Calories burned walking...just so I can bury it for myself

Options
2»

Replies

  • teetertatertango
    teetertatertango Posts: 229 Member
    Options
    Walking at 3.5-4mph is fairly low intensity, so a higher proportion of the gross calories burned are from merely being alive. If you are looking for the *net* calories burned you get something like the formula mentioned above. These are the additional calories that you would not already be burning by just existing. If you use gross calories you end up overestimating--this is one of the reasons many people eat back less than 100% of their MFP exercise calories (or start asking questions about plateauing even though they have upped their exercise).
  • The_Enginerd
    The_Enginerd Posts: 3,982 Member
    Options
    It takes me 30 minutes to walk 2 miles on an incline. Based on the calculation above (weight x .3 x distance) I am only burning 103.8 calories in 30 minutes? Yikes. I always thought I was burning double that, 100 calories per mile.
    That calculation assumes no net change in elevation and no severe inclines. If you are on a treadmill on an incline, or hiking technical trails, it will not hold.
  • powered85
    powered85 Posts: 297 Member
    edited September 2016
    Options
    Try this calculator. It uses the corrected METs values for walking and also shows what you burned by doing the actual exercise (ie net calorie burn) vs gross burn.

    http://scoobysworkshop.com/calories-burned/
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 24,953 Member
    Options
    I just go with 200 cal/hour and I walk approx. 5 km/hour so that's approx. 100 cal/2.5 km, or in old money, 100 cal/1.5 miles.
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 24,953 Member
    Options
    Bodyweight in lbs x 0.3 x distance

    So for my morning walks, I am 240 right now and I walk .75 mile every morning so that's 54 calories?

    1.2 km ... yeah, 54 calories sounds about right. :)

  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 24,953 Member
    Options
    It takes me 30 minutes to walk 2 miles on an incline. Based on the calculation above (weight x .3 x distance) I am only burning 103.8 calories in 30 minutes? Yikes. I always thought I was burning double that, 100 calories per mile.

    And again, yes, 100 cal/30 min sounds about right. :)

  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,443 Member
    Options
    Guys, don't forget that walking is a very simple exercise for your body. One foot never leaves the ground, and the amount of muscles involved is fairly limited even if you walk faster. If you run you propel yourself up in the air against gravity. Both feet are off the ground at the same time and much more muscles are involved. I think the equation for running is 0.67* weight in lbs* distance.

    There are a couple of papers that show that speed does play a role, but it's extremely tiny and not necessary to take into account for everyday running or walking activities. These two equations are perfect. Of course things would look a bit different if you moved yourself up an incline (it probably levels out if you move down again, thus again: not important), or if you walk against a storm unless you walk with the storm back home again.
  • nehaad88
    nehaad88 Posts: 159 Member
    Options
    one generalisation i read was you burn the same number of calories as your weight in kilos per kilometer (a 50kg person will lose 50 cal/km). No idea about the accuracy though.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,443 Member
    Options

    I agree. It might be gross calories though.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Options
    You would be burning 80 calories net per mile or 108 gross. I find this calculator to be pretty accurate.

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
  • jarablue
    jarablue Posts: 127 Member
    Options
    For 12 miles in a day I just put down 700 calories burned. Makes it simple for me. I don't eat them back. When I do it is 4 or 500 of them. I am 205 lbs now. Walking has been a Godsend to me this past year. The physical part is one thing but the real kicker was the glue it removed from my brain in processing, emotion, energy. I think that is the most important.

    Thanks again for the help.

    :)
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    If you want something that's semi accurate you'll need to wear a HR strap and use a good app of some sort paired with it. Everyone is different, nobody is going to fit into a standard formula.

    I wouldn't trust half of the HRMs out there to come even close and we're not all that different......it's physics; mass x distance (the variability of individual metabolic rates - save those with a serious metabolic disorder - is less consequential than you'd think. we all want to be special flowers but the truth is that we're remarkably homogeneous)

  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    nehaad88 wrote: »
    one generalisation i read was you burn the same number of calories as your weight in kilos per kilometer (a 50kg person will lose 50 cal/km). No idea about the accuracy though.

    That's on the high side......50kg =110 lbs. A 110 lb person would burn about 33 cal per mile walked / 21 per km walked