Calorie Burn

NikkiBiggestFan

I'm wondering could I really be burning 650 calories walking 3.5 MPH for 63 minutes? I use a GPS tracking app so my distance and speed are accurate. I'm wondering if the calories burned are accurate though. I weigh 218 and I'm 31, 5'7. I don't want to eat them and end up not losing weight.

queenliz99

Try it for two weeks and see if you are losing or not

DeguelloTex

I think it's too high. I'm 51, 6'9", and 218 or so and I "get" 650-700 calories for walking 4.0-4.5 mph for 64 minutes. I don't believe that for a second, either.

I'd consider treating the burn as half, maybe 3/4 of that number and seeing how it affects your progress over time.

macgurlnet

You have a few options as far as exercise calories go.

1) Eat back all of them for 2 weeks, then evaluate progress.
2) Eat back a portion (say, 50%) for 2 weeks, then evaluate progress.
3) Eat back none of them.

The third option is one I rarely recommend. You need to fuel your activity, no matter how strenuous it is or isn't!

So that leaves options 1 and 2. Many people recommend starting with eating back a portion of the calories, doing so for 2-4 weeks, then evaluating your weight loss to see if you've lost more or less than expected. From there you can make adjustments. Calorie burns are estimates, and, for many people, the estimates are too high, which means eating back all the calories will slow - or even halt! - your progress.

Just some food for thought

~Lyssa

heybales

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

Gross is what a HRM, database, treadmill would give you.
And the formula used there has been found to be more accurate than HRM.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/774337/how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is/p1

NET is what you would log to eat back.

402 gross appears more accurate.

Or 293 net to log and eat back.

What was the exact line in the database that gave that high figure?
I discovered about a year ago some double entries on most walking/running entries - but the duplicates were not complete sentences, and calorie burns with them were way off.
I thought they got corrected after about a month, but it could be back again.

Normally those database entries are the most accurate ones since exact pace/speed is used.
It's the entries with no level of intensity you gotta watch out for.

I just checked the database for walking 3.5 mph - only one entry, and for your weight - 391 calories - so right on the mark.

What site did you use for getting that figure?

ninerbuff

Sounds high. I'm the same height and just a little less in weight and male and burn less than that. I am also 20 years older though. I burn about 360 calories walking the same duration.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

NikkiBiggestFan

heybales wrote: »

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

Gross is what a HRM, database, treadmill would give you.
And the formula used there has been found to be more accurate than HRM.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/774337/how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is/p1

NET is what you would log to eat back.

402 gross appears more accurate.

Or 293 net to log and eat back.

What was the exact line in the database that gave that high figure?
I discovered about a year ago some double entries on most walking/running entries - but the duplicates were not complete sentences, and calorie burns with them were way off.
I thought they got corrected after about a month, but it could be back again.

Normally those database entries are the most accurate ones since exact pace/speed is used.
It's the entries with no level of intensity you gotta watch out for.

I just checked the database for walking 3.5 mph - only one entry, and for your weight - 391 calories - so right on the mark.

What site did you use for getting that figure?

I'm using a app called mapmyfitness

NikkiBiggestFan

macgurlnet wrote: »

You have a few options as far as exercise calories go.

1) Eat back all of them for 2 weeks, then evaluate progress.
2) Eat back a portion (say, 50%) for 2 weeks, then evaluate progress.
3) Eat back none of them.

The third option is one I rarely recommend. You need to fuel your activity, no matter how strenuous it is or isn't!

So that leaves options 1 and 2. Many people recommend starting with eating back a portion of the calories, doing so for 2-4 weeks, then evaluating your weight loss to see if you've lost more or less than expected. From there you can make adjustments. Calorie burns are estimates, and, for many people, the estimates are too high, which means eating back all the calories will slow - or even halt! - your progress.

Just some food for thought

~Lyssa

Thank you so much for the information

NikkiBiggestFan

Thanks everyone. I figured the estimates were way to high.

heybales

NikkiBiggestFan wrote: »

heybales wrote: »

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

Gross is what a HRM, database, treadmill would give you.
And the formula used there has been found to be more accurate than HRM.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/774337/how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is/p1

NET is what you would log to eat back.

402 gross appears more accurate.

Or 293 net to log and eat back.

What was the exact line in the database that gave that high figure?
I discovered about a year ago some double entries on most walking/running entries - but the duplicates were not complete sentences, and calorie burns with them were way off.
I thought they got corrected after about a month, but it could be back again.

Normally those database entries are the most accurate ones since exact pace/speed is used.
It's the entries with no level of intensity you gotta watch out for.

I just checked the database for walking 3.5 mph - only one entry, and for your weight - 391 calories - so right on the mark.

What site did you use for getting that figure?

I'm using a app called mapmyfitness

Does MMF include stats of elevation gain and loss or show average incline or grade %?
I thought they did, because they can get geological data on the elevation. Many sites do this to add to the accuracy.

Because these other estimates are walking flat - once you start hauling weight up an incline - energy expended goes up quickly.

Even that site linked above, if the average grade was 4.7%, then that is 650 calories - and that is correct.

So might look for that too.

Liftng4Lis

Try eating back a portion (50-75%). This makes room for overestimations in burns and inaccuracies in logging.