Jog/Walk

asliceofjackie

How do people log when you do some sort of interval training? Since I'm so unfit, I will start my sessions with jogging and then go down to walking whenever I need to catch my breath, then back up, etc. How do I log this in the most efficient way? I don't have a heart rate monitor at this point, I just use my phone to get the total time from when I leave the door to when I get back. Using a timer and laps feels like it would just drain my energy even more if I were to try it. Example today I went for a jog, almost immediately had to start walking due to knee pain. Walked for a bit, then jogged a bit more. Kept doing this for a total of 43 minutes.

Any tips or ideas? I'm thinking I might register it as a power walk which is sort of in between walking and jogging I guess - does that sound crazy?

tinkerbellang83

There isn't a huge amount of difference in calorie burn between jogging and walking. Perhaps just log it as Brisk Walk.

asliceofjackie

tinkerbellang83 wrote: »

There isn't a huge amount of difference in calorie burn between jogging and walking. Perhaps just log it as Brisk Walk.

According to MFP database, 'walking at a brisk pace' is 300kcal for 43 minutes. Whereas 'Running (Jogging)' at the slowest pace available (and probably the speed I keep when actually running/jogging) is 632. That's more than double.

Dilvish

Careful. This is one of the biggest mistakes people make when they try to lose weight. Burning calories through fitness isn't an exact science. The numbers you see fluctuate and are generally an estimate because no two people are the same. Fat content and muscle content in the body are what really determine burn rates.

For example you said MFP says jogging at the slowest pace burns 632 calories (I will assume per hour). I found a reputable website that logs the same amount and type of exercise as 540 calories. A difference of almost 100 calories. Another website calculates the same activity "running - 5 mph" which is considered slow or jogging as 700 calories...again a difference of almost 100 calories.

Recent studies also prove that tech items like Fitbit are generally inaccurate 80% of the time.

Bottom line is this: You are on the right track. Eating less (and more nutritious food) and exercising more is how you lose weight. You also have to recognize that in order to keep the weight off you will have to continue to exercise and eat less, perhaps not as extreme but it is a lifestyle change required to sustain the weight loss. You never really stop.

Jogging may not be the best way to start out if you are overweight and out of shape especially if your knees give you trouble right away. That's your body telling you it ain't gonna happen!

Cardio (jogging) is good exercise but weight loss is vastly improved by weight or resistance training. You don't need to sweat profusely to lose fat, although it does help and is obviously good for your heart. Muscle is 3 times more metabolically active so the more you tone up or add muscle the more calories you burn...

Walking works just as well as jogging and is lower impact, just do it longer and work up to jogging if you so desire. Add some weights to your ankles and wrists while walking and you have a good workout. Wrist and ankle weights can be purchased in many places and you may even find a bargain online for some used ones.

Other activities to consider are chest high water walking (way more resistance in water), water aerobics and swimming. They are activities that are easy on the joints (knees) because you are virtually weightless.

Don't obsess over how much you burned. Focus instead on your intake of calories and just make sure you get regular exercise and forget about logging it in MFP. Eating back your exercise calories, IMHO, is a waste of effort because the calories burned are not generally accurate.

Go to it!

erickirb

check out couch to 5k, starts off with more walking than running and slowly builds up the running.

Kathryn247

Hi Jackie - as the first post said, there isn't a lot of difference especially if it's a slow jog (like mine). Google "calories burned walking and running" and you'll find a lot of information and calculators to try that might give you better results than the MFP presets. If you're having trouble jogging, there's nothing wrong with walking, and it burns almost as many calories.

Exercise is not necessary for weight loss. You only need a calorie deficit to lose weight, which can be done just by eating to your calorie goal. And it's the calories of the food that matter for weight loss, not how "nutritious" it is.
Exercise is for fitness, nutritious food is for health, and both are a good idea, but I lost my first 25 pounds with no extra exercise and I eat what I like in my calorie goal.

MFP is designed for you to eat back your exercise calories. Some people only eat back half of them to allow for over-estimated calorie burn. Make sure you give yourself enough fuel.

cmriverside

asliceofjackie wrote: »

tinkerbellang83 wrote: »

There isn't a huge amount of difference in calorie burn between jogging and walking. Perhaps just log it as Brisk Walk.

According to MFP database, 'walking at a brisk pace' is 300kcal for 43 minutes. Whereas 'Running (Jogging)' at the slowest pace available (and probably the speed I keep when actually running/jogging) is 632. That's more than double.

I would use the lower calorie burn of 300 for 43 minutes, regardless of whether or not I jogged for part of it.

As a matter of fact, very early in my weight loss (from 220 to 140) I realized that trying to accurately log exercise was going to be a problem. I am not a hard-core exerciser, I exercise in a fairly predictable intensity. So I just decided that I would call it 300 calories per hour regardless of the type of exercise. Swimming, paddling, hiking, walking on hills, Zumba, they all get the same treatment and number. I used that all through my weight loss and still use it today and my weight follows a very predictable trend.

You'll never get an exact number. You can guess or you can do something like what I've done or you could get a FitBit or similar device and see how close it is. The most bang for your buck is going to be learning to log food accurately.

OldAssDude

Try this...

gearhead426hemi

I would suggest try not to focus on the calories burned just make sure you are increasing your time or intensity as your fitness level increases. They are a couple of workout tracking apps that can be very helpful because they will let you know when you hit personal records and give a general calories burned and synch with the MF app. I like Strava for my biking and running, when I was lifting weights I used Jefit. Just my opinion but I was obsessed with how many calories I was burning during my workouts so I could eat them back on certain days and not others depending on how I was feeling. Sometimes I would eat more calories just because I did a really intense workout then I would feel guilty later that I ate so much. For me I found it easier to track my workout just to keep myself accountable and stay active. My diet doesn't change much since I know what I like to eat. Best of luck and just stay focused.

asliceofjackie

OldAssDude wrote: »

Try this...

《Snip》

Neither 'Jog/Walk' nor 'jog walk intervals' is available when I search. Did you create them yourselves?

erickirb

asliceofjackie wrote: »

OldAssDude wrote: »

Try this...

《Snip》

Neither 'Jog/Walk' nor 'jog walk intervals' is available when I search. Did you create them yourselves?

It should work... I just typed in Jog, and got a whole list of entries

don't enter jog/walk. enter "jog" put amount of time jogging, after that has been entered search "walk" and put the speed and time for that. MFP will add the cals of both together for exercise for the day

todayimstrong322

Honestly that 600 number is way to high. The best way to average without using any type of fitness tracker or heart rate monitor is to estimate 100 calories per mile at most. You could also use the time it takes you to walk jog for one mile and turn that into mph to input into your MFP exercise tracker. Do you know how long it takes you to walk/jog one mile?

lorrpb

A general guide for Calories burned running is
bodyweight x 0.6 x miles
Walking is
bodyweight x 0.3 x miles

SCoil123

I found the MFP exercise estimates really high. I’m glad I have my FitBit with HR because it’s been much more accurate for me.

Example - slower pace (for me) 5k run the other day at an average speed of 10:30 min per mile and I burnt around 300 cals. MFP would give me around 450 calorie burn for the same run

SCoil123

lorrpb wrote: »

A general guide for Calories burned running is
bodyweight x 0.6 x miles
Walking is
bodyweight x 0.3 x miles

This formula is spot on for me

jenilla1

lorrpb wrote: »

A general guide for Calories burned running is
bodyweight x 0.6 x miles
Walking is
bodyweight x 0.3 x miles

I think it depends on your pace. The numbers I get from these equations are a little low for me, but I guess I'd rather err on the low side than overestimate calories burned and then end up overeating!

That 0.3 number seems like it's more for gentle walking. If OP already has her heart rate up doing intervals and does the walking portion at a brisk pace as only a short bit of recovery between running intervals, she isn't really burning calories at a typical easy walking pace while doing it. She would be burning at a bit higher level. At least that's the way it works for me.

When running, I burn closer to the high 90's - low 100's of calories per mile, rather than the 80.1 this equation gives me, and if I'm running many miles, that calorie difference may be worth a cookie to me. (That's important, because I like my treats, and this is one way to earn them.)

When hiking in the hills - which is one of my main "walking" activities, I wouldn't use that walking formula for sure, because that would be way, way too low. I'm out there for a couple of hours, hiking several miles in steep terrain and only getting a couple hundred calories for it? Nope. I'm guessing it might be a fine guesstimate for flat, easy terrain at a slow pace, though I don't ever really walk at that slow of a pace when intentionally exercising. Hill hiking I'd get closer to the running equation, and not the measly 40 calories per mile this is giving me.

Even if I'm not hiking in the hills, but still moving at a brisk exercise pace walking around the neighborhood, I'd still be higher than the walking equation. This is why I think the walking equation must be based on slow, easy walking.

But I do agree with others that it's probably better to underestimate your calorie burn than overestimate. These equations could be a good way to ensure that you aren't overestimating.

asliceofjackie

erickirb wrote: »

It should work... I just typed in Jog, and got a whole list of entries

don't enter jog/walk. enter "jog" put amount of time jogging, after that has been entered search "walk" and put the speed and time for that. MFP will add the cals of both together for exercise for the day

Is this an iPhone thing? Mine really doesn't work like that. For example, I don't get to put the 'speed' when entering walk, it's already predetermined by the entry name. I'm highly confused.

EDIT: And thanks for all the input guys, I really appreciate it!

sijomial

The formulas given above are not speed related (until you get to extremes of race walking or sprinting when they cease to work well) but are rather based on the physics of mass moved over distance multiplied by common efficiency ratios.

HR can be a very poor guide for walking, far too variable between individuals plus factoring in recovery from the jogging intervals would skew it again.

The formulae are also net calorie estimates which, particularly for walking, makes a significant difference for a low rate of burn but long duration exercise. Giving gross calorie estimates is a failing common to many apps and the MyFitnessPal database.

(I tend to convert gross calorie estimates to net by taking off 100 cals and hour - based on my non-exercise maintenance being around 2,400 cals).