Quality vs. Quantity of Calories Burned
brandigyrl81
Posts: 128 Member
So since COVID began, I haven't been doing my usual workouts of Bodypump, Zumba, Step Aerobics, and other strength training. All I've been able to do is walking 4 miles, 4-5 times a week.
Considering the heat index outside, I typically burn 1000 calories or more when walking (which is around the same amount I'd burn doing my usual workouts mentioned above). But it still doesn't seem to be enough, as the scale slowly continues to go up. Sometimes I think maybe it's the muscle that building in my legs from all the consistent walking that's causing the scale to go up, but I feel and look "fatter."
My eating is pretty much the exact same as it was when I was going to the gym.
My question is: Even though I'm still burning a significant amount of calories by walking, could my body be missing the variety of workouts it was used to getting, therefore causing my weight loss to occur much slower or even non-existent?
Considering the heat index outside, I typically burn 1000 calories or more when walking (which is around the same amount I'd burn doing my usual workouts mentioned above). But it still doesn't seem to be enough, as the scale slowly continues to go up. Sometimes I think maybe it's the muscle that building in my legs from all the consistent walking that's causing the scale to go up, but I feel and look "fatter."
My eating is pretty much the exact same as it was when I was going to the gym.
My question is: Even though I'm still burning a significant amount of calories by walking, could my body be missing the variety of workouts it was used to getting, therefore causing my weight loss to occur much slower or even non-existent?
1
Replies
-
How exactly are you coming to that 1000 calorie burn for 4 miles? What's your height, weight, and age? I'm generally the last one to suspect inflated calorie burns, so if I'm suggesting it, it's quite a likely possibility
15 -
Weight loss is calories in vs. calories out. Type of workout has nothing to do with the number on the scale, although sore muscles can hold water (this is temporary). Type of workout is important for fitness goals and body composition.1
-
I'd have to know your height/weight/sex to know for sure, but that calorie burn is likely incorrect by a large order of magnitude.
For reference - and based on several years now of maintenance using my numbers - walking 4 miles would burn maaaaybe 250-300 cals for me, 5'5 135 woman of 43. Also, I'd sweat more if it was hotter but that doesn't necessarily translate into a higher burn.
13 -
brandigyrl81 wrote: »All I've been able to do is walking 4 miles, 4-5 times a week.
Considering the heat index outside, I typically burn 1000 calories or more when walking
The way you phrased that - you are using a HRM to estimate calories?
Your HR is much higher than normal because of the heat index?
It reports a higher calorie burn.
Inflated calorie burn though - and you hit one of the caveats to a HR-based calorie burn.
Higher HR based not on harder effort and more work being done which actually burns more calories - but higher HR for any number of reasons - this one body trying to stay cool.
8 -
I walk 3.3 miles/day most days. It takes me about 70 minutes so that is about 3.5 mph. According to MFP that is a calorie burn of around 330 calories. If I walked 4 miles in one hour (4 mph) I'd burn about 440 calories.
Although more intense (faster, harder, etc.) exercise will burn more calories in a given time span than a less rigorous workout, the body doesn't care how the calories are burned. To lose weight one must burn more calories than they eat. If the scale goes up one must move more or eat less or a combination of the two.Eat Less
Eat Better
Move More3 -
The same amount of time doing Zumba and walking will involve more calories spent while doing Zumba.
A longer walk could compensate for less calories per minute
With lower calories per minute activities you have to differentiate between net and gross activity calories.
MFP, depending on your activity setting, already assigns a number of calories to your every minute. At least 1.25*BMR calories.
Taking gross calories and subtracting at least 1.25*BMR will start getting us into net activity calorie territory when it comes to MFP
Heat can play a number on heart rate changing the apparent but not screen burn off starting a hr based tracker. So can weight gain.
1000 Cal per 4 miles does sound a bit high. Have a look here to validate:
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs4 -
The estimate I typically get is about 110 calories per mile. It may be slightly low or slightly high but so far that number has not thrown off my results in my spreadsheet.
Also the heat can make you retain more water.5 -
-
kshama2001 wrote: »How exactly are you coming to that 1000 calorie burn for 4 miles? What's your height, weight, and age? I'm generally the last one to suspect inflated calorie burns, so if I'm suggesting it, it's quite a likely possibility
Height: 5'2
Weight: 186
Age: 38 BUT...I'm currently on some medication (cancer survivor) that puts me in a menopausal state
I do use a Heart Rate Monitor0 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »I'd have to know your height/weight/sex to know for sure, but that calorie burn is likely incorrect by a large order of magnitude.
For reference - and based on several years now of maintenance using my numbers - walking 4 miles would burn maaaaybe 250-300 cals for me, 5'5 135 woman of 43. Also, I'd sweat more if it was hotter but that doesn't necessarily translate into a higher burn.
Female
Height: 5'2
Weight: 186
Age: 38 BUT...I'm currently on some medication (cancer survivor) that puts me in a menopausal state
I do use a Heart Rate Monitor
0 -
brandigyrl81 wrote: »All I've been able to do is walking 4 miles, 4-5 times a week.
Considering the heat index outside, I typically burn 1000 calories or more when walking
The way you phrased that - you are using a HRM to estimate calories?
Your HR is much higher than normal because of the heat index?
It reports a higher calorie burn.
Inflated calorie burn though - and you hit one of the caveats to a HR-based calorie burn.
Higher HR based not on harder effort and more work being done which actually burns more calories - but higher HR for any number of reasons - this one body trying to stay cool.
Yes, I use a HRM
Yes, my HR is much higher due to the heat. Back in the spring, I was burning about 600 doing 4 miles.
So are you saying that my heart rate is higher due to my body trying to stay cool, and I'm not actually burning more calories?3 -
Ya - you aren't burning 1000.
You can safely log about 300 calories for a 4 mile walk in an hour.
Lifting will probably be about 175 for an hour.
The other cardio stuff more than that, but not 1000.
HR-based calorie burn formula is only valid for steady-state aerobic - same HR, no intervals.
The walking is the only one that fits that usage. Everything else is inflated.
And the walking is inflated because of the heat.8 -
Bodypump, Zumba, and Step Aerobics will generally burn more calories per min/hour than walking. I think you are getting exaggerated calorie burns based on HR. Heat index does not increase calorie burn, but it does make the exercise feel harder. If your weight is creeping up and you geel/look fatter, you may be. You will not be building muscle by walking if your body was already used to more vigorous cardio as well as strength training. Since you are only walking, your best bet is to recalculate your cico and reduce your calorie intake.4
-
You're not burning 1000 calories with four miles of walking. A HRM isn't particularly accurate for walking in general as it is too low level of a activity. Other things will also influence your HR (like heat) but not really your energy expenditure. There is no direct correlation between your HR and calorie expenditure...it is simply used as a proxy of effort in the HRM's algorithm.5
-
I feel like this explanation explains everything.2 -
brandigyrl81 wrote: »So since COVID began, I haven't been doing my usual workouts of Bodypump, Zumba, Step Aerobics, and other strength training. All I've been able to do is walking 4 miles, 4-5 times a week.
Considering the heat index outside, I typically burn 1000 calories or more when walking (which is around the same amount I'd burn doing my usual workouts mentioned above). But it still doesn't seem to be enough, as the scale slowly continues to go up. Sometimes I think maybe it's the muscle that building in my legs from all the consistent walking that's causing the scale to go up, but I feel and look "fatter."
My eating is pretty much the exact same as it was when I was going to the gym.
My question is: Even though I'm still burning a significant amount of calories by walking, could my body be missing the variety of workouts it was used to getting, therefore causing my weight loss to occur much slower or even non-existent?
I suspect that your device is overestimating your calorie burn. It would be very very very abnormal to burn 1000 calories for only 4 miles -- some reputable calculators put that *run* burn at 500ish calories for someone of your weight. So you're definitely not hitting 1000 calories in 4 miles.
And if you're overestimating your burn, and eating all of that, that's why you're gaining weight.2 -
brandigyrl81 wrote: »brandigyrl81 wrote: »All I've been able to do is walking 4 miles, 4-5 times a week.
Considering the heat index outside, I typically burn 1000 calories or more when walking
The way you phrased that - you are using a HRM to estimate calories?
Your HR is much higher than normal because of the heat index?
It reports a higher calorie burn.
Inflated calorie burn though - and you hit one of the caveats to a HR-based calorie burn.
Higher HR based not on harder effort and more work being done which actually burns more calories - but higher HR for any number of reasons - this one body trying to stay cool.
Yes, I use a HRM
Yes, my HR is much higher due to the heat. Back in the spring, I was burning about 600 doing 4 miles.
So are you saying that my heart rate is higher due to my body trying to stay cool, and I'm not actually burning more calories?
Correct. Your perceived rate of exertion may be more, and you may be sweating more, but your activity is not burning more calories.1 -
Well y'all. I feel like I've pretty much been wasting my time, now that it's been revealed that I haven't been burning that many calories. All this time I'm thinking I'm really working hard out in this heat, only to find that I'm burning only about 300-400 calories.
At least it all makes sense now as to why my weight is slowly creeping up.16 -
collectingblues wrote: »brandigyrl81 wrote: »brandigyrl81 wrote: »All I've been able to do is walking 4 miles, 4-5 times a week.
Considering the heat index outside, I typically burn 1000 calories or more when walking
The way you phrased that - you are using a HRM to estimate calories?
Your HR is much higher than normal because of the heat index?
It reports a higher calorie burn.
Inflated calorie burn though - and you hit one of the caveats to a HR-based calorie burn.
Higher HR based not on harder effort and more work being done which actually burns more calories - but higher HR for any number of reasons - this one body trying to stay cool.
Yes, I use a HRM
Yes, my HR is much higher due to the heat. Back in the spring, I was burning about 600 doing 4 miles.
So are you saying that my heart rate is higher due to my body trying to stay cool, and I'm not actually burning more calories?
Correct. Your perceived rate of exertion may be more, and you may be sweating more, but your activity is not burning more calories.
It all makes sense now.
3 -
brandigyrl81 wrote: »Well y'all. I feel like I've pretty much been wasting my time, now that it's been revealed that I haven't been burning that many calories. All this time I'm thinking I'm really working hard out in this heat, only to find that I'm burning only about 300-400 calories.
At least it all makes sense now as to why my weight is slowly creeping up.
If it makes you feel any better, I think I'm having the same problem with my fitbit. Using the calculator here suggests my fitbit over estimated my walk today by about 200cals, although the calc doesn't know how many hills I walked up, it's unlikely that it would add that much more.
Perhaps I need to unlink my fitbit, I thought it was going to make my calorie tracking more efficient, not less...
On the plus side, now we know, we have a chance at better progress!2 -
brandigyrl81 wrote: »Well y'all. I feel like I've pretty much been wasting my time, now that it's been revealed that I haven't been burning that many calories. All this time I'm thinking I'm really working hard out in this heat, only to find that I'm burning only about 300-400 calories.
At least it all makes sense now as to why my weight is slowly creeping up.
If it makes you feel any better, I think I'm having the same problem with my fitbit. Using the calculator here suggests my fitbit over estimated my walk today by about 200cals, although the calc doesn't know how many hills I walked up, it's unlikely that it would add that much more.
Perhaps I need to unlink my fitbit, I thought it was going to make my calorie tracking more efficient, not less...
On the plus side, now we know, we have a chance at better progress!
For walks where distance-based calorie burn would be better (even running frankly) - on Fitbit go and manually log the workout.
Put in miles and time - accept the calorie burn. It'll be pretty right on. Tad lower than reality because indeed it doesn't know hills.
You can leave the Activity Record there that has the distance, HR, step info - that's just a snapshot of the stats for that chunk of time. Still a good review of info, you can add temp to the notes.
But it gives you the start time and duration to use for your manual Workout Record - which will overwrite the daily stats with better info.
Fitbit uses replacement method, not add-on method, for calories and distance and steps.4 -
0
-
brandigyrl81 wrote: »Well y'all. I feel like I've pretty much been wasting my time, now that it's been revealed that I haven't been burning that many calories. All this time I'm thinking I'm really working hard out in this heat, only to find that I'm burning only about 300-400 calories.
At least it all makes sense now as to why my weight is slowly creeping up.
If it makes you feel any better, I think I'm having the same problem with my fitbit. Using the calculator here suggests my fitbit over estimated my walk today by about 200cals, although the calc doesn't know how many hills I walked up, it's unlikely that it would add that much more.
Perhaps I need to unlink my fitbit, I thought it was going to make my calorie tracking more efficient, not less...
On the plus side, now we know, we have a chance at better progress!
You're absolutely correct. As down as I feel about all of this right now, you're right in that when we know better, we do better. Thanks for the positivity.
13 -
Thanks for the info. I just manually logged a walk and with 4 miles, it only shows 250 calories.
I was waaaaayyyyy off.
9 -
This doesn't make the walk a waste of time.
Yes, it doesn't give as much food... but it is not a waste of time!
Also: hills can and DO add substantially.
Also: while Fitbit does appear to give "extra points" for activity; it is also considerably under-estimating when activity doesn't get detected, or is suppressed (because there weren't enough consecutive steps so it is considered as noise as an example). And in a normal day there is quite a bit of this give and take taking place.
For most people many of the errors cancel each other and the wash comes out quite usefully for our purposes.
There is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater... that's why we log and review our logs and weight trend over long enough periods of time (4-6 weeks) and make corrections based on our actual results over time.
10 -
This doesn't make the walk a waste of time.
Yes, it doesn't give as much food... but it is not a waste of time!
Also: hills can and DO add substantially.
Also: while Fitbit does appear to give "extra points" for activity; it is also considerably under-estimating when activity doesn't get detected, or is suppressed (because there weren't enough consecutive steps so it is considered as noise as an example). And in a normal day there is quite a bit of this give and take taking place.
For most people many of the errors cancel each other and the wash comes out quite usefully for our purposes.
There is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater... that's why we log and review our logs and weight trend over long enough periods of time (4-6 weeks) and make corrections based on our actual results over time.
Thank you for your reassurance. I am going to continue walking, even though it's not helping as much as I would like. But at least it keeps me moving.8 -
OP, you've gotten some great advice and support above, with which I agree - as someone who used to be about your weight, and active besides, the new numbers seem much more plausible.
Knowledge leads to improved progress, so I think you should feel really good about figuring this stuff out. Unlike some we see here, who - sadly - reject unwelcome but correct new information, you're taking the info on board. In that, you're on a successful path.
In addition, I'm thinking the article below might be helpful background information for you, as you think about whether and when to trust HRM-based estimates for exercise, and when it may be important to cross-check them by other methods. It's pretty old now, but it's still useful and informative:
https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
I'm far from the expert the writer is, so the following are just my amateur beliefs: There have been some improvements since then in the wrist-based sensors, so that they're more reliable IMO for a wider range of exercises (though still not perfect for everything). There have been changes in ancillary features available, especially in the higher-end devices, so some of the brand/model/feature info in the article is outdated. But the basic information, about the things that make heart rate a relatively better or worse predictor of calorie burn - that's pretty much still golden.
Best wishes!0 -
OP, you've gotten some great advice and support above, with which I agree - as someone who used to be about your weight, and active besides, the new numbers seem much more plausible.
Knowledge leads to improved progress, so I think you should feel really good about figuring this stuff out. Unlike some we see here, who - sadly - reject unwelcome but correct new information, you're taking the info on board. In that, you're on a successful path.
In addition, I'm thinking the article below might be helpful background information for you, as you think about whether and when to trust HRM-based estimates for exercise, and when it may be important to cross-check them by other methods. It's pretty old now, but it's still useful and informative:
https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
I'm far from the expert the writer is, so the following are just my amateur beliefs: There have been some improvements since then in the wrist-based sensors, so that they're more reliable IMO for a wider range of exercises (though still not perfect for everything). There have been changes in ancillary features available, especially in the higher-end devices, so some of the brand/model/feature info in the article is outdated. But the basic information, about the things that make heart rate a relatively better or worse predictor of calorie burn - that's pretty much still golden.
Best wishes!
Thank you for your reassurance. I will definitely check out the link you suggested.1 -
I don’t even burn that in a 4ml run (average about 600 give or take for incline). How are you getting that amount burnt?0
-
Oh edit to see your Fitbit is a lying you know what. I get map my walk and map my run. It’s more accurate imho and considers incline.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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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