutes. I am pushing a stroller.
  • betuel75
    betuel75 Posts: 776 Member
    sounds high to me too. When i do a 1hr 40minute continueous mountain bike ride where my average HR is in the 130s i burn about 840 calories so 1 hour of walking with a much lower HR would not yeild such a high burn.
  • Redbeard333
    Redbeard333 Posts: 381 Member
    It depends on pace, your weight, the terrain, etc. I might go for a very brisk, 3-4 mile walk and burn 500 calories over an hour. Invest in a tracker and you'll likely get more accurate results that can sync w/MFP
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    I myself would officially burn about 370 calories for that, though I wouldn't eat them all back. Here's why. Just sitting on my butt would "earn me" about 60-80 calories for that same period of time. So for the whole day, I wouldn't consider that I've "earned" more than an additional 250-300 for walking for an hour instead of sitting on my rump.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Redbeard333 wrote: »
    It depends on pace, your weight, the terrain, etc. I might go for a very brisk, 3-4 mile walk and burn 500 calories over an hour. Invest in a tracker and you'll likely get more accurate results that can sync w/MFP

    Unless you are very heavy and walking up a constant incline, you are not netting over 100 calories per mile walked.

Categories