Hiking calorie counts - really?
Options
ceiswyn
Posts: 2,256 Member
Today I walked up a hill for the first time, and obviously I want to record it! But the calorie count for hiking uphill seems crazy; it's like 600 calories for an hour! It didn't feel quite that exhausting, but I've changed size and fitness so quickly all my calibrations may just be out of whack.
How many calories should I be counting for this walk?
http://your.caerphilly.gov.uk/cwmcarnforest/walking/twmbarlwm
How many calories should I be counting for this walk?
http://your.caerphilly.gov.uk/cwmcarnforest/walking/twmbarlwm
0
Replies
-
Well, you weren't hiking uphill for one hour.
Take the full amount of time you were hiking and use that. I just looked at the Exercise list and there is a "Hiking cross country" - use that. It's partly a guess, anyway. You can go to other sites and look at the calories, too. Check out calorie lab
http://calorielab.com/burned/
I use 300 calories per hour for moderate exercise no matter what exercise I do. It works, always has.3 -
cmriverside wrote: »Well, you weren't hiking uphill for one hour.
I wasn't? Then what was I doing for that hour and a quarter I spent walking uphill?1 -
They also do a walking uphill I think. Hiking is quite high but I use it to record when I'm walking really rugged paths to differentiate from my normal walks- I only eat back half of my exercise calories though.1
-
You can also use a partner app like MapMyWalk that tracks distance, elevation changes, and time, and I believe it imports directly into MFP. You can also create a trail and record it with your time completed.3
-
cmriverside wrote: »Well, you weren't hiking uphill for one hour.
I wasn't? Then what was I doing for that hour and a quarter I spent walking uphill?
Oh, well maybe I misunderstood. If you were walking uphill for an hour, use that number. It doesn't seem that far out of line - IF you were actually walking at that steady pace and not stopping to rest. There is usually a pace associated with hiking - it doesn't include stopping and resting.
I walk hills every day and I couldn't walk/hike uphill for an hour without a rest.2 -
invitedchaos wrote: »You can also use a partner app like MapMyWalk that tracks distance, elevation changes, and time, and I believe it imports directly into MFP. You can also create a trail and record it with your time completed.
Thats what i do and LOVE it!0 -
Point is - it's a guess. I grab numbers from several sources and use an average. It's a guess.0
-
cmriverside wrote: »Well, you weren't hiking uphill for one hour.
I wasn't? Then what was I doing for that hour and a quarter I spent walking uphill?
How did you get back down?0 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Well, you weren't hiking uphill for one hour.
I wasn't? Then what was I doing for that hour and a quarter I spent walking uphill?
Oh, well maybe I misunderstood. If you were walking uphill for an hour, use that number. It doesn't seem that far out of line - IF you were actually walking at that steady pace and not stopping to rest. There is usually a pace associated with hiking - it doesn't include stopping and resting.
I walk hills every day and I couldn't walk/hike uphill for an hour without a rest.
That’s why I provided the link to show the route. It’s a 2.5 mile walk total, up a hill and back down again, designated ‘strenuous’ and expected to take two hours. It’s a bit difficult not to be walking uphill for an hour in those circumstances
I don’t really want to faff about with other apps while I’m walking, but a quick poke at the MapMyWalk counter suggests that the MFP amount may be in the right ballpark. I’m certainly feeling a lot tireder and colder now than I expected, which would also fit...
Thanks all, I’ll go with the MFP calories as a reasonable approximation. I never eat them all back anyway, so really the figure only needs to be within a fairly vague ballpark. I was just surprised by it!0 -
cmriverside wrote: »Well, you weren't hiking uphill for one hour.
I wasn't? Then what was I doing for that hour and a quarter I spent walking uphill?
How did you get back down?
Well I don’t know how you normally get down hills, but I turned around and walked downhill for the next half hour.
Thus making up (what with pauses for scenery and photos) the two hours that you’ll notice the website gives for the walk.2 -
I hike a lot and when I enter my hike on here its nearly double the calorie count burned compaired to my fitbit. I do however carry a 30 pound pack each time and fitbit does not add that to its equation, so I'm not sure on my total calories burned is. I just dont eat back all my exercise calories, maybe 100 to 200 of them if I'm feeling hungrier.0
-
Yeah, I normally eat back 50%, but when MFP gives me high calorie burns it makes me nervous that maybe it’s so far out that even a 50% discount isn’t sufficient!
I guess it’s actually pretty close to MFP’s estimate for swimming, though, which I know isn’t too horribly off. And thinking of it that way makes the figures seem reasonable; I just had a moment of panic. I guess I’ll just eat back 50% as usual and see how it goes over time.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Well, you weren't hiking uphill for one hour.
I wasn't? Then what was I doing for that hour and a quarter I spent walking uphill?
Oh, well maybe I misunderstood. If you were walking uphill for an hour, use that number. It doesn't seem that far out of line - IF you were actually walking at that steady pace and not stopping to rest. There is usually a pace associated with hiking - it doesn't include stopping and resting.
I walk hills every day and I couldn't walk/hike uphill for an hour without a rest.
Depends on the gradient. A total distance of 4Km with an elevation gain of 275m is perfectly reasonable. 2 hours is pretty slow, I'd expect to be able to run that in about 45 minutes.
As far as the calorie burn is concerned, I'd agree that 600 cals an hour is excessive. Personally I'd anticipate about 500-600 for running the total route, and 400-500 for walking it.1 -
I typically just log walking (but at a higher weight and thus a higher calorie burn).1
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Well, you weren't hiking uphill for one hour.
I wasn't? Then what was I doing for that hour and a quarter I spent walking uphill?
Oh, well maybe I misunderstood. If you were walking uphill for an hour, use that number. It doesn't seem that far out of line - IF you were actually walking at that steady pace and not stopping to rest. There is usually a pace associated with hiking - it doesn't include stopping and resting.
I walk hills every day and I couldn't walk/hike uphill for an hour without a rest.
Depends on the gradient. A total distance of 4Km with an elevation gain of 275m is perfectly reasonable. 2 hours is pretty slow, I'd expect to be able to run that in about 45 minutes.
As far as the calorie burn is concerned, I'd agree that 600 cals an hour is excessive. Personally I'd anticipate about 500-600 for running the total route, and 400-500 for walking it.
Did you take her weight into consideration?
I agree, I walk that distance (well, 4 miles) with a gain of 300M every day and I log 300 calories and that works for me. I weigh 140, though. I don't know the OP's weight. Do you?0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Depends on the gradient. A total distance of 4Km with an elevation gain of 275m is perfectly reasonable. 2 hours is pretty slow, I'd expect to be able to run that in about 45 minutes.
As far as the calorie burn is concerned, I'd agree that 600 cals an hour is excessive. Personally I'd anticipate about 500-600 for running the total route, and 400-500 for walking it.
Thankyou so much for actually answering the question rather than being weirdly dubious about my walking abilities!
If it’s only likely to be out by one or two hundred calories, I don’t need to worry. I don’t know whether hiking totals take bodyweight into account the way walking ones do, but I’ve only just got out of the obese category so it may not be that far off. Thanks again!1 -
I use the following website to calculate calories burned while hiking.
It takes into account your body weight, pack weight, distance/time traveled, type of terrain and degree of slope which just about covers all of the major factors.
See: https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-hiking/
I use MapMyHike to track my hikes. The cal estimate it gives is always higher (often ridiculously so) than the calculator but it gives an accurate measurement of the time and distance traveled. .
I also use a pedometer to count steps while on a hike and the cal estimate it gives is always lower than the calculator because it assumes a flat walk.
So, I think the calculator is the most accurate of the 3.
In order to determine the degree of slope on unfamiliar hikes, I use a Hill Gradient app. It measures elevation levels and changes quite accurately. A lot of the terrain that I hike varies in slope between 10-15% max, which can burn a lot of cals.
In order to make the calculation more accurate, I will sometimes breakdown the hike by the different types of terrain - hill climb/decline vs cross-country. It can make a lot of difference in the final result.
That may sound too obsessive but I have a lot of time on my hands on a 10-15 mile hike. LOL!
3 -
...I like the number that calculator is giving me Thanks, that’s a really useful resource; bookmarked. 0
-
I'm a hiker. I love my fitbit, as it takes my heart rate into consideration when determining my calorie burn. You might consider one.0
-
cmriverside wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Well, you weren't hiking uphill for one hour.
I wasn't? Then what was I doing for that hour and a quarter I spent walking uphill?
Oh, well maybe I misunderstood. If you were walking uphill for an hour, use that number. It doesn't seem that far out of line - IF you were actually walking at that steady pace and not stopping to rest. There is usually a pace associated with hiking - it doesn't include stopping and resting.
I walk hills every day and I couldn't walk/hike uphill for an hour without a rest.
Depends on the gradient. A total distance of 4Km with an elevation gain of 275m is perfectly reasonable. 2 hours is pretty slow, I'd expect to be able to run that in about 45 minutes.
As far as the calorie burn is concerned, I'd agree that 600 cals an hour is excessive. Personally I'd anticipate about 500-600 for running the total route, and 400-500 for walking it.
Did you take her weight into consideration?
I agree, I walk that distance (well, 4 miles) with a gain of 300M every day and I log 300 calories and that works for me. I weigh 140, though. I don't know the OP's weight. Do you?
I just don't feel the need to be obnoxious about whether someone has walked uphill or not.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions