Trying to find walking in the exercises and no luck

QuietBloom

Are you really wanting to count walking as an intentional exercise? Shouldn't that be included in your TDEE (or your maintenance calories?).

I personally wouldn't count walking as this could lead to over eating the estimated calories back and undoing your calorie deficit.

:laugh: Ok.

Hhhhmmmmm......I been walking since I started this weight loss, I wonder how I loss the 102 pounds!!! :happy:

I'll go on a limb here and suggest that it might have had something to do with how many calories you ate.

Both had a lot to do with my weight loss, but to say walking isn't exercise is ridiculous, I can't run as i have issues with my knees. I walk approx. 6 miles at around 4 mph, burn approx. 700 calories according to my fitbit. Ohhh and I do weight lifting also, but started this a year ago.

Re-read my post where i stated i wouldn't count it as exercise on MFP. Because you are likely to overestimate caloric burn.

I never said it wasn't exercise... :noway:

Couldn't the same be said for any exercise that is tracked through MFP alone? why restrict it to walking. It overestimates pretty much everything.

You are correct. But i find it overestimates even greater on light impact exercise such as walking/light jogging/etc. I actually think the MFP calculation of calories burned is atrocious. It estimates 40% higher on most exercises for me. I know first hand that when creating a deficit to cut that it's important to make sure you're consuming enough calories... but come on... walking? Even if the OP was walking great distances and briskly she still isn't going to be burning a very high number of calories.

Why even chance completely undoing your caloric deficit with eating those calories back when you have no way to really track it accurately?

OP didn't indicate they had a pedometer (to see if their "walk" was really beyond MFP's assumptive TDEE), a heart rate monitor, etc.

That's why i said.. if it were me... I wouldn't count it as exercise calories to eat back. A walk is a walk is a walk. OP didn't indicate if they walked a marathon or something...


Regardless, that's my opinion. You are all entitled to your own. To those who lost a large amount of weight while walking.... good for you! But keep in mind you had a lot of weight to lose and were likely at a fairly large deficit as it were. I gave generic advice for someone within any weight range. I know for someone who only has 10-20 pounds to lose eating those calories back can be detrimental.

You are assuming OP is doing TDEE. If they are wanting to enter in exercise calories, it seems safe to assume that they are NOT. So yes, they should count calories burned during walking. And I disagree that even if you walk vigorously and far, you are not going to burn much. You do.

mxmkenney

Walking is listed under "walk", but which one you choose will depend on your intensity and speed if you know it. I usually use "moderate" pace, but there is leisurely, and briskly listed as well. I generally don't count my daily walking around, but I do count it if it is specifically for exercise, like a 30 minute walk with friends at a moderate pace. If you walk a lot or have a job that keeps you moving, then maybe recalculate your activity level under the settings tab. I keep mine at "sedentary" and then I can add any additional exercise to my daily diary. But if I was more active, I would probably up my activity level to "lightly active" which accounts for more movement through everyday activities. Just some thoughts. Good luck, and don't listen to the people that say not to count walking - walking is GREAT exercise and it does burn calories, so keep it up!

Greytfish

You would have to be at the top of the the obesity charts to ever get more than a negligible caloric burn from walking - and then you would do so at grave risk to joints and soft tissue.

The change normally attributed to walking when obese and sedentary people begin a walking program is almost always entirely attributable to changes in dietary composition and caloric intake.

Shoechick5

You would have to be at the top of the the obesity charts to ever get more than a negligible caloric burn from walking - and then you would do so at grave risk to joints and soft tissue.

The change normally attributed to walking when obese and sedentary people begin a walking program is almost always entirely attributable to changes in dietary composition and caloric intake.

Excellent - good to know. Instead of DH and I going on our 5 1/2 mile hikes 3 times a week, we'll just sit on the couch :noway:

Greytfish

Whatever floats your boat.

But, if you think hiking and walking are similar, you might want to pick up a book or two while you sit.

QuietBloom

You would have to be at the top of the the obesity charts to ever get more than a negligible caloric burn from walking - and then you would do so at grave risk to joints and soft tissue.

The change normally attributed to walking when obese and sedentary people begin a walking program is almost always entirely attributable to changes in dietary composition and caloric intake.

What an absurd statement. Why don't you got walk 10 miles fast. Then come back and tell us if you still feel the same about walking having a negligible calorie burn.

RinnyLush

Just to help encourage the walkers out there...

I lost my first 20 lbs in 2.5 months by just walking to and from work every day (45 mins downhill to work, about 50 minutes uphill home) and eating at a deficit according to MFP. I burned plenty of calories, and ate most of them back as well. Walking is rad.

Now, as I approach my weight loss goal I am running, doing hot yoga, and slowly working in some weight training. I calculate most of my exercise calories according to my fitbit, which I LOVE. The loss is slower (predictably and reasonably so), but I'm still truckin'. Take your journey in steps and as long as you're moving forward, you'll get there.

Greytfish

You would have to be at the top of the the obesity charts to ever get more than a negligible caloric burn from walking - and then you would do so at grave risk to joints and soft tissue.

The change normally attributed to walking when obese and sedentary people begin a walking program is almost always entirely attributable to changes in dietary composition and caloric intake.

What an absurd statement. Why don't you got walk 10 miles fast. Then come back and tell us if you still feel the same about walking having a negligible calorie burn.

10 miles, at a brisk pace, even at the overly generous MFP estimation would burn a whopping 814 calories ...and consume 2.5 hours of time. You can burn that much in extra calories while sleeping with a one hour well planned lifting session - and still get better cardio out of it.

How many people walk that much daily?

QuietBloom

You would have to be at the top of the the obesity charts to ever get more than a negligible caloric burn from walking - and then you would do so at grave risk to joints and soft tissue.

The change normally attributed to walking when obese and sedentary people begin a walking program is almost always entirely attributable to changes in dietary composition and caloric intake.

What an absurd statement. Why don't you got walk 10 miles fast. Then come back and tell us if you still feel the same about walking having a negligible calorie burn.

10 miles, at a brisk pace, even at the overly generous MFP estimation would burn a whopping 814 calories ...and consume 2.5 hours of time. You can burn that much in extra calories while sleeping with a one hour well planned lifting session - and still get better cardio out of it.

How many people walk that much daily?

800 calories per lifting session? I hate to break it to you, but...nope. Vigorous weight training with few rests will burn between 400 and 450 calories an hour for a 200 lb male, and get you a 'little' cardio.

Greytfish

You would have to be at the top of the the obesity charts to ever get more than a negligible caloric burn from walking - and then you would do so at grave risk to joints and soft tissue.

The change normally attributed to walking when obese and sedentary people begin a walking program is almost always entirely attributable to changes in dietary composition and caloric intake.

What an absurd statement. Why don't you got walk 10 miles fast. Then come back and tell us if you still feel the same about walking having a negligible calorie burn.

10 miles, at a brisk pace, even at the overly generous MFP estimation would burn a whopping 814 calories ...and consume 2.5 hours of time. You can burn that much in extra calories while sleeping with a one hour well planned lifting session - and still get better cardio out of it.

How many people walk that much daily?

800 calories per lifting session? I hate to break it to you, but...nope. Vigorous weight training with few rests will burn between 400 and 450 calories an hour for a 200 lb male, and get you a 'little' cardio.

You misread what I wrote.

HollisGrant

Just wanted to chime in here because clearly no one understood what i said. At all.

I didn't say walking ISNT exercise, i said i wouldnt COUNT it as exercise....

Now then, OP doesn't address how long their walk was, whether they used a Heart Rate Monitor or whether they have a pedometer, etc. Therefore there isn't really ANY way to calculate the amount of calories burned. Generally it is NOT much higher than the amount of calories you burn at rest. According to the Mayo Clinic the Average person (of about 160 pounds) burns 314 calorie of walking PER HOUR.

^^^ Amazing that the calories burned from walking are about what you burn at rest... because I've lost about 50 pounds in the past year just from walking and I sure don't burn that sitting on the couch.

People who say that walking is not very good for exercise or shouldn't really be counted have no idea what they are talking about.

If slow or moderate walking burns 314 calories an hour and I walk 3-4 hours a day, I burn about 1,000 calories (walking to work, walking my dog, walking for errands, and walking in a nearby national park on the weekend). Walking instead of using my car has raised the whole quality of my life.

kworstell

Don't know why you can't find it. Make sure you're adding it under "cardiovascular". I found it at 3.0 mph (about the pace a healthy person would walk a healthy dog).

HollisGrant

You would have to be at the top of the the obesity charts to ever get more than a negligible caloric burn from walking - and then you would do so at grave risk to joints and soft tissue.

The change normally attributed to walking when obese and sedentary people begin a walking program is almost always entirely attributable to changes in dietary composition and caloric intake.

Absurd. Signing off now to go for a walk.

Greytfish

Don't know why you can't find it. Make sure you're adding it under "cardiovascular". I found it at 3.0 mph (about the pace a healthy person would walk a healthy dog).

It may be that the OP is using an app? On the wibsite it comes up with options if you just type in "walk." It's overly generous for all of the categories, but they are there. Sometime some of the run options dont show in the app either.

likitisplit

Just wanted to chime in here because clearly no one understood what i said. At all.

I didn't say walking ISNT exercise, i said i wouldnt COUNT it as exercise. Walking around during the day is something that is calculated into your TDEE which MFP creates a deficit off of. Even if you select "sedentary" MyFitnessPal assumes you will be burning 20% on TOP of your BMR before it creates your deficit. MyFitnessPal already assumes if you are sedentary that you're walking around 5000 steps per day.

Ok. If the OP is walking to the restroom, then they shouldn't count it.

However, in "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," published last December in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, a group of Syracuse University researchers measured the actual calorie burn of 12 men and 12 women while running and walking 1,600 meters (roughly a mile) on a treadmill. Result: The men burned an average of 124 calories while running, and 88 while walking; the women burned 105 and 74. (The men burned more than the women because they weighed more.) Just like common sense would tell you, walking a mile burns significantly more calories than resting.

The reason why MFP adds 20% to your BMR is for the normal activities you do when you aren't in a coma. Sitting. Watching TV. Walking to the fridge. Picking your nose. The setting "sedentary" doesn't cover any of the minimally active things a person starting a healthy lifestyle might engage in: walking, yoga, body weight exercises.

Mr_Knight

However, in "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," published last December in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, a group of Syracuse University researchers measured the actual calorie burn of 12 men and 12 women while running and walking 1,600 meters (roughly a mile) on a treadmill. Result: The men burned an average of 124 calories while running, and 88 while walking; the women burned 105 and 74. (The men burned more than the women because they weighed more.) Just like common sense would tell you, walking a mile burns significantly more calories than resting.

Those numbers include BMR/RMR, which means walking 1600m generated an extra burn of approximately 40 calories. Walking is great stuff, but distances need to be long before the burn amounts to much.

From another paper...note how the burn number is basically cut in half once RMR is backed out. This, incidentally, is why MFP's numbers are so large - if you don't cut them in half, you are essentially double-counting your RMR. This also applies to HRMs, which almost all provide a gross burn number, not a net burn number.

Running elicited a significantly greater total energy expenditure than walking on both the treadmill and the track (P < 0.001) for both genders (Fig. 1a). ...For the walk, the males expended 370.4 ± 17.7 kJ, and the females expended 309.6 ± 17.2 kJ for 1600 m (P < 0.05 between genders).

...

In the previous literature, sitting metabolic rate was subtracted from the total energy expenditure to acquire energy expenditures for locomotion....After subtracting sitting energy expenditure from the total energy expenditure...walking males 196 ± 20 kJ, females 164 ± 14 kJ).

Mr_Knight

I tried using the 0.3 * miles * body weight. It doesn't have an option for speed, which changes the equation quite a bit. I think 0.3 must be a leisurely stroll.

Speed has surprisingly little impact on the net burn. It's almost all determined by body weight and distance. Walking 4 miles in one hour nets about the same as walking 4 miles in two hours.

HerbertNenenger

Walking is a fine cardio exercise and very sustainable too. Don"t let anyone tell you otherwise. If you"re moving, it"s all good.

QuietBloom

You would have to be at the top of the the obesity charts to ever get more than a negligible caloric burn from walking - and then you would do so at grave risk to joints and soft tissue.

The change normally attributed to walking when obese and sedentary people begin a walking program is almost always entirely attributable to changes in dietary composition and caloric intake.

What an absurd statement. Why don't you got walk 10 miles fast. Then come back and tell us if you still feel the same about walking having a negligible calorie burn.

10 miles, at a brisk pace, even at the overly generous MFP estimation would burn a whopping 814 calories ...and consume 2.5 hours of time. You can burn that much in extra calories while sleeping with a one hour well planned lifting session - and still get better cardio out of it.

How many people walk that much daily?

800 calories per lifting session? I hate to break it to you, but...nope. Vigorous weight training with few rests will burn between 400 and 450 calories an hour for a 200 lb male, and get you a 'little' cardio.

You misread what I wrote.

Erm... I assume sleep counts into BMR, not exercise. So the walker burns that too. I thought you might have meant that, but it made no sense, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt. My bad.

QuietBloom

I tried using the 0.3 * miles * body weight. It doesn't have an option for speed, which changes the equation quite a bit. I think 0.3 must be a leisurely stroll.

Speed has surprisingly little impact on the net burn. It's almost all determined by body weight and distance. Walking 4 miles in one hour nets about the same as walking 4 miles in two hours.

Logically that doesn't make sense to me. The fast you go, the more you are going to burn it would seem to me. After all, running burns more than walking, so...