Realistic Calorie Burn

SierraFatToSkinny

I'm 5'8", 275.

When I add 120 minutes of "hiking" for my exercise it says that I've burned over 1200 calories. Is this realistic?

An hour of hiking can't actually burn over 600 calories... can it?

SymbolismNZ

At your body weight, absolutely.

If there was any incline in your hike, and you kept a decent pace (say 5KM an hour) - you'd likely be burning 10 calories a minute based on your weight.

Reference material below: http://www.livestrong.com/article/299000-the-calories-burned-per-hour-in-hiking/

melto1989

I just did 60 minutes on stationary bike at the best I could but because I'm so unfit I'd say it was moderate not vigorous and it said over 600 burned. If I chose vigourous it was 1000 . I weigh 200 and 163cm.
If it is accurate we should be happy!

Machka9

I chose the slow or low or light options for all the exercise I log. That seems to be the most accurate choice.

For example, I do "commercial intervals" on my stationary bike where I ride easy while the show is on, and then flat out when the commercial is on, and repeat. I log that as the lightest/easiest option available.

I'm trying to lose/maintain weight so there's no point over-estimating my exercise.

SierraFatToSkinny

SymbolismNZ wrote: »

At your body weight, absolutely.

If there was any incline in your hike, and you kept a decent pace (say 5KM an hour) - you'd likely be burning 10 calories a minute based on your weight.

Reference material below: http://www.livestrong.com/article/299000-the-calories-burned-per-hour-in-hiking/

I've seen those sort of calculations before, but it just doesn't FEEL like I'm burning that much. A BodyPump class is intense, yet that burns less. And 40 minutes in a cycling class can't burn as much as 60 minutes of hiking.

The trail I took gently goes up and down with an occasional staircase and a couple of scary suspension bridges. It's marked and I traveled 2 miles in and 2 miles out. I was occasionally out of breath....

SierraFatToSkinny

Machka9 wrote: »

I chose the slow or low or light options for all the exercise I log. That seems to be the most accurate choice.

For example, I do "commercial intervals" on my stationary bike where I ride easy while the show is on, and then flat out when the commercial is on, and repeat. I log that as the lightest/easiest option available.

I'm trying to lose/maintain weight so there's no point over-estimating my exercise.

I've been rounding down as well.

SymbolismNZ

SierraFatToSkinny wrote: »

SymbolismNZ wrote: »

At your body weight, absolutely.

If there was any incline in your hike, and you kept a decent pace (say 5KM an hour) - you'd likely be burning 10 calories a minute based on your weight.

Reference material below: http://www.livestrong.com/article/299000-the-calories-burned-per-hour-in-hiking/

I've seen those sort of calculations before, but it just doesn't FEEL like I'm burning that much. A BodyPump class is intense, yet that burns less. And 40 minutes in a cycling class can't burn as much as 60 minutes of hiking.

The trail I took gently goes up and down with an occasional staircase and a couple of scary suspension bridges. It's marked and I traveled 2 miles in and 2 miles out. I was occasionally out of breath....

Keep in mind that the normal process of breathing burns calories (and deeper/quicker breaths burn more), combined with your heart being a muscle that as it pumps faster, burns more calories, combined with other muscles in your body burning calories, hiking/walking burns more than you expect solely due to the weight you're carrying at the moment. In many examples like stationary bikes, cross trainers, and probably some of the exercises you're doing in body pump aren't asking you to shift your own body weight (which acts as a natural resistance force in walking/running, etc)

Rounding down is a sensible move; because like anything estimated, it's not going to be 100% right, but to put in perspective, if you took an average who was 170lbs, and told them to hike two hours with 100lb weight vest on, do you think they would be able to finish?

MeanderingMammal

SierraFatToSkinny wrote: »

An hour of hiking can't actually burn over 600 calories... can it?

Unlikely. At your weight you'll burn about 90 calories per mile walked straight and level. You've then got to account for elevation gains, but what you describe didn't sound like it gains significant height.

SymbolismNZ

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

SierraFatToSkinny wrote: »

An hour of hiking can't actually burn over 600 calories... can it?

Unlikely. At your weight you'll burn about 90 calories per mile walked straight and level. You've then got to account for elevation gains, but what you describe didn't sound like it gains significant height.

Which source are you using for this?

There are very few physical exercises (especially when you're carrying your entire body weight) for someone who weighs 270lbs or more that would only burn 4.5 calories a minute. (Assuming a 3mph pace, 20 minutes per mile) That's more like what a 140-160lb person would burn while walking.

heybales

SierraFatToSkinny wrote: »

SymbolismNZ wrote: »

At your body weight, absolutely.

If there was any incline in your hike, and you kept a decent pace (say 5KM an hour) - you'd likely be burning 10 calories a minute based on your weight.

Reference material below: http://www.livestrong.com/article/299000-the-calories-burned-per-hour-in-hiking/

I've seen those sort of calculations before, but it just doesn't FEEL like I'm burning that much. A BodyPump class is intense, yet that burns less. And 40 minutes in a cycling class can't burn as much as 60 minutes of hiking.

The trail I took gently goes up and down with an occasional staircase and a couple of scary suspension bridges. It's marked and I traveled 2 miles in and 2 miles out. I was occasionally out of breath....

You can do a body pump class for 2hrs?

And how do you know it burns less?

Also - any database entries without an actual description of the level of effort is going to be iffy - you have no way to know if you were at the same speed as the folks in the study that resulted in the entry.

Better just to go by walking - 2 mph - which is obviously a big undercut since that formula is for level walking, and what you did was not.

But ya - moving 275 lbs up and down inclines can indeed burn a good amount. Perhaps not that much though.

And if you carried a backpack - the database entry will be even lower yet since it uses just bodyweight. And most don't hike naked.

For other view - use the Gross option which is what the database is reporting, and any HRM would, and machine, ect.

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

882 calories with 3% avg incline, which takes into account steeper, but some downhills also.

TavistockToad

SierraFatToSkinny wrote: »

SymbolismNZ wrote: »

At your body weight, absolutely.

If there was any incline in your hike, and you kept a decent pace (say 5KM an hour) - you'd likely be burning 10 calories a minute based on your weight.

Reference material below: http://www.livestrong.com/article/299000-the-calories-burned-per-hour-in-hiking/

I've seen those sort of calculations before, but it just doesn't FEEL like I'm burning that much. A BodyPump class is intense, yet that burns less. And 40 minutes in a cycling class can't burn as much as 60 minutes of hiking.

The trail I took gently goes up and down with an occasional staircase and a couple of scary suspension bridges. It's marked and I traveled 2 miles in and 2 miles out. I was occasionally out of breath....

I would log it just as walking not hiking if you were only occasionally out of breath

flatlndr

Were you actually hiking ... uneven footpaths, with upward and downward grades, carrying a pack with at least 10 lbs of stuff, and at a brisk pace ... or were you walking on a paved path or on a treadmill?

When I was 279 and getting started, my calculations came in at about 135 calories per mile. Did you maintain a 4 mph continuous pace during those 2 hours, i.e., did you cover 8 miles? If not, I'd say your burn was considerably lower than 1200.

BTW, my walking burn was down closer to 100 cals/mile when I hit 175.

Edited: I missed that you said you hiked 2 miles in, 2 miles out, with some up and down. So, you maintained a 2 mph pace. To me, the numbers feel a bit high, from my own experience. If you have a smartphone, try MapMyWalk or MapMyHike app (basically the same app, with a slightly different front face and default workout), put in your weight, run the app, and do the hike again. It would be interesting to see what the app says your burn is. (Note ... make sure your phone is fully charged before you set off, and watch how much you use the phone while hiking, or you might drain the battery before you are done.)

Edited again: Keep up with the hiking. It will get better, you'll get faster, stronger, and less winded!

jenilla1

I agree with others. Your calorie burn will be much higher when you carry more mass. And as you lose weight, you won't burn as many calories AND you will require fewer calories in order to maintain that new, smaller mass.

But I honestly don't know if the numbers you got for your burn are accurate. I burn about 1200 calories running a half-marathon. But I'm on the smaller side. My sister, who is much taller than me and weighs a lot more than me, burns close to 2000 doing the same distance.

jenilla1

TavistockToad wrote: »

SierraFatToSkinny wrote: »

SymbolismNZ wrote: »

At your body weight, absolutely.

If there was any incline in your hike, and you kept a decent pace (say 5KM an hour) - you'd likely be burning 10 calories a minute based on your weight.

Reference material below: http://www.livestrong.com/article/299000-the-calories-burned-per-hour-in-hiking/

I've seen those sort of calculations before, but it just doesn't FEEL like I'm burning that much. A BodyPump class is intense, yet that burns less. And 40 minutes in a cycling class can't burn as much as 60 minutes of hiking.

The trail I took gently goes up and down with an occasional staircase and a couple of scary suspension bridges. It's marked and I traveled 2 miles in and 2 miles out. I was occasionally out of breath....

I would log it just as walking not hiking if you were only occasionally out of breath

True. The hiking option will give you a ton more calories than a moderate-fast paced walk. I think it way overestimates for me, personally. Even though I AM hiking, I use the brisk walk option instead. That seems to be close enough to the truth. It's worked for me for several years now. (I'm on maintenance.)

Machka9

TavistockToad wrote: »

SierraFatToSkinny wrote: »

SymbolismNZ wrote: »

At your body weight, absolutely.

If there was any incline in your hike, and you kept a decent pace (say 5KM an hour) - you'd likely be burning 10 calories a minute based on your weight.

Reference material below: http://www.livestrong.com/article/299000-the-calories-burned-per-hour-in-hiking/

I've seen those sort of calculations before, but it just doesn't FEEL like I'm burning that much. A BodyPump class is intense, yet that burns less. And 40 minutes in a cycling class can't burn as much as 60 minutes of hiking.

The trail I took gently goes up and down with an occasional staircase and a couple of scary suspension bridges. It's marked and I traveled 2 miles in and 2 miles out. I was occasionally out of breath....

I would log it just as walking not hiking if you were only occasionally out of breath

Yep, me too.

My normal walks are up and down lots of hills and they're just walks. A "hike" on a fairly decent path, even with hills, is just a walk.

I think the only time I've logged a "hike" is when there has been a lot of climbing ... the type of path where you're scrambling up, using your arms and hands to grab trees and things to get up, or where they've installed stairs to negotiate the steepness, and where you're breathing heavily for long periods of time.

unsuspectingfish

This is precisely why I got myself a Fitbit. It's probably not 100% accurate, but it's a hell of a lot more accurate than guessing. It showed me that MFP was probably overestimating my exercise calories burned, but that I was also grossly underestimating my daily activity level.

trigden1991

A rule of thumb that I use for walking is:

0.3 x bodyweight (lbs) x miles = calories burned

MeanderingMammal

SymbolismNZ wrote: »

Which source are you using for this?

There are very few physical exercises (especially when you're carrying your entire body weight) for someone who weighs 270lbs or more that would only burn 4.5 calories a minute. (Assuming a 3mph pace, 20 minutes per mile) That's more like what a 140-160lb person would burn while walking.

Calories per mile walking are about 0.3*bodyweight in lbs. The elevation is the key point here and I'm interpreting the description as mild undulations

ritzvin

Depends. How was the trail condition? Was it 2 hours continuously, or were there breaks? Was it a brisk pace?

SierraFatToSkinny

The trail varies. The farther along it you get, the more strenuous. It starts off easy and then probably ends up mostly moderate. There's some rock scrambling near the end, but that's 3+ miles in and I just headed in a couple miles. There are... two very tall staircases, probably more than 20 steps, but less than 30. And a half dozen scattered staircases of about 5 or 6 steps up and down

I didn't walk very fast. Last year I sprained my ankle while hiking because of fallen leaves. Not being able to see where my steps land or stepping on wet leaves on a rock and then sliding down off the side of the trail into the river didn't sound like fun.

Machka9

SierraFatToSkinny wrote: »

The trail varies. The farther along it you get, the more strenuous. It starts off easy and then probably ends up mostly moderate. There's some rock scrambling near the end, but that's 3+ miles in and I just headed in a couple miles. There are... two very tall staircases, probably more than 20 steps, but less than 30. And a half dozen scattered staircases of about 5 or 6 steps up and down

I didn't walk very fast. Last year I sprained my ankle while hiking because of fallen leaves. Not being able to see where my steps land or stepping on wet leaves on a rock and then sliding down off the side of the trail into the river didn't sound like fun.

I'd just call that walking.

When I think of lots of steps, I think of things like the Giant Stairway in the Blue Mountains ... they say it has 800 steps. I did that once back in 2004 when I visited the area.
http://infobluemountains.net.au/history/giant.htm

Even half that would be quite a lot.

BTW - as a comparison, one single flight of stairs in an office building will have 20 steps. Check it out!

SierraFatToSkinny

Machka9 wrote: »

I'd just call that walking.

When I think of lots of steps, I think of things like the Giant Stairway in the Blue Mountains ... they say it has 800 steps. I did that once back in 2004 when I visited the area.
http://infobluemountains.net.au/history/giant.htm

Even half that would be quite a lot.

BTW - as a comparison, one single flight of stairs in an office building will have 20 steps. Check it out!

I believe the average amount of steps in a flight of stairs is 12 (in a house). The ones on the trail would be twice that. They also have weird heights....

This trail is comparable to a lot of the AT. (In Virginia.) For example, you wouldn't be able to ride your bike more than a quarter mile into it. Little too twisty, little too many steps, little too rocky, little too narrow in places.)

I'd rather not have to defend calling hiking... hiking.

That being said... I have a feeling I'm not burning 622 calories an hour.

I think I'll assign 400 an hour.

Asher_Ethan

I log only half of my time when I workout and that's pretty actuate for me.

Machka9

SierraFatToSkinny wrote: »

Machka9 wrote: »

I'd just call that walking.

When I think of lots of steps, I think of things like the Giant Stairway in the Blue Mountains ... they say it has 800 steps. I did that once back in 2004 when I visited the area.
http://infobluemountains.net.au/history/giant.htm

Even half that would be quite a lot.

BTW - as a comparison, one single flight of stairs in an office building will have 20 steps. Check it out!

I believe the average amount of steps in a flight of stairs is 12 (in a house). The ones on the trail would be twice that. They also have weird heights....

This trail is comparable to a lot of the AT. (In Virginia.) For example, you wouldn't be able to ride your bike more than a quarter mile into it. Little too twisty, little too many steps, little too rocky, little too narrow in places.)

I'd rather not have to defend calling hiking... hiking.

That being said... I have a feeling I'm not burning 622 calories an hour.

I think I'll assign 400 an hour.

It's a hike, in the general sense of the word ... just that for logging purposes, it might be beneficial to estimate low, or in other words, log it as a walk.

For example, these are both "hikes", and I counted this one as a hike because there is some difficult climbing in the middle:
https://www.vancouvertrails.com/trails/mount-cheam/
... but I counted this one as a walk because the grade was pretty easy:
http://tastrails.com/the-organ-pipes/