Net calories burned from walking
seska422
Posts: 3,217 Member
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.
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.
0
Replies
-
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.0 -
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.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.1 -
I think walking burns more than they think because I lose more weight when I walk on the treadmill. I'm not sure why.0
-
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.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.
Well that just illustrated my point.
0 -
cmriverside wrote: »
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.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.
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. 0 -
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.1 -
cmriverside wrote: »
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.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.
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.
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.
3 -
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?3 -
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
2 -
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 World1 -
It's about twice the calories estimated from that formula.cwolfman13 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
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.0 -
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 +23 -
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.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
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.0 -
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.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
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.1 -
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 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.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
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.
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.4 -
It's interesting just to play with the different calculators and compare them against the results I get from my Garmin. I used the data in my Garmin Connect account from a walk last week and ran them through the calculators linked above (My Garmin 935 gave me a figure of 242 calories expended):
This one gave me 252 gross calories, 206 net calories.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
This one gave me 241 gross calories, 191 net calories.And yet another site for Gross and Net. To include incline too since a treadmill could have steady incline used....
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
So here's how the figures stack up:
Garmin: 242
Shapesense: 252 gross, 206 net
Exrx.net: 241 gross, 191 net
Runnersworld formula: 123
So either every other calculator and device significantly overestimates, or the oft-quoted runnersworld formula (miles * weight * 0.3) significantly underestimates.
8 -
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!0 -
I walk 70 mins on my treadmill and burn 516 calories!
Im happy!0 -
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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions