Walking speed vs walking time

mclgo

Hello all,
I use Runtastic app for my fitness walks, and I'm stumped.
If I walk 30 minutes at 2.0 mph I burn about the same calorie amount as when I walk 30 minutes at 2.5 mph. Shouldn't I burn more calories if I'm walking faster?

Thanks

FaitheSoler

Yes if you are going to the same amount of time then you are burning more.

TeaBea

Calorie burns are dependent upon height, weight, age, gender, exertion level (and other things) .....how much info do you plug into your app? The more info it has, the closer it will be.

Yes, walking faster should burn more calories ..... exertion level. A heart rate monitor (with a chest strap) attempts to measure exertion level by registering electric impulses constantly. A HRM should be more accurate.

BrianSharpe

Yes, by covering more distance you would expend more energy but it may be less of a difference than you think .

If you use runners world's suggested formula (for net calorie expenditure) of .30 x your body weight in lbs x distance in miles a 200lb person would expend an additional 30 calories walking 2.5 miles vs 2

jacksonpt

It depends.

By in large, if you are covering the same distance, it doesn't matter how fast or slow you go. You can burn 10 cals per minute for 10 minutes or 2 cals per minute for 50 minutes. Ultimately, it takes the same amount of work/energy to move your body a given distance, regardless of how fast you go.

Now, if you change the distance, you'll change the total cals burned.

phjorg1

It depends.

By in large, if you are covering the same distance, it doesn't matter how fast or slow you go. You can burn 10 cals per minute for 10 minutes or 2 cals per minute for 50 minutes. Ultimately, it takes the same amount of work/energy to move your body a given distance, regardless of how fast you go.

Now, if you change the distance, you'll change the total cals burned.

False. The body uses progressively less energy efficient energy systems as you increase exercise intensity. Someone walking a mile will burn less calories than someone running a mile for the distance.

wilsoje74

It depends.

By in large, if you are covering the same distance, it doesn't matter how fast or slow you go. You can burn 10 cals per minute for 10 minutes or 2 cals per minute for 50 minutes. Ultimately, it takes the same amount of work/energy to move your body a given distance, regardless of how fast you go.

Now, if you change the distance, you'll change the total cals burned.

No, if you are running you will burn more. I think the difference in walking 2 vs 2.5 is probably pretty small tho.

mvermace

Many good points, truths and not-so-truths... Other factors include stopping/starting for traffic, elevation changes, etc. While I don't know the actual amount of calories burned I know I get a better "burn" walking 2 miles of hills versus 3 miles of flat... The keys for me are that MFP keeps me honest diet-wise and keeps me working towards my goal(s) - the actual calories burned is unknown but the measurement at least provides a reference. I see that you are losing weight - congrats - and you are probably eating better. So does speed vs. walking matter other than curiosity? Again great job on working to your goals!

jacksonpt

It depends.

By in large, if you are covering the same distance, it doesn't matter how fast or slow you go. You can burn 10 cals per minute for 10 minutes or 2 cals per minute for 50 minutes. Ultimately, it takes the same amount of work/energy to move your body a given distance, regardless of how fast you go.

Now, if you change the distance, you'll change the total cals burned.

No, if you are running you will burn more. I think the difference in walking 2 vs 2.5 is probably pretty small tho.

Can you explain further? Why would you burn more moving the same load over the same distance regardless of how fast it moved?

jacksonpt

It depends.

By in large, if you are covering the same distance, it doesn't matter how fast or slow you go. You can burn 10 cals per minute for 10 minutes or 2 cals per minute for 50 minutes. Ultimately, it takes the same amount of work/energy to move your body a given distance, regardless of how fast you go.

Now, if you change the distance, you'll change the total cals burned.

False. The body uses progressively less energy efficient energy systems as you increase exercise intensity. Someone walking a mile will burn less calories than someone running a mile for the distance.

huh... that goes against most everything I've read.

Just to be clear... as intensity increases (and energy demands increase with it), the body gets LESS efficient? And how significant is the difference? Say walking 5 miles vs running the same 5 miles. Are we talking a difference of 2% or 20%?

.

hilts1969

The answer to the question is you will burn more calories but at those speeds not a lot, the device you are using is obviously wrong - simple

ashleyisgreat

Warning: I have no real evidence other than my own anecdotal evidence. Also, I'm totally out of shape, so walking gets my HR up pretty quickly. This might not apply to people who are fit. Haha.

When I wear my HRM, my calorie burns are not much different if I am working harder (unless it's significantly harder). Example: if I am walking at a moderate pace and my HR is 140, I will burn 300 or so cals during a 35 minute walk. Now, if I pick up the pace and walk pretty fast and my HR is 165, I might burn 330-350 cals during a 35 minute walk. Even though I feel like I am working a lot harder and walking a lot faster, the calorie burn is pretty much the same. It is even less significant the longer my workouts are. An hour at that first pace and I might burn 550 cals, and at the second pace it might be 600. So, even though the time is nearly doubled, the extra calorie burn isn't.

I have been wearing a HRM for over 3 years and this is my experience.

hilts1969

Wrong, also if you walk at 2mph for 30 mins and then 30 mins at 2.5mph she is going further anyhow so not sure what your point is

hilts1969

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn?page=single

This explains it pretty well

jeffd247

Sounds like the app is wrong. Those GPS apps on your phone are really not that accurate. I have a 1 mile stretch that I walk and I focus on my time. After a few months of walking I know how fast 3.5 vs 4 mph feels (though I always underestimate since Im getting faster as I get in shape).

My mother has a FitBit which is painfully inaccurate in terms of walking speed. It just can't argue with my stopwatch.


If you can find the distance and focus on your time, you can calc the speed. Just walk as fast as you can for as far as you can and you'll see the results. Don't sweat 20-30 calories here and there.

phjorg1

It depends.

By in large, if you are covering the same distance, it doesn't matter how fast or slow you go. You can burn 10 cals per minute for 10 minutes or 2 cals per minute for 50 minutes. Ultimately, it takes the same amount of work/energy to move your body a given distance, regardless of how fast you go.

Now, if you change the distance, you'll change the total cals burned.

False. The body uses progressively less energy efficient energy systems as you increase exercise intensity. Someone walking a mile will burn less calories than someone running a mile for the distance.

huh... that goes against most everything I've read.

Just to be clear... as intensity increases (and energy demands increase with it), the body gets LESS efficient? And how significant is the difference? Say walking 5 miles vs running the same 5 miles. Are we talking a difference of 2% or 20%?

.

Correct. The body has different ways to create ATP that in turn powers the muscles. When you're walking, it's primarily the fatty acid energy system powering everything. A few calories of fat is a ton of ATP produced if you will. Remember the fat burning zone? The lower intensity the more % of fat you burn? What's basically happening is the lower the intensity of work, the more your body can use the fatty acid system, and the less it uses the cardio system.

The cardio system is similar, but uses carbs to make ATP, and is far less efficient than the fatty acid system. So the higher intensity you go from doing nothing, the more the cardio system will contribute, the less the fatty acid system will contribute to ATP.

Taking it a step further, the closer u get to your lactic acid threshold, the more the lactic acid energy system takes over to meet intensity demand. It's even less efficient. So train yourself to workout at that intensity for long periods of time and you can really get some calorie burn going.

As for how big the difference, the one link above mine was 50% greater calorie burn per mile if you run instead of walk. So it's significant.

phjorg1

Warning: I have no real evidence other than my own anecdotal evidence. Also, I'm totally out of shape, so walking gets my HR up pretty quickly. This might not apply to people who are fit. Haha.

When I wear my HRM, my calorie burns are not much different if I am working harder (unless it's significantly harder). Example: if I am walking at a moderate pace and my HR is 140, I will burn 300 or so cals during a 35 minute walk. Now, if I pick up the pace and walk pretty fast and my HR is 165, I might burn 330-350 cals during a 35 minute walk. Even though I feel like I am working a lot harder and walking a lot faster, the calorie burn is pretty much the same. It is even less significant the longer my workouts are. An hour at that first pace and I might burn 550 cals, and at the second pace it might be 600. So, even though the time is nearly doubled, the extra calorie burn isn't.

I have been wearing a HRM for over 3 years and this is my experience.

The fact you think you burn 300 calories in half an hour of walking pretty much invalidates everything you said. You're burning less than half that in actuality. Prob closer to 60-90.

That said your results are expected for a hrm because of how they use their formula. Hrm does not know oxygen consumption. It guesses. It assumes a linear relationship between hr and o2 due to being unable to know otherwise. But the fact is the relationship is not linear.

If you want to measure calorie burn per mile you need to be hooked up to equipment that measures oxygen consumption.

wilsoje74

Warning: I have no real evidence other than my own anecdotal evidence. Also, I'm totally out of shape, so walking gets my HR up pretty quickly. This might not apply to people who are fit. Haha.

When I wear my HRM, my calorie burns are not much different if I am working harder (unless it's significantly harder). Example: if I am walking at a moderate pace and my HR is 140, I will burn 300 or so cals during a 35 minute walk. Now, if I pick up the pace and walk pretty fast and my HR is 165, I might burn 330-350 cals during a 35 minute walk. Even though I feel like I am working a lot harder and walking a lot faster, the calorie burn is pretty much the same. It is even less significant the longer my workouts are. An hour at that first pace and I might burn 550 cals, and at the second pace it might be 600. So, even though the time is nearly doubled, the extra calorie burn isn't.

I have been wearing a HRM for over 3 years and this is my experience.

300 cals for 30 min walk?? Doubtful. I don't burn that in a 30 min run and I'm getting at least 3 miles.

Mr_Knight

Hello all,
I use Runtastic app for my fitness walks, and I'm stumped.
If I walk 30 minutes at 2.0 mph I burn about the same calorie amount as when I walk 30 minutes at 2.5 mph. Shouldn't I burn more calories if I'm walking faster?

It's a difference of about 400 yards. Yes, it's a bigger burn, but the difference is slight. It's also a slow pace, which effectively creates bigger error bars with the GPS.

At any rate, we're talking about a difference on the order of 30 calories, not enough to worry about.

mclgo

ikoj hjim Me again - topic starter
I'm not worried, just curious.
I'm VERY short, and I mean VERY short, so walking 2.5 mph for me is not at all slow.
I just notice that when I kick it up to 3.0 mph versus 2 or 2.5 mph I'm not burning many more calories. I find that interesting. And I give my Runtastic app as much info as possible.

Ultimately though, it's a free app so I can't expect much accuracy. The important thing is I'm moving and losing, so night all!

jacksonpt

It depends.

By in large, if you are covering the same distance, it doesn't matter how fast or slow you go. You can burn 10 cals per minute for 10 minutes or 2 cals per minute for 50 minutes. Ultimately, it takes the same amount of work/energy to move your body a given distance, regardless of how fast you go.

Now, if you change the distance, you'll change the total cals burned.

False. The body uses progressively less energy efficient energy systems as you increase exercise intensity. Someone walking a mile will burn less calories than someone running a mile for the distance.

huh... that goes against most everything I've read.

Just to be clear... as intensity increases (and energy demands increase with it), the body gets LESS efficient? And how significant is the difference? Say walking 5 miles vs running the same 5 miles. Are we talking a difference of 2% or 20%?

.

Correct. The body has different ways to create ATP that in turn powers the muscles. When you're walking, it's primarily the fatty acid energy system powering everything. A few calories of fat is a ton of ATP produced if you will. Remember the fat burning zone? The lower intensity the more % of fat you burn? What's basically happening is the lower the intensity of work, the more your body can use the fatty acid system, and the less it uses the cardio system.

The cardio system is similar, but uses carbs to make ATP, and is far less efficient than the fatty acid system. So the higher intensity you go from doing nothing, the more the cardio system will contribute, the less the fatty acid system will contribute to ATP.

Taking it a step further, the closer u get to your lactic acid threshold, the more the lactic acid energy system takes over to meet intensity demand. It's even less efficient. So train yourself to workout at that intensity for long periods of time and you can really get some calorie burn going.

As for how big the difference, the one link above mine was 50% greater calorie burn per mile if you run instead of walk. So it's significant.

Interesting... thanks for taking the time to explain it.