Net calories burned from walking

seska422
seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Estimates for calories burned from walking are all over the place. A rule-of-thumb I've seen is ~100 calories per mile (for the overall population). Walking 4 Fun tells me that I burn 91 calories per mile (using my stats). verywellfit has a chart that shows about 80 calories per mile (for my weight). Some of those may be referring to gross calories rather than net.

I keep seeing this formula to calculate how many net calories are burned from walking:

(distance in miles)(weight in pounds)(0.3)

That would put me at about 45 calories per mile.

Experimentation on my part has shown that I burn about 85 net calories per mile from walking. My only exercise is walking and I don't move much otherwise so I can confidently credit those calories burned to the walking.

(distance in miles)(weight in pounds)(0.3) is frequently posted but I'm not sure it should be. It undervalues walking for some people. From a weight management perspective, it wouldn't be worth the effort for me to walk extra if I only gained 45 calories per mile.

Replies

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    edited December 2018
    I feel like there should also be a height/stride calculation with that but it's pretty hard to get people to measure their stride, and it seems to me to be more about stride than height because people of the same height can have different leg length and/or stride.

    When I measure my stride and use a pedometer, it's about right on. If I use default settings on walking calculations, the distance is off by about 20%-30%. I use a pretty generic 300 calories per hour for all my exercise. It works well enough for me - it's a little lowish so I have room for other errors.
  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    edited December 2018
    cmriverside wrote: »
    I feel like there should also be a height/stride calculation with that but it's pretty hard to get people to measure their stride, and it seems to me to be more about stride than height because people of the same height can have different leg length and/or stride.

    When I measure my stride and use a pedometer, it's about right on. If I use default settings on walking calculations, the distance is off by about 20%-30%. I use a pretty generic 300 calories per hour for all my exercise. It works well enough for me - it's a little lowish so I have room for other errors.
    The rule-of-thumb of 2000 steps per mile doesn't work for everyone (because of the stride differences you mention) but a mile is still a mile. I need to take about 11,600 steps for 5 miles. That 85 calories per mile for me is for ~2320 steps.
  • WillingtoLose1001984
    WillingtoLose1001984 Posts: 240 Member
    I think walking burns more than they think because I lose more weight when I walk on the treadmill. I'm not sure why.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    seska422 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    I feel like there should also be a height/stride calculation with that but it's pretty hard to get people to measure their stride, and it seems to me to be more about stride than height because people of the same height can have different leg length and/or stride.

    When I measure my stride and use a pedometer, it's about right on. If I use default settings on walking calculations, the distance is off by about 20%-30%. I use a pretty generic 300 calories per hour for all my exercise. It works well enough for me - it's a little lowish so I have room for other errors.
    The rule-of-thumb of 2000 steps per mile doesn't work for everyone (because of the stride differences you mention) but a mile is still a mile. I need to take about 11,600 steps for 5 miles. That 85 calories per mile for me is for ~2320 steps.

    Well that just illustrated my point. :)
  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    I feel like there should also be a height/stride calculation with that but it's pretty hard to get people to measure their stride, and it seems to me to be more about stride than height because people of the same height can have different leg length and/or stride.

    When I measure my stride and use a pedometer, it's about right on. If I use default settings on walking calculations, the distance is off by about 20%-30%. I use a pretty generic 300 calories per hour for all my exercise. It works well enough for me - it's a little lowish so I have room for other errors.
    The rule-of-thumb of 2000 steps per mile doesn't work for everyone (because of the stride differences you mention) but a mile is still a mile. I need to take about 11,600 steps for 5 miles. That 85 calories per mile for me is for ~2320 steps.

    Well that just illustrated my point. :)

    It did. ;) That's one of the issues with the formula and why I think it shouldn't be posted when people ask how many calories they burn from walking.
  • hroderick
    hroderick Posts: 756 Member
    edited December 2018
    I walk on treadmill for an hour each day at a very steady pace and incline.
    This is the best calculator for walking calories I've found because it includes so many factors.

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.shtml

    If you use it be sure to follow through the second calculation of net calories, the link does gross calories then takes that into the second calculation. There's instructions and links on the link.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    edited December 2018
    seska422 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    I feel like there should also be a height/stride calculation with that but it's pretty hard to get people to measure their stride, and it seems to me to be more about stride than height because people of the same height can have different leg length and/or stride.

    When I measure my stride and use a pedometer, it's about right on. If I use default settings on walking calculations, the distance is off by about 20%-30%. I use a pretty generic 300 calories per hour for all my exercise. It works well enough for me - it's a little lowish so I have room for other errors.
    The rule-of-thumb of 2000 steps per mile doesn't work for everyone (because of the stride differences you mention) but a mile is still a mile. I need to take about 11,600 steps for 5 miles. That 85 calories per mile for me is for ~2320 steps.

    Well that just illustrated my point. :)

    It did. ;) That's one of the issues with the formula and why I think it shouldn't be posted when people ask how many calories they burn from walking.

    Here's the thing though. :lol:

    People ask a million and one questions a day that could be easily Googled and answered more fully and accurately that way. I usually don't answer that particular question because it's one that takes longer to explain than it's worth.

    With that said, I asked a dumb bunch of questions when I was new at this too, so I'mma sit quietly now.

  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    seska422 wrote: »
    Experimentation on my part has shown that I burn about 85 net calories per mile from walking. My only exercise is walking and I don't move much otherwise so I can confidently credit those calories burned to the walking.

    What kind of experimentation did you do? Walking in a metabolic chamber or wearing a gas analyser perhaps?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    And yet another site for Gross and Net. To include incline too since a treadmill could have steady incline used.

    Doesn't use the newer study formula that shows improvement with height.
    Which as pointed out has more to do with stride length which is leg length - so even that has issues.
    But that newer formula is mainly an improvement on the extremes anyway, and unless doing hours of walking, likely isn't meaningful in the first place.

    https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    seska422 wrote: »
    Estimates for calories burned from walking are all over the place. A rule-of-thumb I've seen is ~100 calories per mile (for the overall population). Walking 4 Fun tells me that I burn 91 calories per mile (using my stats). verywellfit has a chart that shows about 80 calories per mile (for my weight). Some of those may be referring to gross calories rather than net.

    I keep seeing this formula to calculate how many net calories are burned from walking:

    (distance in miles)(weight in pounds)(0.3)

    That would put me at about 45 calories per mile.

    Experimentation on my part has shown that I burn about 85 net calories per mile from walking. My only exercise is walking and I don't move much otherwise so I can confidently credit those calories burned to the walking.

    (distance in miles)(weight in pounds)(0.3) is frequently posted but I'm not sure it should be. It undervalues walking for some people. From a weight management perspective, it wouldn't be worth the effort for me to walk extra if I only gained 45 calories per mile.

    What experiment? It's a difference of 40 calories, well within any margin for error in logging. That formula comes from Runner's World
  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    edited December 2018
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    Estimates for calories burned from walking are all over the place. A rule-of-thumb I've seen is ~100 calories per mile (for the overall population). Walking 4 Fun tells me that I burn 91 calories per mile (using my stats). verywellfit has a chart that shows about 80 calories per mile (for my weight). Some of those may be referring to gross calories rather than net.

    I keep seeing this formula to calculate how many net calories are burned from walking:

    (distance in miles)(weight in pounds)(0.3)

    That would put me at about 45 calories per mile.

    Experimentation on my part has shown that I burn about 85 net calories per mile from walking. My only exercise is walking and I don't move much otherwise so I can confidently credit those calories burned to the walking.

    (distance in miles)(weight in pounds)(0.3) is frequently posted but I'm not sure it should be. It undervalues walking for some people. From a weight management perspective, it wouldn't be worth the effort for me to walk extra if I only gained 45 calories per mile.

    What experiment? It's a difference of 40 calories, well within any margin for error in logging. That formula comes from Runner's World
    It's about twice the calories estimated from that formula.

    My experimentation has been my n=1 from maintaining my weight using MFP to track intake and Fitbit to track output. Fitbit tells me (and my long term weight response supports) that I can eat ~1500 calories if I walk ~3000 steps and ~2200 calories if I walk ~15,000 steps. That's far more than 45 calories per mile.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    You experiment hasn't validated all the individual estimates that make up your TDEE - you have just found a way to find the correct calorie balance.

    As an example-
    When I started out estimating exercise I naively believed what my HRM told me, 950cals an hour for maximal effort cardio I logged that and ate back my exercise calories. But that was badly exaggerated (in reality more like under 650 net cals an hour).

    By a happy coincidence my estimated BMR, estimated activity multiplier, estimated food intake and estimated exercise burns balanced out. Getting the expected rate of loss simply does not validate all the estimates involved.

    2+2+2+2 = 8 but so does 1 + 3 + 2 +2
  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    edited December 2018
    sijomial wrote: »
    You experiment hasn't validated all the individual estimates that make up your TDEE - you have just found a way to find the correct calorie balance.

    As an example-
    When I started out estimating exercise I naively believed what my HRM told me, 950cals an hour for maximal effort cardio I logged that and ate back my exercise calories. But that was badly exaggerated (in reality more like under 650 net cals an hour).

    By a happy coincidence my estimated BMR, estimated activity multiplier, estimated food intake and estimated exercise burns balanced out. Getting the expected rate of loss simply does not validate all the estimates involved.

    2+2+2+2 = 8 but so does 1 + 3 + 2 +2
    My calorie tracking accuracy is the same. My BMR is the same because I'm maintaining my weight. My stride is the same. The only variable is how far I'm walking.

    I wish that I could just cut 45 calories from my intake for each mile I don't walk but that leads to weight gain because I'm burning more than that per mile walked.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    seska422 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    You experiment hasn't validated all the individual estimates that make up your TDEE - you have just found a way to find the correct calorie balance.

    As an example-
    When I started out estimating exercise I naively believed what my HRM told me, 950cals an hour for maximal effort cardio I logged that and ate back my exercise calories. But that was badly exaggerated (in reality more like under 650 net cals an hour).

    By a happy coincidence my estimated BMR, estimated activity multiplier, estimated food intake and estimated exercise burns balanced out. Getting the expected rate of loss simply does not validate all the estimates involved.

    2+2+2+2 = 8 but so does 1 + 3 + 2 +2
    My calorie tracking accuracy is the same. My BMR is the same because I'm maintaining my weight. My stride is the same. The only variable is how far I'm walking.

    I wish that I could just cut 45 calories from my intake for each mile I don't walk but that leads to weight gain because I'm burning more than that per mile walked.

    And I believed I was a really strong cyclist until I actually validated my exercise burns using a more accurate method of measurement and estimation.
  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    edited December 2018
    sijomial wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    You experiment hasn't validated all the individual estimates that make up your TDEE - you have just found a way to find the correct calorie balance.

    As an example-
    When I started out estimating exercise I naively believed what my HRM told me, 950cals an hour for maximal effort cardio I logged that and ate back my exercise calories. But that was badly exaggerated (in reality more like under 650 net cals an hour).

    By a happy coincidence my estimated BMR, estimated activity multiplier, estimated food intake and estimated exercise burns balanced out. Getting the expected rate of loss simply does not validate all the estimates involved.

    2+2+2+2 = 8 but so does 1 + 3 + 2 +2
    My calorie tracking accuracy is the same. My BMR is the same because I'm maintaining my weight. My stride is the same. The only variable is how far I'm walking.

    I wish that I could just cut 45 calories from my intake for each mile I don't walk but that leads to weight gain because I'm burning more than that per mile walked.

    And I believed I was a really strong cyclist until I actually validated my exercise burns using a more accurate method of measurement and estimation.
    We are always telling people that the numbers online for many exercise and weight loss calculations are estimates and starting points and that they need to collect their own data and work from that. I collected my own data and am working from that with success.

    My point is that (distance in miles)(weight in pounds)(0.3) is not gospel. It's an estimate and a starting point. Individual results may vary.
  • traceyroy54
    traceyroy54 Posts: 89 Member
    hroderick wrote: »
    I walk on treadmill for an hour each day at a very steady pace and incline.
    This is the best calculator for walking calories I've found because it includes so many factors.

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.shtml

    If you use it be sure to follow through the second calculation of net calories, the link does gross calories then takes that into the second calculation. There's instructions and links on the link.

    The link was interesting!
  • traceyroy54
    traceyroy54 Posts: 89 Member
    I walk 70 mins on my treadmill and burn 516 calories!

    Im happy!
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,610 Member
    As an estimate, I burn 200 calories per hour when I'm walking about 5 km (3 miles) per hour.


    If you're estimating more, and losing weight, then you've probably got your estimate right for you.
    But if you're estimating more, and not losing weight, you might want to bring it down to something more realistic.

Categories