Baby wearing calorie burn?
Heartisalonelyhunter
Posts: 786 Member
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!
0
Replies
-
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.0 -
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.
0 -
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!0
-
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.
0 -
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.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.
0 -
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?
0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
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.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.
@Heartisalonelyhunter
It would make a difference to how hard it feels for different size/strength people - but calories don't have feelings!
0 -
Interesting question. Lugging a 30# child for 5 miles should count for something.0
-
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.0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
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.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.
@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'.
0 -
Don't log any extra calories and consider the extra burn a bonus
0 -
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-2010 -
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
0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
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.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.
@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 sarcasm0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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.
It can't because it didn't know my speed. When I input my speed for walking with no extra weight it gives me 329.SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
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.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.
@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[/quote
0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter 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.
It can't because it didn't know my speed. When I input my speed for walking with no extra weight it gives me 329.
It's a BS entry. It's inaccurate. It's garbage.0 -
You are misunderstanding me. This particular activity is based on a slower walking speed than you walked. It is probably based on a 3mph walk carrying a 15 pound load.
0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter 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.
It can't because it didn't know my speed. When I input my speed for walking with no extra weight it gives me 329.
It's a BS entry. It's inaccurate. It's garbage.
I agree.
OP, I would suggest you simply enter it as having walked 5 miles at your current weight, not including the 30# munchkin. The additional calorie burn isn't worth the brain damage required to figure it out. Chalk it up as a bonus in getting you to your goal weight faster.0 -
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter 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.
It can't because it didn't know my speed. When I input my speed for walking with no extra weight it gives me 329.
It's a BS entry. It's inaccurate. It's garbage.
I agree.
OP, I would suggest you simply enter it as having walked 5 miles at your current weight, not including the 30# munchkin. The additional calorie burn isn't worth the brain damage required to figure it out. Chalk it up as a bonus in getting you to your goal weight faster.
I'm at goal weight. I don't actually calorie count so it doesn't really matter to me, it just occurred to me that the effort expended walking that fast with 25% of your body weight must account for something.0 -
@HeartisalonelyhunterHeartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
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.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.
@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'.
Understood what you said but it's still wrong.
Imagine instead of a person moving 30lbs over a distance you are using an electric motor.
A motor of 1000watts power may struggle but a 3000w motor would be well within its capabilities.
But the calorie burn (energy) is still the amount used moving that 30lbs over the distance - whether that is easy or hard or a different percentage of the capabilities of the motors makes no difference to the energy used.
Does that analogy make sense?0 -
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter 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.
It can't because it didn't know my speed. When I input my speed for walking with no extra weight it gives me 329.
It's a BS entry. It's inaccurate. It's garbage.
I agree.
OP, I would suggest you simply enter it as having walked 5 miles at your current weight, not including the 30# munchkin. The additional calorie burn isn't worth the brain damage required to figure it out. Chalk it up as a bonus in getting you to your goal weight faster.
Agreed.
I eat to fuel my fitness and encourage others to do the same. But getting caught up in minutiae like this will undermine your weight loss. Focus on being fit and healthy and not on justifying an extra serving of mashed potatoes based on specious mathematics.0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
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.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.
The OP was asking how many additional calories would be burned as a result of carrying the extra weight, her total caloric expenditure would be premised on her weight plus the weight she was carrying.
Your analogy is mistaken in that calories expended are not proportional; you or I or Hulk Hogan would burn the same number of additional calories carrying a 30lb child over the same distance.
0 -
Like I said, I weigh 120lbs, do not log and am not trying to justify eating anything or lose any weight. I was simply asking a question.SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter 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.
It can't because it didn't know my speed. When I input my speed for walking with no extra weight it gives me 329.
It's a BS entry. It's inaccurate. It's garbage.
I agree.
OP, I would suggest you simply enter it as having walked 5 miles at your current weight, not including the 30# munchkin. The additional calorie burn isn't worth the brain damage required to figure it out. Chalk it up as a bonus in getting you to your goal weight faster.
Agreed.
I eat to fuel my fitness and encourage others to do the same. But getting caught up in minutiae like this will undermine your weight loss. Focus on being fit and healthy and not on justifying an extra serving of mashed potatoes based on specious mathematics.
0 -
@HeartisalonelyhunterHeartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
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.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.
@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'.
Understood what you said but it's still wrong.
Imagine instead of a person moving 30lbs over a distance you are using an electric motor.
A motor of 1000watts power may struggle but a 3000w motor would be well within its capabilities.
But the calorie burn (energy) is still the amount used moving that 30lbs over the distance - whether that is easy or hard or a different percentage of the capabilities of the motors makes no difference to the energy used.
Does that analogy make sense?
Yes it does. Thanks0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions