Calories burned per mile
nasr25
Posts: 214 Member
Hello everyone i hope everything is well. I would like to ask a question and anyone one with answer please comment. I am 280 pounds i want to know how much calories I burn per mile. I have been getting mixed answers from my search on google. I would like to know ideally how many net calories i burn. Thanks any help is appreciated.
0
Replies
-
How fast are you completing the mile. Do you walk, run, jog, or a mix?1
-
-
It really depends on whether you're walking or running. I'm gonna take a guess and say that at 280 lbs you're probably walking, if only because when I was 280 lbs I definitely wasn't jogging or running anywhere.
At 280 lbs, a reasonable guesstimate for your calories burned per mile at a leisurely walking pace (2 - 2.5 mph, as opposed to the "light" walking many web sites put at 3.5 mph, which is very fast and difficult for an obese person) is 150. That's the number I used for many, many, many walks when my weight was 320 down to 270 ish, and the numbers always squared nicely with my actual weight loss, so it was accurate, at least for me.
As you lose weight, you'll want to shave a bit off that number over time, but for now, 150 is fine.
EDIT: I tried @lemurcat2 's calculator above and it said 212 calories for 1 mile at 2.5 mph. I don't think that is completely outlandish, but it does seem high & I don't think you'd get the best results eating back that many calories, if you're eating them back. 150 seems better to me. If it's just an academic exercise, like wanting to log your workout without it impacting your food consumption, then sure estimating a bit higher than 150 is fine. When I was in my walking phase (before larding up the house with exercise machines) I ate back 50 %, so 75 per mile and my usual walk was 2 miles & I'd eat back 150, which worked pretty well.2 -
I've seen these formulas posted in the boards for calories burned by running and walking:
Running:
Weight in Pounds X Distance in Miles X 0.63
Walking:
Weight in Pounds X Distance in Miles X 0.38 -
I've seen these formulas posted in the boards for calories burned by running and walking:
Running:
Weight in Pounds X Distance in Miles X 0.63
Walking:
Weight in Pounds X Distance in Miles X 0.3
Agreed.
Importantly they are also net calorie estimates unlike a lot of apps that give gross calorie estimates.0 -
I've seen these formulas posted in the boards for calories burned by running and walking:
Running:
Weight in Pounds X Distance in Miles X 0.63
Walking:
Weight in Pounds X Distance in Miles X 0.3
Agreed.
Importantly they are also net calorie estimates unlike a lot of apps that give gross calorie estimates.
Yep, and that's what you want, and not the gross calories.1 -
More on a bike than in a car.1
-
I get my calorie burn amount from my fitbit. I'm a bigger girl trying to lose weight so I walk briskly intermittently with jogging. I use the none 2 run app. That plan has been working well for me so using the Fitbit gives me the calories burned per exercise and also calories burned for the whole day. Comparing my weight loss with how hard I've been working with exercise I now know exactly how much exercise and calorie deficit I have to maintain to keep losing weight. I find it very helpful to know how many calories I'm burning when I exercise.1
-
I've seen these formulas posted in the boards for calories burned by running and walking:
Running:
Weight in Pounds X Distance in Miles X 0.63
Walking:
Weight in Pounds X Distance in Miles X 0.3
These numbers are way too low for walking. Using these formulas, a 300 pound person walking a mile would get a whopping 90 calories. That's obviously absurdly low. Note that if you put 300 pounds into a walking calculator on a walking site, you'll get anywhere from 180-250 calories, which implies a coefficient of 0.6 to 0.83. For instance, as I noted earlier, @lemurcat2 's calculator gives 212 calories for 280 pounds, a coefficient of .75.
And the differences are too large to be explained by gross vs net exercise calories. Simply put, the 0.63/0.3 coefficients are too low for people at higher weights, as per all the exercise calculators out there.2 -
Why is it obviously too low?2
-
Why is this too low? We're bipedal and made to walk. Wouldn't you think that we use very little energy for something we're evolutionary so perfect at?5
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Why is it obviously too low?
Because this:
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
and this:
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/walking
do not always agree with the Runner's World formulas.
And I don't know (I couldn't find the original magazine article during a short search a few minutes ago) whether there exists some overwhelming evidence that proves the Runner's World formulas more "correct" than generally accepted MET values.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Why is it obviously too low?
Those formula coefficients (.63 running, .3 walking) are gospel at MFP but they are just one source and, as far as walking for obese people is concerned, they are absurdly low.
All of the online calorie estimators/calculators that I've seen for walking produce numbers higher than the RW numbers. Much higher, in the case of heavier people. As in, roughly speaking, double. That was my point in the last post, which got the avalanche of disagrees.
Let's take a quick tour of some online walking calculators, keeping in mind that RW says 90 calories per mile for a 300 pound person:
This one says 214 calories for a 300 lb person walking a mile: https://www.verywellfit.com/walking-calories-and-distance-calculators-3432711
This one says 167, consistent with the #'s I was positing: https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-walking/
This one says 180: https://www.omnicalculator.com/sports/walking-calorie
Another one that says 180: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.shtml
This one says 172: https://captaincalculator.com/health/calorie/calories-burned-walking-calculator/
So basically, in comparison to RW's 0.3 coefficient and resulting 90 calorie estimate, online calorie calculators use coefficients of around 0.6. Double the RW estimate.
There are many more of these calculators but I think 5 data points will suffice for now, as they are roughly consistent with each other.
Aside from the calculators, it only makes intuitive sense that walking, as an initial exercise for an obese person just starting out on the fitness journey, will burn a s**t ton more than 90 calories per mile. At a typical 2.5 mph for someone just starting out and overweight, that'd suggest 225 calories for a full hour of exercise. That is obviously way too low. Obese people walking a full hour each day (in conjunction with portion/calorie control) drop weight like a stone at first, as everyone knows. Takes a lotta work to lug around an extra 100-150 pounds of fat for an hour on a walking trail, as I experienced back in the day. BPM = high, calories burned = high. Of course, the BPM and therefore calories burned per minute come down as you lose weight and get in shape.
RW's .63 coefficient might work very nicely for running and for people at normal BMI's, but .3 for walking for obese people is not useful. That is probably why no other sites use numbers that low.
I would find it quite demoralizing if I was back at 300+ pounds and just starting my walking journey, and finding out that the big reward I get is 90 calories per mile or 225 per hour. That's an hour of lugging my tonnage around for one lean chicken taco at California Tortilla. Fortunately, you can eat a solid 400 ish cals to cover a 1 hour walk at that weight level. RW's #'s just aren't right.
EDIT: Addressing the gross vs net exercise calories issue: Let's say you're burning 160 cals/mile for an hour at 3 mph and 300 lbs. That's 480 cals/hr. With a BMR of, say, 2400 (just to use a round number) you'd have to subtract 100 from that 480 to get net exercise calories, so call it 380 rather than 480. That's still 126 net new cals burned per mile, or a coefficient of 0.42 with BMR removed from the equation - 0.42 gives you a pure "net" calorie calculation and is still 40 % higher than RW's estimate.5 -
sorry i should have mentioned that I am walking not running. I average 2.5 mph, I am hoping to walk until i hit 250 and then start biking.1
-
EDIT: Addressing the gross vs net exercise calories issue: Let's say you're burning 160 cals/mile for an hour at 3 mph and 300 lbs. That's 480 cals/hr. With a BMR of, say, 2400 (just to use a round number) you'd have to subtract 100 from that 480 to get net exercise calories, so call it 380 rather than 480. That's still 126 net new cals burned per mile, or a coefficient of 0.42 with BMR removed from the equation - 0.42 gives you a pure "net" calorie calculation and is still 40 % higher than RW's estimate.
For what it's worth, a lot of other can't burn 480 kCal per hour on a bike, and walking is considerably lower intensity.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Why is it obviously too low?
EDIT: Addressing the gross vs net exercise calories issue: Let's say you're burning 160 cals/mile for an hour at 3 mph and 300 lbs. That's 480 cals/hr. With a BMR of, say, 2400 (just to use a round number) you'd have to subtract 100 from that 480 to get net exercise calories, so call it 380 rather than 480. That's still 126 net new cals burned per mile, or a coefficient of 0.42 with BMR removed from the equation - 0.42 gives you a pure "net" calorie calculation and is still 40 % higher than RW's estimate.
Gross versus Net calories and a BMR... can you explain this a bit more? If possible, put it in context of oh, say a 55 y/o male @225 pounds who treadmills almost everyday for what the on board computer says is 325 calories burnt in anywhere from 22 to 27 minutes depending on my pace. Thx0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Why is it obviously too low?
Those formula coefficients (.63 running, .3 walking) are gospel at MFP but they are just one source and, as far as walking for obese people is concerned, they are absurdly low.
All of the online calorie estimators/calculators that I've seen for walking produce numbers higher than the RW numbers. Much higher, in the case of heavier people. As in, roughly speaking, double. That was my point in the last post, which got the avalanche of disagrees.
Let's take a quick tour of some online walking calculators, keeping in mind that RW says 90 calories per mile for a 300 pound person:
This one says 214 calories for a 300 lb person walking a mile: https://www.verywellfit.com/walking-calories-and-distance-calculators-3432711
This one says 167, consistent with the #'s I was positing: https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-walking/
This one says 180: https://www.omnicalculator.com/sports/walking-calorie
Another one that says 180: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.shtml
This one says 172: https://captaincalculator.com/health/calorie/calories-burned-walking-calculator/
So basically, in comparison to RW's 0.3 coefficient and resulting 90 calorie estimate, online calorie calculators use coefficients of around 0.6. Double the RW estimate.
There are many more of these calculators but I think 5 data points will suffice for now, as they are roughly consistent with each other.
Aside from the calculators, it only makes intuitive sense that walking, as an initial exercise for an obese person just starting out on the fitness journey, will burn a s**t ton more than 90 calories per mile. At a typical 2.5 mph for someone just starting out and overweight, that'd suggest 225 calories for a full hour of exercise. That is obviously way too low. Obese people walking a full hour each day (in conjunction with portion/calorie control) drop weight like a stone at first, as everyone knows. Takes a lotta work to lug around an extra 100-150 pounds of fat for an hour on a walking trail, as I experienced back in the day. BPM = high, calories burned = high. Of course, the BPM and therefore calories burned per minute come down as you lose weight and get in shape.
RW's .63 coefficient might work very nicely for running and for people at normal BMI's, but .3 for walking for obese people is not useful. That is probably why no other sites use numbers that low.
I would find it quite demoralizing if I was back at 300+ pounds and just starting my walking journey, and finding out that the big reward I get is 90 calories per mile or 225 per hour. That's an hour of lugging my tonnage around for one lean chicken taco at California Tortilla. Fortunately, you can eat a solid 400 ish cals to cover a 1 hour walk at that weight level. RW's #'s just aren't right.
EDIT: Addressing the gross vs net exercise calories issue: Let's say you're burning 160 cals/mile for an hour at 3 mph and 300 lbs. That's 480 cals/hr. With a BMR of, say, 2400 (just to use a round number) you'd have to subtract 100 from that 480 to get net exercise calories, so call it 380 rather than 480. That's still 126 net new cals burned per mile, or a coefficient of 0.42 with BMR removed from the equation - 0.42 gives you a pure "net" calorie calculation and is still 40 % higher than RW's estimate.
Finding data points that are in agreement doesn't solve the actual question.
The numbers in question from the original Runners World article are not just an opinion. They were backed with a study. The idea was to use science to see which prediction formulas were the most accurate. I'm fairly sure the below linked is the study they referenced...
https://researchgate.net/publication/8157727_Energy_Expenditure_of_Walking_and_Running_Comparison_with_Prediction_Equations
One of the prediction methods they cite as fairly accurate was the ACSM method, which is used in the linked calculator below:
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
Over the years there have been quite a few studies on the matter and they all come to reasonably similar conclusions. Gender, age, fitness levels, etc have all been tested, and there really is not a huge variance for the average person. Though the numbers aren't exacting across all populations, they are reasonably close. In the end, unless going outside the norm (as in walking very fast or jogging very slowly) then the efficiency doesn't change a lot. As such it can easily be broken down into a mass x distance equation.
Walking is simply a very efficient exercise and doesn't burn many calories.
6 -
BradOWGolf wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Why is it obviously too low?
EDIT: Addressing the gross vs net exercise calories issue: Let's say you're burning 160 cals/mile for an hour at 3 mph and 300 lbs. That's 480 cals/hr. With a BMR of, say, 2400 (just to use a round number) you'd have to subtract 100 from that 480 to get net exercise calories, so call it 380 rather than 480. That's still 126 net new cals burned per mile, or a coefficient of 0.42 with BMR removed from the equation - 0.42 gives you a pure "net" calorie calculation and is still 40 % higher than RW's estimate.
Gross versus Net calories and a BMR... can you explain this a bit more? If possible, put it in context of oh, say a 55 y/o male @225 pounds who treadmills almost everyday for what the on board computer says is 325 calories burnt in anywhere from 22 to 27 minutes depending on my pace. Thx
Gross vs net in a nutshell:
Gross includes the calories you burn doing nothing at all (the cost of staying alive)
Net does not
MFP already addresses the BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) which is your cost of staying alive. So if your machine adds it as well, it is being double counted for the time period you exercise. For most people this isn't a huge number, for those that exercise more it might become significant.
As for the treadmill, if it reports miles I'd do a calculation based on that and go from there. Short of a lab, it's an estimate. I have a Precor machine and studies show that it overestimates, and that is a machine that uses a high end power meter source, as well as a lot of data, to produce the calories burned curve. In the case of my machine, I found studies that tested it vs lab testing for use in the military as an alternative fitness test method. It was close enough, but certainly not exacting.2 -
robertw486 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Why is it obviously too low?
Those formula coefficients (.63 running, .3 walking) are gospel at MFP but they are just one source and, as far as walking for obese people is concerned, they are absurdly low.
All of the online calorie estimators/calculators that I've seen for walking produce numbers higher than the RW numbers. Much higher, in the case of heavier people. As in, roughly speaking, double. That was my point in the last post, which got the avalanche of disagrees.
Let's take a quick tour of some online walking calculators, keeping in mind that RW says 90 calories per mile for a 300 pound person:
This one says 214 calories for a 300 lb person walking a mile: https://www.verywellfit.com/walking-calories-and-distance-calculators-3432711
This one says 167, consistent with the #'s I was positing: https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-walking/
This one says 180: https://www.omnicalculator.com/sports/walking-calorie
Another one that says 180: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.shtml
This one says 172: https://captaincalculator.com/health/calorie/calories-burned-walking-calculator/
So basically, in comparison to RW's 0.3 coefficient and resulting 90 calorie estimate, online calorie calculators use coefficients of around 0.6. Double the RW estimate.
There are many more of these calculators but I think 5 data points will suffice for now, as they are roughly consistent with each other.
Aside from the calculators, it only makes intuitive sense that walking, as an initial exercise for an obese person just starting out on the fitness journey, will burn a s**t ton more than 90 calories per mile. At a typical 2.5 mph for someone just starting out and overweight, that'd suggest 225 calories for a full hour of exercise. That is obviously way too low. Obese people walking a full hour each day (in conjunction with portion/calorie control) drop weight like a stone at first, as everyone knows. Takes a lotta work to lug around an extra 100-150 pounds of fat for an hour on a walking trail, as I experienced back in the day. BPM = high, calories burned = high. Of course, the BPM and therefore calories burned per minute come down as you lose weight and get in shape.
RW's .63 coefficient might work very nicely for running and for people at normal BMI's, but .3 for walking for obese people is not useful. That is probably why no other sites use numbers that low.
I would find it quite demoralizing if I was back at 300+ pounds and just starting my walking journey, and finding out that the big reward I get is 90 calories per mile or 225 per hour. That's an hour of lugging my tonnage around for one lean chicken taco at California Tortilla. Fortunately, you can eat a solid 400 ish cals to cover a 1 hour walk at that weight level. RW's #'s just aren't right.
EDIT: Addressing the gross vs net exercise calories issue: Let's say you're burning 160 cals/mile for an hour at 3 mph and 300 lbs. That's 480 cals/hr. With a BMR of, say, 2400 (just to use a round number) you'd have to subtract 100 from that 480 to get net exercise calories, so call it 380 rather than 480. That's still 126 net new cals burned per mile, or a coefficient of 0.42 with BMR removed from the equation - 0.42 gives you a pure "net" calorie calculation and is still 40 % higher than RW's estimate.
Finding data points that are in agreement doesn't solve the actual question.
The numbers in question from the original Runners World article are not just an opinion. They were backed with a study. The idea was to use science to see which prediction formulas were the most accurate. I'm fairly sure the below linked is the study they referenced...
https://researchgate.net/publication/8157727_Energy_Expenditure_of_Walking_and_Running_Comparison_with_Prediction_Equations
One of the prediction methods they cite as fairly accurate was the ACSM method, which is used in the linked calculator below:
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
Over the years there have been quite a few studies on the matter and they all come to reasonably similar conclusions. Gender, age, fitness levels, etc have all been tested, and there really is not a huge variance for the average person. Though the numbers aren't exacting across all populations, they are reasonably close. In the end, unless going outside the norm (as in walking very fast or jogging very slowly) then the efficiency doesn't change a lot. As such it can easily be broken down into a mass x distance equation.
Walking is simply a very efficient exercise and doesn't burn many calories.robertw486 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Why is it obviously too low?
Those formula coefficients (.63 running, .3 walking) are gospel at MFP but they are just one source and, as far as walking for obese people is concerned, they are absurdly low.
All of the online calorie estimators/calculators that I've seen for walking produce numbers higher than the RW numbers. Much higher, in the case of heavier people. As in, roughly speaking, double. That was my point in the last post, which got the avalanche of disagrees.
Let's take a quick tour of some online walking calculators, keeping in mind that RW says 90 calories per mile for a 300 pound person:
This one says 214 calories for a 300 lb person walking a mile: https://www.verywellfit.com/walking-calories-and-distance-calculators-3432711
This one says 167, consistent with the #'s I was positing: https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-walking/
This one says 180: https://www.omnicalculator.com/sports/walking-calorie
Another one that says 180: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.shtml
This one says 172: https://captaincalculator.com/health/calorie/calories-burned-walking-calculator/
So basically, in comparison to RW's 0.3 coefficient and resulting 90 calorie estimate, online calorie calculators use coefficients of around 0.6. Double the RW estimate.
There are many more of these calculators but I think 5 data points will suffice for now, as they are roughly consistent with each other.
Aside from the calculators, it only makes intuitive sense that walking, as an initial exercise for an obese person just starting out on the fitness journey, will burn a s**t ton more than 90 calories per mile. At a typical 2.5 mph for someone just starting out and overweight, that'd suggest 225 calories for a full hour of exercise. That is obviously way too low. Obese people walking a full hour each day (in conjunction with portion/calorie control) drop weight like a stone at first, as everyone knows. Takes a lotta work to lug around an extra 100-150 pounds of fat for an hour on a walking trail, as I experienced back in the day. BPM = high, calories burned = high. Of course, the BPM and therefore calories burned per minute come down as you lose weight and get in shape.
RW's .63 coefficient might work very nicely for running and for people at normal BMI's, but .3 for walking for obese people is not useful. That is probably why no other sites use numbers that low.
I would find it quite demoralizing if I was back at 300+ pounds and just starting my walking journey, and finding out that the big reward I get is 90 calories per mile or 225 per hour. That's an hour of lugging my tonnage around for one lean chicken taco at California Tortilla. Fortunately, you can eat a solid 400 ish cals to cover a 1 hour walk at that weight level. RW's #'s just aren't right.
EDIT: Addressing the gross vs net exercise calories issue: Let's say you're burning 160 cals/mile for an hour at 3 mph and 300 lbs. That's 480 cals/hr. With a BMR of, say, 2400 (just to use a round number) you'd have to subtract 100 from that 480 to get net exercise calories, so call it 380 rather than 480. That's still 126 net new cals burned per mile, or a coefficient of 0.42 with BMR removed from the equation - 0.42 gives you a pure "net" calorie calculation and is still 40 % higher than RW's estimate.
Finding data points that are in agreement doesn't solve the actual question.
The numbers in question from the original Runners World article are not just an opinion. They were backed with a study. The idea was to use science to see which prediction formulas were the most accurate. I'm fairly sure the below linked is the study they referenced...
https://researchgate.net/publication/8157727_Energy_Expenditure_of_Walking_and_Running_Comparison_with_Prediction_Equations
One of the prediction methods they cite as fairly accurate was the ACSM method, which is used in the linked calculator below:
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
Over the years there have been quite a few studies on the matter and they all come to reasonably similar conclusions. Gender, age, fitness levels, etc have all been tested, and there really is not a huge variance for the average person. Though the numbers aren't exacting across all populations, they are reasonably close. In the end, unless going outside the norm (as in walking very fast or jogging very slowly) then the efficiency doesn't change a lot. As such it can easily be broken down into a mass x distance equation.
Walking is simply a very efficient exercise and doesn't burn many calories.
I like this quoted calculator as it comes very close to the numbers that work for me for running and walking. But of course I have years of data, and have to say that this often-quoted equation works for me. Mind you, apart from age I could have been a participant in this study with regards to size and weight.
I find it very interesting btw that the difference between threadmill and track is so small. I would have expected a bigger difference.
Btw, feel very stupid asking this, but what would those equations be in kg/km? I have custom workouts in MFP for multipliers of 0.37 and 0.86, but I'm not sure where I got them from.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »
Finding data points that are in agreement doesn't solve the actual question.
....
Walking is simply a very efficient exercise and doesn't burn many calories.
I didn't find "a data point in agreement" with a particular point of view. What I found were 5 online calorie estimators that are all in agreement with each other. +/- 10-15 %. Actually, I found around 15 of them but it seemed superfluous to copy 15 links. Nevertheless, no matter how many online calculators one finds for walking, they are all roughly consistent, and higher than the RW estimate.
I agree, walking is an efficient exercise. How efficient, is the question. Of course you will burn less calories walking, which is what we homo sapiens were designed to do, than biking or skiing, but how much less?
To posit that a 300 pound person huffing and puffing down a hiking trail for an hour at 2 mph burns a grand total of 180 calories is.... not helpful, to put it gently. That is what the RW formula yields, whereas all the other calculators produce a number along the lines of 320-400, which is more reasonable.
Anyone who wants to award themselves 30 % of their body weight per mile as a calorie estimate for walking is free to do so. I have always given myself somewhere between 45 and 60 % (depending on my mood) and that has squared with my CICO spreadsheet and actual weight loss.
Of course, if one is not eating the calories back, this remains an interesting theoretical discussion. If one is eating the calories back, however, and is 300 pounds, it cannot be stressed highly enough that 90 calories per mile is an absurd underestimate of the actual calories expended and needs to eat more food to cover the exercise adequately.2 -
I've actually read a few studies that indicate it doesn't matter in the distance.
Normal weight walking @ 2.94 MPH burns 93.9 calories
Overweight walking @ 2.97 mph burns 98.4 calories
Marathon Runners Running @ 6.78 mph burns 99.3 calories...
It's all about duration...1 mile is after all 1 mile...1 -
That someone is huffing and puffing during very mild exercise is not indicative of greater calorie burns - just poor fitness and low capabilities. Does an obese badly unfit 300lb person burn significantly more than a 300lb fit athete or does it just feel harder?
Does a 300lb person of whatever fitness burn more net calories than two 150lb people walking the same distance?
What IMHO is unhelpful is coming up with exagerated calorie burns. You are welcome to think your clutch of estimates is better but that's a million miles away from saying a different estimate is "absurd" when it's actually a result of research.
2 -
There has been more than one of us quoting the Rx walk / run calculator which I think is well modeled and accurate.
With one of us saying it proves the runner world formula, and myself saying it disproves it.
300lb, net cals, 2.5 miles per hour, one hour
Runner world: 225
Rx walk/run: 275
MET value would be 2x BMR (it is a 3 met activity), so 40yo, 5ft 8" male, 300lbs, would be about 200
The likelihood of firm level walk where I walk is a different question! 🤷♂️0 -
Granted I have not reviewed all my data but according to apple watch which gets me pretty accurately the difference between my 300ish pound self and my current self on calories per mile is almost the same which is around 105. I carried more then but move faster now.0
-
That someone is huffing and puffing during very mild exercise is not indicative of greater calorie burns - just poor fitness and low capabilities. Does an obese badly unfit 300lb person burn significantly more than a 300lb fit athete or does it just feel harder?
Does a 300lb person of whatever fitness burn more net calories than two 150lb people walking the same distance?
What IMHO is unhelpful is coming up with exagerated calorie burns. You are welcome to think your clutch of estimates is better but that's a million miles away from saying a different estimate is "absurd" when it's actually a result of research.
It is not my clutch of estimates. It is links to five online calorie estimators for walking, all of which agree with each other +/- 10-20 %. I typed "Exercise calories for walking" into Google, checked out the results on the first few pages, and posted 5 representative links, though there are dozens more, all more or less in agreement on the calories, and all substantially higher than the RW formula. RW doesn't have a monopoly on research. These other sites are using their own data sets and metabolic research, too.
But OK, fine, let's not over-rely on a clutch of 5 data points.
MapMyWalk awards 156 calories burned for a one mile walk for a 249 pound person.
Runkeeper gives me 162 calories per mile.
Here's MFP itself, weighing in on how many calories I, at 249 pounds, should get for an hour of walking at 2.25 mph.
Do note that MFP's own formula results in 152 calories per mile.
And so, we are now at 8 data points, each and every one of which is within 10-20 % of all the others, and then there's RW, which has a far, far, FAR lower estimate.
At what point is there enough data to question RW and conclude that its coefficient of 0.3 is too low?1 -
It's not MyFitnessPal's own formula!
You do realise that MFP hasn't funded any exercise research and is just using readily available sources?
It's just sources one calorie estimate (probably from the Compendium of Physical Activities) which again is not based on unique research by the authors of the Compendium and is a gross calorie estimate at that (total METS for the duration) - that's one of the well known issues with the exercise database on here. For a large person doing a long duration but low rate of burn activity that introduces a more significant error than the different studies which the many various estimators source.
Just as the estimate you get from Runner's World is not from Runner's World own studies.
Just like MapMy haven't done their own research.
Just like Runkeeper haven't done their own research.
There are a range of estimates (accessed via apps, calculators, web sites...), some well researched, some not so well researched, many gross, some net and they come up with a range of estimates.
That some are lower doesn't make the absurd - just lower.
That some are higher doesn't make them more accurate - just higher.
Get yourself of to a sports science lab and get tested if you want to really know your rate of burn. Or maybe just accept that using @Pav8888 's example a 50 calorie range between two reasonable estimates is perfectly good enough for the purpose of calorie estimating for weight control.
2 -
I've actually read a few studies that indicate it doesn't matter in the distance.
Normal weight walking @ 2.94 MPH burns 93.9 calories
Overweight walking @ 2.97 mph burns 98.4 calories
Marathon Runners Running @ 6.78 mph burns 99.3 calories...
It's all about duration...1 mile is after all 1 mile...
I actually happen to have that study bookmarked.
https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Fulltext/2010/10000/Comparison_of_Energy_Expenditure_to_Walk_or_Run_a.29.aspx
Though the study doesn't go into obese categories, it does conclude much the same thing as the Runners World numbers. Since running expends roughly twice as many calories as walking, those running twice the speed as the walkers still use about the same amount of energy in terms of gross calorie burn.
And even those tested that were above 300 lbs didn't reach 150 gross calories per mile.
Science > feelings
4 -
It's not MyFitnessPal's own formula!
You do realise that MFP hasn't funded any exercise research and is just using readily available sources?
It's just sources one calorie estimate (probably from the Compendium of Physical Activities) which again is not based on unique research by the authors of the Compendium and is a gross calorie estimate at that (total METS for the duration) - that's one of the well known issues with the exercise database on here. For a large person doing a long duration but low rate of burn activity that introduces a more significant error than the different studies which the many various estimators source.
Just as the estimate you get from Runner's World is not from Runner's World own studies.
Just like MapMy haven't done their own research.
Just like Runkeeper haven't done their own research.
There are a range of estimates (accessed via apps, calculators, web sites...), some well researched, some not so well researched, many gross, some net and they come up with a range of estimates.
That some are lower doesn't make the absurd - just lower.
That some are higher doesn't make them more accurate - just higher.
Get yourself of to a sports science lab and get tested if you want to really know your rate of burn. Or maybe just accept that using @Pav8888 's example a 50 calorie range between two reasonable estimates is perfectly good enough for the purpose of calorie estimating for weight control.
Or just start a regular walking regimen and then see what happens with weight loss vs deficit in a month. Based on what I see I would be losing about a half a pound faster than projected if I were getting 150ish calories per mile.3 -
It's not MyFitnessPal's own formula!
You do realise that MFP hasn't funded any exercise research and is just using readily available sources?
It's just sources one calorie estimate (probably from the Compendium of Physical Activities) which again is not based on unique research by the authors of the Compendium and is a gross calorie estimate at that (total METS for the duration) - that's one of the well known issues with the exercise database on here. For a large person doing a long duration but low rate of burn activity that introduces a more significant error than the different studies which the many various estimators source.
Just as the estimate you get from Runner's World is not from Runner's World own studies.
Just like MapMy haven't done their own research.
Just like Runkeeper haven't done their own research.
There are a range of estimates (accessed via apps, calculators, web sites...), some well researched, some not so well researched, many gross, some net and they come up with a range of estimates.
That some are lower doesn't make the absurd - just lower.
That some are higher doesn't make them more accurate - just higher.
Get yourself of to a sports science lab and get tested if you want to really know your rate of burn. Or maybe just accept that using @Pav8888 's example a 50 calorie range between two reasonable estimates is perfectly good enough for the purpose of calorie estimating for weight control.
Considering that MFP can't even come up with budget to fix the scores of bugs in its web site, I can easily agree that they haven't funded independent research into caloric expenditure from exercise
I, personally, don't consider "reported" calories from exercise machines, or calories estimated by any particular formula, to be important. I do an hr of recumbent machine per day and count it as a flat 500 calories regardless of difficulty/resistance level etc. When I was mostly focused on walking, I counted an hour of outdoor walking as a flat 400 regardless of hills, time, etc. Then I ate / eat back 40-50 % of that, and it's all good - I get the weight loss I want. I don't see a need to be more specific than a generic 500 biking, 400 walking, although I certainly understand that some people want a more precise estimate than that.
BUT ...
My point remains, for the OP and in general, that if one is very overweight, one should not be demoralized by the extremely low estimate for walking of 90 cals/mile being tossed around on MFP as though it were gospel truth, whereas in truth it's based on one article in RW and there are many other data points from which to choose. If there's a consensus at all "out there", the consensus would be around 0.6 X body weight per mile. Even a mid-point of 0.45, which would suggest 113 calories per mile for a 250 pound person on a walk, seems infinitely more reasonable to me than the 75 calories suggested by the RW formula.
I do agree that gross vs net exercise calories is a big part of it and is ignored/obfuscated by most formulas and certainly almost all fitness machines. Low-intensity, long duration exercise of the sort done by those just getting started is especially prone to that error. Such as a 1 hour walk, where the first 100 cals off the top is being double-counted with BMR. Definitely an issue.
1 -
robertw486 wrote: »https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Fulltext/2010/10000/Comparison_of_Energy_Expenditure_to_Walk_or_Run_a.29.aspx
Though the study doesn't go into obese categories, it does conclude much the same thing as the Runners World numbers. Since running expends roughly twice as many calories as walking, those running twice the speed as the walkers still use about the same amount of energy in terms of gross calorie burn.
And even those tested that were above 300 lbs didn't reach 150 gross calories per mile.
Science > feelings
I agree that science > feelings, so I don't understand the support of the runner's world formula, based on a study that implies: Quoted study: (136 * 0.789 - 7.634 + 51.109 ) * 2.5 = 377 Cal
for our previously used example of a 300lb male, 1 hour walk, net calories, 2.5 miles per hour, ergo 2.5 miles, where the RW formula gives: 300 * 2.5 * 0.3 = 225 Cal
At which point do we conclude that the RW formula (when it comes to walking for obese men) is significantly lower than every other estimate out there?
<this doesn't make any other number "right" and we all know that the use of net vs gross and logging will have a larger effect. But, given how much walking has been looked into in studies and given that the RW simplified formula results in a significantly an appreciably lower estimate than most, I do not understand why it appeals to so many.
To me it has always smacked as coming across with a hint of "running" elitism, even though I am certain, given the consistently exceptional contributions by so many of the participants in this thread, that this would not be intentional.>3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 420 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions