Did I really burned 400 cal by walking 1hr?
Replies
-
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!
0 -
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
I weigh 89kg, 5.5ft tall and I burn 295 calories walking in an hour.
0 -
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, 1230
-
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.0
-
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.0
-
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/MFP0
-
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.0
-
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.0 -
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 
About the same here as well.
0 -
For me, it depends on how many steps I take in that time. I normally have a very long stride, and I found that purposely taking fast tiny steps increased not only my steps but my calorie burn Sep 23, 10:51PM Walk 6,628(steps) 4.19 miles 57:22(time) 484 cals
Sep 8, 11:02PM Walk 6,143(steps) 4.15 miles 56:38(time) 465 cals0 -
P.S.
I am still pretty large and in charge, so not sure if my chunk makes a difference, as opposed to someone who is at or close to ideal weight0 -
The inflated estimates here show why so many have issues when eating back calories ... even just half.0
-
on my treadmill i walk 3.5mph at an uphill incline of 8 and im lucky to burn 350 in 45 min. Thats around 115 calories per 15 min. So unless your power walking up a hill for an hour, i doubt you burned 450 calories.0
-
Hm, well, I walk pretty fast, so...0
-
Liftng4Lis wrote: »Log it, eat back half, BAM! You're safe!
This.
I advise not eating them all back because they're overestimated.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »The inflated estimates here show why so many have issues when eating back calories ... even just half.
exactly!0 -
Kimegatron wrote: »Hm, well, I walk pretty fast, so...
That doesn't change the basic equations at play here. On relatively level ground, net calories come out to about an average of .3 x weight in pounds x distance in miles ... about 60 calories per mile for a 200 pound person, or 90 calories per mile for at 300 pounds.0 -
When I was in the army it was said a mile was 100 calories. Did not matter how you crossed the distance. I now look back on that as kinda quaint but the general numbers hold pretty true for just walking.
However there are a lot of other factors that have an impact on calorie burn. From hills to pace to personal weight to load carried all play some part in calorie burn and muscles used.
To many people under estimate food calories and over estimate exercise calories. The golden rule for me was don't eat more than half of my exercise calories back.0 -
tryin2die2self wrote: »When I was in the army it was said a mile was 100 calories. Did not matter how you crossed the distance. I now look back on that as kinda quaint but the general numbers hold pretty true for just walking.
However there are a lot of other factors that have an impact on calorie burn. From hills to pace to personal weight to load carried all play some part in calorie burn and muscles used.
To many people under estimate food calories and over estimate exercise calories. The golden rule for me was don't eat more than half of my exercise calories back.
1 mile is 100 calories for running... definitely not walking.0 -
tryin2die2self wrote: »When I was in the army it was said a mile was 100 calories. Did not matter how you crossed the distance. I now look back on that as kinda quaint but the general numbers hold pretty true for just walking.
However there are a lot of other factors that have an impact on calorie burn. From hills to pace to personal weight to load carried all play some part in calorie burn and muscles used.
To many people under estimate food calories and over estimate exercise calories. The golden rule for me was don't eat more than half of my exercise calories back.
1 mile is 100 calories for running... definitely not walking.
Even running, 100 calories per mile is dependent upon the person's weight.
0 -
IDK, I still eat back my calories and have lost pretty well0
-
brianpperkins wrote: »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.
Well, when I was 266 pounds walking at 3.5 mph for an hour, my estimated output is pretty darn close to 500 cals. Of course, that was 50 pounds ago, so my output is less now.0 -
Kimegatron wrote: »IDK, I still eat back my calories and have lost pretty well
That never really worked for me. As the old saying goes, "You mileage may vary."
0 -
I believe this is also calculating and adding your Base Metabolism Rate (BMW), in short this is the minimum calories you would need keep your heart pumping and support all other bodily functions. Hence the total may seem quite high.0
-
Redbeard333 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »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.
Well, when I was 266 pounds walking at 3.5 mph for an hour, my estimated output is pretty darn close to 500 cals. Of course, that was 50 pounds ago, so my output is less now.
How did you measure that?0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »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
According to this article, I burn 105 calories per mile, and I weight 135. Running is my main form of exercise, so after TONS of research, I log 100 calories per mile despite pace/heart rate because the difference is 10-20 calories per mile.0 -
"of running a mile in 9:30 versus walking the same mile in 19:00. "
Why would it take so long to walk a mile? Does it take anyone else that long to walk?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions