Burn more calories with walking than burpees?

endoftheside

Today, I took a moderately paced walk for about 45 minutes. I let my fitbit handle it because I figured that is the kind of thing fitbit can do.

Later, I did my workout that included 150 jumping jacks, 110 squats, and numerous burpees along with things like pushups, crunches, leg lifts, downward dog, etc. I was sweating during the workout but with mostly lower impact exercises it wasn't intense overall.

Fitbit recorded 190 calories for my 45 minute walk. My Polar FT60 recorded 161 calories for the 57 minute workout.

I noticed that my heart rate was running fairly low on the watch during my workout so I manually checked it and the HRM was recording correctly. At the same time, I cannot imagine that a moderate WALK burned more calories than my workout!

What is going on here? The point of getting these gadgets was to help me more accurately gauge the "out" part of the calories equation, and I am more confused than ever!

leachjg

I wish I could help you out here, but I can bump you.

gmallan

Today, I took a moderately paced walk for about 45 minutes. I let my fitbit handle it because I figured that is the kind of thing fitbit can do.

Later, I did my workout that included 150 jumping jacks, 110 squats, and numerous burpees along with things like pushups, crunches, leg lifts, downward dog, etc. I was sweating during the workout but with mostly lower impact exercises it wasn't intense overall.

Fitbit recorded 190 calories for my 45 minute walk. My Polar FT60 recorded 161 calories for the 57 minute workout.

I noticed that my heart rate was running fairly low on the watch during my workout so I manually checked it and the HRM was recording correctly. At the same time, I cannot imagine that a moderate WALK burned more calories than my workout!

What is going on here? The point of getting these gadgets was to help me more accurately gauge the "out" part of the calories equation, and I am more confused than ever!

The explanation can probably be found here

1. numerous burpees - how many exactly? 45 minutes of burpees would burn more calories than 45 mins of walking but if you did 10 burpees interspaced with much lower intensity exercise then probably not.
2. "lower impact exercises it wasn't intense overall" - if it doesn't get your heart rate up more than a moderate walk than you probably want to consider a different exercise routine, especially if your main aim is to burn calories. Try inter-spacing a higher intensity exercise (like burpees, mountain climbers, jump squats, dynamic lunges) with a lower intensity exercise (squats, lunges, crunches, pushups).

Basically, your workout routine is not high enough in intensity to elevate your heart rate enough to burn more than a moderate walk

SmartFunGorgeous

I can't tell you anything definitive about the calories, but one exercise (walking) shapes up very specific parts of your body, while the burpees, yoga, etc., work various others, plus strengthen core muscles. So overall, consider which benefits your health in the long run the most! (Except, I like them all, so maybe I should have just kept silent.)

4leighbee

I walked on the treadmill today. I never do that ... just didn't feel like running today, I guess. So I ramped up the incline and was very surprised to see that walking at 4.0 with an incline of 5-6 burns a heck of a lot more calories than I thought. It still won't replace running, of course - I would go crazy for sure - but it's nice to know that it's not a wasted workout at all.

mattketring

I love to do an incline walk at 10.0 for 15 minutes at a 3.5 speed as a warm-up. It gets cals burned, and I am ready for the rest of the workout. I've lately added 15 on the elliptical and 15 on the stationary bike after the walk. 45 mins of cardio before my weight training. My legs feel stupidly jello-ish but it's worth the struggle for sure.

Tffanie4712

It could be you are half doing them try to do them at a faster pace, but with correct form

billr42

You measured walking with the fitbit, and the other exercise with the polar. Maybe one (or both) do not measure accurately. Try the 45 minute walk with the Polar and see what result it gives you. Try to keep it the same as with the fitbit. Test some of the other exercises the same way. You probably want to do this with a shorter regimen to make it easier to be consistent.

jaz050465

You measured walking with the fitbit, and the other exercise with the polar. Maybe one (or both) do not measure accurately. Try the 45 minute walk with the Polar and see what result it gives you. Try to keep it the same as with the fitbit. Test some of the other exercises the same way. You probably want to do this with a shorter regimen to make it easier to be consistent.

Don't think you can use a HRM to accurately measure walking- think heart rate has to be more accelerated- and can't use Fitbit to measure burgers! A BMF would measure both.

Mcgrawhaha

i think the walking calories makes sense! i burn about 275 calories per hour walking 3.8 mph...

Mcgrawhaha

You measured walking with the fitbit, and the other exercise with the polar. Maybe one (or both) do not measure accurately. Try the 45 minute walk with the Polar and see what result it gives you. Try to keep it the same as with the fitbit. Test some of the other exercises the same way. You probably want to do this with a shorter regimen to make it easier to be consistent.

Don't think you can use a HRM to accurately measure walking- think heart rate has to be more accelerated- and can't use Fitbit to measure burgers! A BMF would measure both.

an hrm would accurately measure walking, because your heart rate does get elevated during walking.

Mcgrawhaha

I walked on the treadmill today. I never do that ... just didn't feel like running today, I guess. So I ramped up the incline and was very surprised to see that walking at 4.0 with an incline of 5-6 burns a heck of a lot more calories than I thought. It still won't replace running, of course - I would go crazy for sure - but it's nice to know that it's not a wasted workout at all.

yeah, when i need a break from running to catch my breath, i walk at 3.5mph at a 11% incline and i burn about 610 calories per hour for me... walking on a flat tread at 3.8mph only burns about 275 calories per hour for me...

heybales

Your HRM may be cheaper with no VO2max stat or self-test.

If Polar and cheaper models - they assume if your BMI (height and weight) is bad for your gender and age, then your VO2max is bad too, in other words poor fitness.

Yours should have the VO2max stat, and perhaps self-test. Done it lately, morning after rest day, per their FAQ?

But it may not be, you may be very cardio fit - meaning you can do harder work at a lower HR.

Which means the HRM is going to think the lowish HR means you didn't work that hard - but you actually did.

Next walk you do, test the HRM to see how off it may be. See if you can increase the incline to get the HR to match the more intense workout.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

ninerbuff

An HRM doesn't accurately count calories burned from anaerobic exercise which pushups, squats, etc. are.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

heybales

You measured walking with the fitbit, and the other exercise with the polar. Maybe one (or both) do not measure accurately. Try the 45 minute walk with the Polar and see what result it gives you. Try to keep it the same as with the fitbit. Test some of the other exercises the same way. You probably want to do this with a shorter regimen to make it easier to be consistent.

Don't think you can use a HRM to accurately measure walking- think heart rate has to be more accelerated- and can't use Fitbit to measure burgers! A BMF would measure both.

Sure, the formula's will be just as good with walking as anything else in the aerobic exercise zone, about 90 bpm to anaerobic zone around 150-160.

That's not imply they are accurate, just as good.

Then again walking flat 3.5 mph I can't get much above 90 at this point.

endoftheside

Would pushups, squats, etc. still count as anaerobic if you do not get your heart rate into the anaerobic range while doing them?

I just got the Polar FT60 last week and when I did the self-test I ended up with a VO2max of 34, which put me just slightly into the "good" range for a female of my age.

My resting pulse is in the low 60s and the kind of walking I did yesterday (briskly, dirt path through the woods) I am guessing my heart rate was 90 if that.

Next step is to get to the gym and do the treadmill test for the HRM as suggested by heybales.

On the one hand, I am going to be very disappointed if the HRM is not going to work well to estimate my calories. On the other hand, knowing that my heart rate is not really getting to where it needs to be to improve my fitness any more, with what I've been doing, is HUGE.

Thanks for the comments everyone!

ninerbuff

Would pushups, squats, etc. still count as anaerobic if you do not get your heart rate into the anaerobic range while doing them?

Only if you could continually stay doing push ups for say a half hour without stopping. Anaerobic exercise will cause lactic acid build up, which isn't present in aerobic exercise (which is why say a runner can go 10 miles without stopping, but a squatter has to stop due to the build up).

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

heybales

Would pushups, squats, etc. still count as anaerobic if you do not get your heart rate into the anaerobic range while doing them?

I just got the Polar FT60 last week and when I did the self-test I ended up with a VO2max of 34, which put me just slightly into the "good" range for a female of my age.

My resting pulse is in the low 60s and the kind of walking I did yesterday (briskly, dirt path through the woods) I am guessing my heart rate was 90 if that.

Next step is to get to the gym and do the treadmill test for the HRM as suggested by heybales.

On the one hand, I am going to be very disappointed if the HRM is not going to work well to estimate my calories. On the other hand, knowing that my heart rate is not really getting to where it needs to be to improve my fitness any more, with what I've been doing, is HUGE.

Thanks for the comments everyone!

That HRM will have a better chance at least.
I'd suggest the same morning after a rest day you plan on weighing, do the self-test. Because even if no improvement to actual VO2max and fitness level, the mere act of losing weight causes the VO2max mL/KG/min to go up.
So wake up, easy routine and weigh, enter in new weight in HRM, sit down, get calm, do self-test again.

You start improving fitness level fast at start, it'll get slower later on, but still, as weight drops, the number goes up anyway.

The other thing the formula requires for decent estimates - steady-state aerobic. Same HR for 2-4 min. So lifting and sprints is not only anaerobic, but also fails that steady-state.

That's because when you initially change effort, your HR goes higher than it really needs to be, before dropping some after staying at that workload or pace.
So like on treadmill, you'll likely have to jog to get HR at decent enough level if you barely reach 90 on trails with hills.
But if you start out walking to get warmed up, and then jump to jogging say 6 mph, your HR may go to say 140 for 1-3 min, slowly coming back down to 130 say. Even though your work load didn't change, same pace, same weight, ect, your HR was obviously higher than it needed to be, because it could come back down.

So now picture a workout where you are constantly changing workload, up down up down, the HR never recovers to true required bpm. Meaning it's higher than needed the entire time by some amount, meaning the HRM is going to inflate the calorie count by some amount.

During the test on treadmill, after you do the 20 or 30 min for the test, you'll already be doing a certain speed and should have a steady HR at that point. Note the calories at that point of the test, or stop the workout but keep watching the HR.
Increase speed by 0.5 mph or enough to raise HR by 10 bpm. And then give it 2-4 minutes and see where the HR really ended up, and how long it took to get there.

Those with a fast HR recovery actually can reach that reduced state pretty fast - I've seen 30 seconds actually. But that's still too long for the workout you describe, which despite lower HR is still probably not that aerobic. You can have an anaerobic effort without the HR shooting up. Anaerobic cardio it will of course, but not anaerobic from lifting or such.

bio_fit

I have to ask - what's a burpee?

4leighbee

Someone will have a better answer than this, but I can't resist ... when I think of a burpee, I always think, "head and shoulders, knees and toes (knees and toes)" ... only it's a LOT more painful.