Did I really burned 400 cal by walking 1hr?

Options
135

Replies

  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Timshel_
    Timshel_ Posts: 22,834 Member
    Options
    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:

    About the same here as well.

  • Kimegatron
    Kimegatron Posts: 772 Member
    edited September 2015
    Options
    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 cals
  • Kimegatron
    Kimegatron Posts: 772 Member
    Options
    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 weight
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    The inflated estimates here show why so many have issues when eating back calories ... even just half.
  • Werk2Eat
    Werk2Eat Posts: 114 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Kimegatron
    Kimegatron Posts: 772 Member
    Options
    Hm, well, I walk pretty fast, so...
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    Liftng4Lis wrote: »
    Log it, eat back half, BAM! You're safe!

    This.

    I advise not eating them all back because they're overestimated.
  • betuel75
    betuel75 Posts: 776 Member
    Options
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    The inflated estimates here show why so many have issues when eating back calories ... even just half.

    exactly!
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    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.
  • tryin2die2self
    tryin2die2self Posts: 207 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    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.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    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.
  • Kimegatron
    Kimegatron Posts: 772 Member
    Options
    IDK, I still eat back my calories and have lost pretty well
  • Redbeard333
    Redbeard333 Posts: 381 Member
    Options
    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.
  • tryin2die2self
    tryin2die2self Posts: 207 Member
    Options
    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."

  • dasmanoj7
    dasmanoj7 Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    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.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    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?
  • codename_steve
    codename_steve Posts: 255 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Kimegatron
    Kimegatron Posts: 772 Member
    Options
    "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?

Categories