Baby wearing calorie burn?

Options
Heartisalonelyhunter
Heartisalonelyhunter Posts: 786 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I walk and wear my 30lb baby in a carrier a lot. Yesterday I walked 5 miles wearing him in the carrier. How much would the weight I'm carrying add to my calorie burn? Just curious really because I can't find the answer anywhere!
«13

Replies

  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    Well, this may not be 100% in this situation but it should be close.......

    Runners World suggests using .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) so carrying an extra 30 lbs for 5 miles would represent an additional 45 calories expended.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    BrianSharpe wrote: »
    Well, this may not be 100% in this situation but it should be close.......

    Runners World suggests using .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) so carrying an extra 30 lbs for 5 miles would represent an additional 45 calories expended.

    That's accurate enough and, as one can see, not a significant increase.
  • nicolemarie999
    nicolemarie999 Posts: 91 Member
    Options
    Carrying a baby aroundd certainly feels like more effort than its apparently worth, lol. Good thing those babies are cute and fun to hold close!
  • snowflake930
    snowflake930 Posts: 2,188 Member
    Options
    Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
    I walk and wear my 30lb baby in a carrier a lot. Yesterday I walked 5 miles wearing him in the carrier. How much would the weight I'm carrying add to my calorie burn? Just curious really because I can't find the answer anywhere!

    It is certainly a workout, carrying a 30# baby 5 miles.
    When we go hiking, we have a dog carrier for our 5# Maltese (she can not keep up with us). Those 5 pounds can become heavy on some of the steep, rocky trails.

  • Heartisalonelyhunter
    Heartisalonelyhunter Posts: 786 Member
    Options
    BrianSharpe wrote: »
    Well, this may not be 100% in this situation but it should be close.......

    Runners World suggests using .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) so carrying an extra 30 lbs for 5 miles would represent an additional 45 calories expended.
    But wouldn't your own body weight make a difference? 30lbs is 25% of my weight. It's the same as someone who's 200lbs carrying 50lbs (or an Olympic bar plus 5lbs) for 5 miles straight.
  • minizebu
    minizebu Posts: 2,716 Member
    Options
    Azdak wrote: »
    BrianSharpe wrote: »
    Well, this may not be 100% in this situation but it should be close.......

    Runners World suggests using .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) so carrying an extra 30 lbs for 5 miles would represent an additional 45 calories expended.

    That's accurate enough and, as one can see, not a significant increase.

    @Azdak

    I've seen similar questions posted on MFP and on other websites.

    One suggestion that I have seen is to calculate the burn rate that you would normally get walking at a given speed at your present weight. Then, recalculate the burn rate using your weight + the weight of the load you are carrying.

    For example, if she weighs 120 pounds and walks at 3mph for 5 miles and burns X calories, she should then recalculate for a weight of 150 pounds (120 + 30 lbs for baby) walking at 3mph for 5 miles, and this presumably yields a calorie burn of Z (where Z - X = Y the difference in calories burned by adding the 30 pounds).

    Is this a legitimate way to estimate the calorie cost of carrying a given load? Or, is this wrong?
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
    BrianSharpe wrote: »
    Well, this may not be 100% in this situation but it should be close.......

    Runners World suggests using .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) so carrying an extra 30 lbs for 5 miles would represent an additional 45 calories expended.
    But wouldn't your own body weight make a difference? 30lbs is 25% of my weight. It's the same as someone who's 200lbs carrying 50lbs (or an Olympic bar plus 5lbs) for 5 miles straight.

    @Heartisalonelyhunter

    It would make a difference to how hard it feels for different size/strength people - but calories don't have feelings!
  • SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage
    SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage Posts: 2,671 Member
    Options
    Interesting question. Lugging a 30# child for 5 miles should count for something.
  • Heartisalonelyhunter
    Heartisalonelyhunter Posts: 786 Member
    Options
    minizebu wrote: »
    Azdak wrote: »
    BrianSharpe wrote: »
    Well, this may not be 100% in this situation but it should be close.......

    Runners World suggests using .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) so carrying an extra 30 lbs for 5 miles would represent an additional 45 calories expended.

    That's accurate enough and, as one can see, not a significant increase.

    @Azdak

    I've seen similar questions posted on MFP and on other websites.

    One suggestion that I have seen is to calculate the burn rate that you would normally get walking at a given speed at your present weight. Then, recalculate the burn rate using your weight + the weight of the load you are carrying.

    For example, if she weighs 120 pounds and walks at 3mph for 5 miles and burns X calories, she should then recalculate for a weight of 150 pounds (120 + 30 lbs for baby) walking at 3mph for 5 miles, and this presumably yields a calorie burn of Z (where Z - X = Y the difference in calories burned by adding the 30 pounds).

    Is this a legitimate way to estimate the calorie cost of carrying a given load? Or, is this wrong?

    This is what I thought! Many women define lifting 30lb Dumbbells as 'heavy lifting' (I don't, but still). If I walked for an hour carrying 30lb weights I would expect the extra energy expended to be greater than 45 calories.
  • Heartisalonelyhunter
    Heartisalonelyhunter Posts: 786 Member
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
    BrianSharpe wrote: »
    Well, this may not be 100% in this situation but it should be close.......

    Runners World suggests using .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) so carrying an extra 30 lbs for 5 miles would represent an additional 45 calories expended.
    But wouldn't your own body weight make a difference? 30lbs is 25% of my weight. It's the same as someone who's 200lbs carrying 50lbs (or an Olympic bar plus 5lbs) for 5 miles straight.

    @Heartisalonelyhunter

    It would make a difference to how hard it feels for different size/strength people - but calories don't have feelings!

    That wasn't my question. I said nothing about 'feelings'.
  • yusaku02
    yusaku02 Posts: 3,476 Member
    Options
    Don't log any extra calories and consider the extra burn a bonus ;)
  • Heartisalonelyhunter
    Heartisalonelyhunter Posts: 786 Member
    Options
    Aha! It's actually in the database but only for a 15lb baby. It says I should burn an extra 230 calories for an hour (presumably I add that to the burn for walking 5 miles in slightly over an hour, which is a lot more than that)
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/exercise/calories-burned/walking-carrying-infant-or-15-lb-load-201
  • dbanks80
    dbanks80 Posts: 3,685 Member
    Options
    Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
    I walk and wear my 30lb baby in a carrier a lot. Yesterday I walked 5 miles wearing him in the carrier. How much would the weight I'm carrying add to my calorie burn? Just curious really because I can't find the answer anywhere!

    Maybe you should get a HRM. That would be way more accurate than guessing

  • SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage
    SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage Posts: 2,671 Member
    Options
    Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
    BrianSharpe wrote: »
    Well, this may not be 100% in this situation but it should be close.......

    Runners World suggests using .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) so carrying an extra 30 lbs for 5 miles would represent an additional 45 calories expended.
    But wouldn't your own body weight make a difference? 30lbs is 25% of my weight. It's the same as someone who's 200lbs carrying 50lbs (or an Olympic bar plus 5lbs) for 5 miles straight.

    @Heartisalonelyhunter

    It would make a difference to how hard it feels for different size/strength people - but calories don't have feelings!

    That wasn't my question. I said nothing about 'feelings'.

    Allow me to translate: that was sarcasm
  • SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage
    SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage Posts: 2,671 Member
    Options
    Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
    Aha! It's actually in the database but only for a 15lb baby. It says I should burn an extra 230 calories for an hour (presumably I add that to the burn for walking 5 miles in slightly over an hour, which is a lot more than that)
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/exercise/calories-burned/walking-carrying-infant-or-15-lb-load-201

    Seems a bit high to me.
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    edited March 2016
    Options
    I don't understand the confusion. Calculate the burn with a 30 lb higher bodyweight. It doesn't matter if the 30 lbs is fat attached to your body, a tiny human strapped to your chest, or a dog in a backpack. It's 30 pounds.
  • minizebu
    minizebu Posts: 2,716 Member
    Options
    Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
    Aha! It's actually in the database but only for a 15lb baby. It says I should burn an extra 230 calories for an hour (presumably I add that to the burn for walking 5 miles in slightly over an hour, which is a lot more than that)
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/exercise/calories-burned/walking-carrying-infant-or-15-lb-load-201

    This isn't an extra 230 calories on top of what you would already burn. This is saying that the burn rate for that much activity was 230 calories.
  • Scamd83
    Scamd83 Posts: 808 Member
    Options
    SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »
    Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
    Aha! It's actually in the database but only for a 15lb baby. It says I should burn an extra 230 calories for an hour (presumably I add that to the burn for walking 5 miles in slightly over an hour, which is a lot more than that)
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/exercise/calories-burned/walking-carrying-infant-or-15-lb-load-201

    Seems a bit high to me.

    Agree, I'd be very cautious about accepting that as gospel. Calories burnt calculations on here and elsewhere online tend to be quite a bit over.
  • minizebu
    minizebu Posts: 2,716 Member
    Options
    minizebu wrote: »
    Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
    Aha! It's actually in the database but only for a 15lb baby. It says I should burn an extra 230 calories for an hour (presumably I add that to the burn for walking 5 miles in slightly over an hour, which is a lot more than that)
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/exercise/calories-burned/walking-carrying-infant-or-15-lb-load-201

    This isn't an extra 230 calories on top of what you would already burn. This is saying that the burn rate for that much activity was 230 calories.

    Also, I presume that the walking rate for this entry was probably at a slower speed.

    You said you walked 5 miles in just over an hour. That is rather a rather speedy walk. Your total burn would be more than 230, but, again, I don't know how much.

    I'd like someone with more experience with the metabolic calculations to weigh in on how to calculate burn rates for load carrying.


  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    edited March 2016
    Options
    Scamd83 wrote: »
    SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »
    Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
    Aha! It's actually in the database but only for a 15lb baby. It says I should burn an extra 230 calories for an hour (presumably I add that to the burn for walking 5 miles in slightly over an hour, which is a lot more than that)
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/exercise/calories-burned/walking-carrying-infant-or-15-lb-load-201

    Seems a bit high to me.

    Agree, I'd be very cautious about accepting that as gospel. Calories burnt calculations on here and elsewhere online tend to be quite a bit over.

    It's very high.

    I just used the MFP calculator for a 5 MPH walk for 60 minutes. According to it, that burns 538 calories (I'm 148 lbs btw.) 60 minutes carrying a 15 lb infant or load was 235 calories. Would it make sense for 15 lbs of weight (around 10% of my bodyweight) to increase my calorie burn by 44%, which is what is suggested by adding the calories together for both activities? No, of course not.

Categories