Did I seriously only burn 72 calories?

3dogsrunning

No I hate it but I have a four year old and watch a two year old so doing most stuff is out. I can get in maybe an hr before the two year old comes to my house. Plus it's freakin freezing out.
I wanna do more but I can only stay on 30 min at a time before I loose my mind...so bored. I'd go faster but I can't do it (physically) at this point. 3.5 is top speed for me. I can do 2.5 with a 5 incline but like I said, switching it up or inclines are really hard to log

Walking slower at an incline will burn more calories than walking a bit faster and being flat. Get a HRM, I have a feeling you burned more than 72 calories.

Keep in mind that all bets are off if you start holding on. A common mistake that people make.

Why do you think she burned more than 72 calories?

Why assume I meant for her to hike up the elevation just to hold on to the railings? People do hold on to the treadmills with inclines yes (I've seen it too) - but not everyone does. Common sense has to kick in at some point if you don't feel the burn in your legs from walking up hill.

I think she burned more than 72 calories walking at an incline for 17 minutes because it takes way more effort to walk uphill than it does to walk flat. I'm just suggesting the use of a HRM to know exactly what her body is doing.

Using estimates from an exercise database is as useful as relying soley on the nutrition database. Everyone touts the use of a food scale to measure food. Why not the use of a HRM for exercise?

I did not assume you meant for her to hold on, nor did I say that. I was adding that to what you said because it is a common mistake. It is hard to walk uphill on a treadmill and the first instinct is to hold on.

72 is generous for walking at her weight, even uphill, based on data tables that are well researched. I was just wondering where the decision that it wasn't high enough came from.

I didn't say not to use a HRM, I didn't say anything about a HRM in that post. Earlier I did say they are far too often misunderstood and the accuracy is overrated. The link I added had suggestions on how to use it more effectively.

ETA - HRMs are intended for estimations during steady state cardio, which is what we are talking about here, that is good. The link suggests ways to help increase accuracy. It is not good for all exercise.

You can't base calorie burn on someone's height alone. That has no correspondance to how hard her body is working or how much effort she is putting into whatever her workout of choice is, be it steady state cardio or anything else. Your reasoning makes no sense. But thanks for your expertise on everything related to HRMs.

I missed where I said anything about height.
If you meant weight - calories burned depends on two factors - weight and intensity, that's it. It makes perfect sense. How hard her body works depends a lot on how much weight it has to move. It takes less energy to walk carrying 150 lbs of weight than it does to carry 200 lbs. if you look at any of the data tables for figuring calories (again for things like walking and running they are well researched) it is all based on multiplying your weight by a certain factor and time.
The one listed earlier for walking is weight x .3 = calories burned per mile, for example.

Azdak and Heybales are the ones to thanks. They have a lot of knowledge and have put it out there in terms we can understand. I spent a lot of time going over their stuff.

Here is a great one that explains how they work. By azdak.

http://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

This one is a great explanation of the data tables I referred to

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/estimating-calories-activity-databases-198041

Will have to edit to add links. On my phone.

twilaklasen

I love how everyone is disagreeing on my comment about on how I said that GENERALLY walking is the same as running and then basing the argument on a BIASED "Runners World Blog", which was based on ONE study done 10 years ago.

Anyway, I think everyone missed my point which is, if you can walk three miles and not give up, do it. If you can only run one mile and then never want to do it again, which one will a person more likely succeed?

3dogsrunning

I love how everyone is disagreeing on my comment about on how I said that GENERALLY walking is the same as running and then basing the argument on a BIASED "Runners World Blog", which was based on ONE study done 10 years ago.

Anyway, I think everyone missed my point which is, if you can walk three miles and not give up, do it. If you can only run one mile and then never want to do it again, which one will a person more likely succeed?

I apologize if you took offense. I used that article because it explains it well. I've read other things to support it.
And while I can't speak for everyone else, I wasn't saying the OP should run. I don't think anyone did. The discussion came up due to the running vs walking calories burned. The only reason I brought it up because walking is about half. Not a big deal when we are talking a mile or two, but the more you do the larger the discrepancy.