Walking as a form of Cardio.

marc_s_johnson

Ok, so tested my round again today and made a note of all the information.

I used my HRM with the strap and also used the runkeeper app.

It took 3 hours and 8 mins

Average HR was 98 with the low being 54 and high 123

I was in the zone for 46 secs, above 0 and below 3.07

My HRM said I burned 878 calories and 60% fat.


The runkeeper app said that the distance was 4.01 miles

Avg min/ml 47.06

Calories burned 512.

Now im ignoring the calories burned because its estomating it by the distance travelled and speed, it has no idea of my physical condition so to me thats pure guesswork while the HRM is sensing my heartbeat.

I can only think that there is a massive difference between yesterday and today because yesterday is was baking hot, it was my first day back at work after 6 weeks and maybe my heart rate was going mental due to being shocked, today felt like normal and the calorie count looks a bit more realistic.

What do you think based on those results?

Should I be eating back those calories or just switch my activity level to very active and not bother logging my round?

Todays result with my HRM looks a lot more believeable and I laid attention to my HR going up and down due to how I was walking ie stairs or paths.

What do you think?

DavPul

It's not an estimate, I have a Polar heart rate monitor with a strap sensor, its the first time Ive used it at work to track my round.

in other words, it's an estimate.

don't track or eat back your daily work activity calories. set your activity level for active or very active, track only exercise specific calories (outside of your work routine) and go from there.

DavPul

your ticker is throwing me off. are you trying to gain weight? if so, i may change my answer

marc_s_johnson

No mate, Ive lost enough which is why im being careful with how much I eat, Im trying to maintain and lose that last bit of lose skin/ fat under my belly button.

sueclare38

I do my daughters paper round once a week which takes 90 minutes, each time I come home to refill the bag I am starting out with about 50 papers which is really heavy. I wear by hrm, and I walk pretty fast and a lot of it is uphill, my heart rate varies between 117 and 135 and I usually burn around 600 calories, I'm 5'3 and 140lbs and 38, so 400 calories an hour is easily achievable.

neandermagnon

I worked as a postman for a while, and I worked out I must have walked about 10 miles a day. There were two posts a day and the round I had was a long one, I had to walk very fast to get it all done in time, first and second post, and that was carrying a 16kg bag on my back (well it got lighter as I went round, but it was that heavy when I left the office as the health and safety guy was a stickler for not letting anyone leave the office with overweight bags and we got additional mail dropped off halfway round)

If it was me, I wouldn't log postal work as exercise, but I would make sure my calories were calculated with a sufficiently high activity factor to begin with, it would be moderately to very active, depending on how far you actually have to walk. I spent 3-4 hrs walking each day, at a very fast pace, carrying a bag.... that will have a high calorie burn.

My0WNinspiration

It's not an estimate, I have a Polar heart rate monitor with a strap sensor, its the first time Ive used it at work to track my round.

I don't think hr monitors are accurate in this situation. I would not eat an extra 1200 cals.

I agree

taiyola

On a brisk hour long walk I'd burn about 350. On a slow walk I'd burn about 250.

With my HRM, I personally deduct 1 calorie per minute so 400 - 60 = 340 calories an hour etc. I would eat back half of them to start with.

marc_s_johnson

I worked as a postman for a while, and I worked out I must have walked about 10 miles a day. There were two posts a day and the round I had was a long one, I had to walk very fast to get it all done in time, first and second post, and that was carrying a 16kg bag on my back (well it got lighter as I went round, but it was that heavy when I left the office as the health and safety guy was a stickler for not letting anyone leave the office with overweight bags and we got additional mail dropped off halfway round)

If it was me, I wouldn't log postal work as exercise, but I would make sure my calories were calculated with a sufficiently high activity factor to begin with, it would be moderately to very active, depending on how far you actually have to walk. I spent 3-4 hrs walking each day, at a very fast pace, carrying a bag.... that will have a high calorie burn.

Pretty much identical situation, carry between 74 and 85 kilos a day on my back split into various bags going up flights of stairs at a brisk pace.

Todays results were realistic to me, Im putting yesterday down as a freak day as it was my first day back in 6 weeks but 800 calories over 3 hours travelling 4 miles sounds realistic to me, doing Insanity for 45 mins at full pelt would be 500 calories (on average) so it feels right, just unsure about eating them back.

I really dont want to lose anymore weight so dont want to under eat but I dont want to start putting it back on so need to get this right

marc_s_johnson

On a brisk hour long walk I'd burn about 350. On a slow walk I'd burn about 250.

With my HRM, I personally deduct 1 calorie per minute so 400 - 60 = 340 calories an hour etc. I would eat back half of them to start with.

Maybe thats the way forward for me, to eat half back.

DavPul

This is getting a little silly. Why eat 50%? Why not 45.7%? Or 69%? Or 32.88881%?

It's always a bit strange to me when we tell people that their HRMs aren't accurate but people claim they are....but then choose completely arbitrary amounts of calories to eat back based on the HRM reading. Once you've made that decision you're acknowledging that the HRM has very little value when it comes to calories burned.

Anyhoo, since you're in maintenance, this is all academic. You're walking the same route every week and carrying roughly the same weight each week. Pick a number of total calories to eat. Eat it. Record your weight once per week for 3 weeks. Put the number on a chart. Is the line going up? Then eat 200-300 less calories per day and start recording again. Is it going down? Then eat 200-300 more calories per day and start recording again. Rinse, repeat. Rinse, repeat.

I'm betting it only takes you 3 weeks to find the right number. Probably less, since you've already successfully found the number to lose weight, presumably while you have been a postman.

phjorg1

1 your hrm is not accurate.. Like at all.. They give over inflated numbers on non cardio events.

2 heat makes your heart beat faster. Further decreasing hrm accuracy.

3 hrms include BMR. Factor in that 100-150 calories an hour of your total would have been burned anyway. Which further inflates the number you get.

4 you don't track work calories. It's routine.

LaurenAOK

It's not unreasonable, however, you have to consider the amount of calories you would have burned if you were just sitting on your butt during that time. My BMR is around 1300 calories, so I would burn over 50 calories an hour even if I was in a coma. So if my HRM told me I burned 1200 calories in 3 hours by moving around, I'd subtract 150 off of that and give myself an extra 1050 calories or so. Your BMR might be higher than mine, therefore the amount you subtract might also be higher.

If this is your job that you do every day, why don't you just set your MFP activity level to "active" (since that's exactly what it's there for)? Then you don't have to worry about adding those calories back in.

owieprone

do remember that most hrms (and other monitors of the sort, including those on gym machines etc) aren't generally programmed/programmable enough to take into account YOUR body. they are set for the 'average' person (usually a fit MAN of certain stature and weight, so beware women using this tech). Any info you take from that is a guestimate only based upon the programming, and hence isn't accurate unless you are the person the programming was based upon (which may not have changed since hrm inception decades ago!).

Whatever your goal is keep this in mind and if you think you need to increase your calorie intake to compensate for your job do it slowly, 1-2 meals a week every 2 weeks by 50 calories max each increase. this will help you gauge how and when you are eating enough to fuel your walking about, when you stop losing weight for more than a few weeks then you'll know your eating enough to maintain, but too much to lose or too little to gain.
(remember also if you've been doing that job for more then 3 months, your body will be getting or is used to the workout it's getting each day and won't be exerted the same way and hence won't need as much fuel, your bmr will lower again once it's used to it).

why such an small increase over a long time? your body (like when you are trying to lose weight) instantly recognises that more or less food has been taken in and reacts accordingly. your weight fluctuates on a daily basis, you need to be able to recognise the fluctuations as a response to the food and measure what it's doing over 2 weeks to see if it has had the desired effect. if you are still losing weight quickly then you need to up it again, wait to see the change and stop or keep going depending on what the outcome is. If you're losing weight and are trying to lose weight but feel tired all the time, have exercise-performance issues and have upped your intake then you need to keep going until the issues resolve. once they've resolved and you're happy with what you are achieving then you know what your food intake should be for what you do everyday.

why are you told to check your weight on the same day and time each WEEK? as i said your body fluctuates in response to the food it's had, the exercise you've done and your daily routine. Your best weighing in on your rest day just before bed, that way no exercise and your lowest food intake (as close to bmr intake as you'll get) is recorded. Any other reading will be biased.

DopeItUp

This is getting a little silly. Why eat 50%? Why not 45.7%? Or 69%? Or 32.88881%?

It's always a bit strange to me when we tell people that their HRMs aren't accurate but people claim they are....but then choose completely arbitrary amounts of calories to eat back based on the HRM reading. Once you've made that decision you're acknowledging that the HRM has very little value when it comes to calories burned.

Anyhoo, since you're in maintenance, this is all academic. You're walking the same route every week and carrying roughly the same weight each week. Pick a number of total calories to eat. Eat it. Record your weight once per week for 3 weeks. Put the number on a chart. Is the line going up? Then eat 200-300 less calories per day and start recording again. Is it going down? Then eat 200-300 more calories per day and start recording again. Rinse, repeat. Rinse, repeat.

I'm betting it only takes you 3 weeks to find the right number. Probably less, since you've already successfully found the number to lose weight, presumably while you have been a postman.

Do this.

tomg33

Yeah, you're going about this all the wrong way.

Let's say you eat 2000 calories per day, and you don't lose weight for a couple weeks. Decrease it to 1800 and see what happens for another couple weeks.

The actual numbers don't matter, it's the effect on your body you're looking for. You're trying to find a nice modest deficit that your body is losing fat in, but you're not ridiculously hungry and tired and weak all the time.

grrrlface

I walk for my primary exercise. 3-4 times a week at 3.5-4mph. My burn is around 350 calories for 90 mins (5'2" female at 128lbs) so your count sounds pretty good to me.

I would have your activity level adjusted to include them anyway though since its your everyday job.

MzzFaith

30-45 minutes

NadirToZenith

I worked as a postman for a while, and I worked out I must have walked about 10 miles a day. There were two posts a day and the round I had was a long one, I had to walk very fast to get it all done in time, first and second post, and that was carrying a 16kg bag on my back (well it got lighter as I went round, but it was that heavy when I left the office as the health and safety guy was a stickler for not letting anyone leave the office with overweight bags and we got additional mail dropped off halfway round)

If it was me, I wouldn't log postal work as exercise, but I would make sure my calories were calculated with a sufficiently high activity factor to begin with, it would be moderately to very active, depending on how far you actually have to walk. I spent 3-4 hrs walking each day, at a very fast pace, carrying a bag.... that will have a high calorie burn.

Agreed! I've done the job as well. I think you might have adjusted a bit if you put in your correct profession and I wouldn't eat those extra calories myself but I'm also a novice here so...

phjorg1

1) your BMR is more than that.. A lot more.

2) even if yours was that low, you would burn more than 50 cal an hour because your metabolism is about 66% lower while sleeping. I've seen bmr tested of 120 cal per hour easy.

It's not unreasonable, however, you have to consider the amount of calories you would have burned if you were just sitting on your butt during that time. My BMR is around 1300 calories, so I would burn over 50 calories an hour even if I was in a coma. So if my HRM told me I burned 1200 calories in 3 hours by moving around, I'd subtract 150 off of that and give myself an extra 1050 calories or so. Your BMR might be higher than mine, therefore the amount you subtract might also be higher.

If this is your job that you do every day, why don't you just set your MFP activity level to "active" (since that's exactly what it's there for)? Then you don't have to worry about adding those calories back in.