did I really burn 300 calories in 65 minutes walking

xxshelbyxx0818

I bought a $10 fitness watch and have used it two days in a row. I'm super confused now, not to mention pissed off. First, I did yoga for 30 minutes today and used the watch's pulse monitor when I was done and it said I burned 94 calories. Normally when I input my daily yoga into mfp it'll say 30-50 caloriex (and I've heard from everyone on here that mfp gives generous calorie counts) next, I walked for 65 minutes at a leisurely pace but also jogged in place as I walked to keep my heart rate up. When I was done My watch said 300! Wtf? So I compared it to mfp calorie counter and mfp said I'd only burn 280 walking at 3.5 mph, meaning my watch is either way off or I'm burning a lot more than I thought. And that's probably not the case.

I can still return it, it was only 10 bucks so may not even be worth the time to resend it to the eBay asshat who it came from. I can't afford a fitbit but I dealt wanna know how much I'm burning, don't just wanna go by mfp data.

brianpperkins

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single


HRMs are only good for steady state cardio and most of them report gross (exercise + BMR) calories rather than net (exercise only) calories. They are useless for yoga, pilates, weight lifting, etc.

IllustratedxGirl

Those numbers should like they could be right.. Well, no HRM will be exact, but those sound reasonable depending on your height and weight.

I burned 500 calories walking for two hours today... And depending on the yoga routing I can burn anywhere from 170-300 calories an hour

xxshelbyxx0818

Those numbers should like they could be right.. Well, no HRM will be exact, but those sound reasonable depending on your height and weight.

I burned 500 calories walking for two hours today... And depending on the yoga routing I can burn anywhere from 170-300 calories an hour

Ok well why did the person before u say it's not right? I'm so confused
. I just did yoga and it said 224 which I know is high so I subtracted calorie burned just being alive which I read somewhere is like 120 an hour and I did yoga for a half hour so that'd be minus 60 so I burned like 165 doing yoga for 30 minuted. To me that seems excessive BUT idk. I'm pissed I spend money on a hrm when everyone's saying they're bull. Why are the fitbit so good then if they do the same as a hrm watch

FatFreeFrolicking

Those numbers should like they could be right.. Well, no HRM will be exact, but those sound reasonable depending on your height and weight.

I burned 500 calories walking for two hours today... And depending on the yoga routing I can burn anywhere from 170-300 calories an hour

Ok well why did the person before u say it's not right? I'm so confused
. I just did yoga and it said 224 which I know is high so I subtracted calorie burned just being alive which I read somewhere is like 120 an hour and I did yoga for a half hour so that'd be minus 60 so I burned like 165 doing yoga for 30 minuted. To me that seems excessive BUT idk. I'm pissed I spend money on a hrm when everyone's saying they're bull. Why are the fitbit so good then if they do the same as a hrm watch

A $10 fitness watch isn't going to be accurate. If you want the most accurate calorie burn, buy a heart rate monitor such as Polar FT4. A good HRM will cost you $100. http://www.polar.com/us-en/products/get_active/fitness_crosstraining/FT4

amberpickens

i thought the same thing about my hrm but after talking to my doc she said that its right. if you jogged in place to keep your heart rate up i see no problem with you burning 300 calroies. as far as yoga goes it really doesnt burn alot of calories

ElyseL1

they arent bull. i use them when i do cardio. your walking, that's cardio so its giving you an accurate read. just dont use it for weights.

xxshelbyxx0818

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single


HRMs are only good for steady state cardio and most of them report gross (exercise + BMR) calories rather than net (exercise only) calories. They are useless for yoga, pilates, weight lifting, etc.

Call me stupid but I don't get what that article tells me about my calories burned while doin any one exercise using my hrm.

xxshelbyxx0818

i thought the same thing about my hrm but after talking to my doc she said that its right. if you jogged in place to keep your heart rate up i see no problem with you burning 300 calroies. as far as yoga goes it really doesnt burn alot of calories

The yoga I'm doing does cuz it's fast paced and makes me sweat. It's specifically for weight loss. So, your doc said the hrm are correct? Even ones that aren't connected to your chest the entire time? I can't afford one like that for at least a few weeks so that's why I bought the cheapy one that reads your HR at rhe end of the workout.

RunnersLament

As a runner, the general rule that I have heard is 100 calories per mile. But that is a generalization. It applies to an average runner (150'ish pounds) of average size and health.

I don't imagine walking is that different... 100 calories per mile...the average person can walk around 3 miles per hour. Sounds reasonable.

That being said, I don't know your body composition, height, weight, pace etc.

xxshelbyxx0818

they arent bull. i use them when i do cardio. your walking, that's cardio so its giving you an accurate read. just dont use it for weights.

I know walking is cardio that's why I'm using it but is it accurate even if it's only taking my hr at rhe end of my workout cuz it's not attached to my chest the whole time?

xxshelbyxx0818

As a runner, the general rule that I have heard is 100 calories per mile. But that is a generalization. It applies to an average runner (150'ish pounds) of average size and health.

I don't imagine walking is that different... 100 calories per mile...the average person can walk around 3 miles per hour. Sounds reasonable.

That being said, I don't know your body composition, height, weight, pace etc.

Well my cheap hrm watch does know my composition, weight, age etc, so that's why I assumed it took an accurate read. But I read somewhere that I have to subtract calories from the final number that it took to just live. Like my watch isn't taking into factor that it takes close to 120 calories an hour burned just to live, so whatever my final number is I should subtract calories burned just breating/living, which would make that number actually 200 for 65 minutes.

my_2_cents

300 calories in 65 minutes is not unusual. It depends largely on your weight and your speed. running in place would definitely have upped the speed factor. I burn about 450 calories in walking 90 minutes. I burn around 800 calories on a 7.5 km run. I have a fitbit, and I can't say enough good about it, when you can afford one it would be a great investment.

One thing I would suggest is to understand that all measures of calorie burn numbers by any software are estimates. The only way to get truly accurate numbers is in a laboratory environment with many many sensors hooked up to you.

If you have two devices giving vastly different numbers, then you know in your heart which one is likely accurate, but if the devices are off by 50-60 calories, then just take somewhere in the middle. If you are trying to lose weight, then set your weight loss goal at 2lbs per week, you can then weigh in and over the course of a few weeks you get an idea of how quickly you are losing and can use the average weight loss to estimate whether you are taking in too many calories or too few. Either way, a 65 minute walk is good for you, feel good about yourself for that.

xxshelbyxx0818

Those numbers should like they could be right.. Well, no HRM will be exact, but those sound reasonable depending on your height and weight.

I burned 500 calories walking for two hours today... And depending on the yoga routing I can burn anywhere from 170-300 calories an hour

Ok well why did the person before u say it's not right? I'm so confused
. I just did yoga and it said 224 which I know is high so I subtracted calorie burned just being alive which I read somewhere is like 120 an hour and I did yoga for a half hour so that'd be minus 60 so I burned like 165 doing yoga for 30 minuted. To me that seems excessive BUT idk. I'm pissed I spend money on a hrm when everyone's saying they're bull. Why are the fitbit so good then if they do the same as a hrm watch

A $10 fitness watch isn't going to be accurate. If you want the most accurate calorie burn, buy a heart rate monitor such as Polar FT4. A good HRM will cost you $100. http://www.polar.com/us-en/products/get_active/fitness_crosstraining/FT4

Wby can't it be accurate and why do some people say they work perfectly fine? What about people that can't afford an expensive hrm? And do the post ones require chest straps cuz id like oNE that doesn't

xxshelbyxx0818

300 calories in 65 minutes is not unusual. It depends largely on your weight and your speed. running in place would definitely have upped the speed factor. I burn about 450 calories in walking 90 minutes. I burn around 800 calories on a 7.5 km run. I have a fitbit, and I can't say enough good about it, when you can afford one it would be a great investment.

One thing I would suggest is to understand that all measures of calorie burn numbers by any software are estimates. The only way to get truly accurate numbers is in a laboratory environment with many many sensors hooked up to you.

If you have two devices giving vastly different numbers, then you know in your heart which one is likely accurate, but if the devices are off by 50-60 calories, then just take somewhere in the middle. If you are trying to lose weight, then set your weight loss goal at 2lbs per week, you can then weigh in and over the course of a few weeks you get an idea of how quickly you are losing and can use the average weight loss to estimate whether you are taking in too many calories or too few. Either way, a 65 minute walk is good for you, feel good about yourself for that.

Why thank you, I do feel good about it. Mainly because I'm 23 and have been sedentary for the last 3 years because of my depression, which also caused me to eat a lot of cookies. Luckily I only gained 5 lbs and only weigh 130 right now and I'm 5'4". I'm waiting for my scale in the mail cuz i just ordered it cuz i never needed one before.

And I know these are just estimates but I'd rather have an estimate from a hr than a website online kwim? And I am planning on a fitbit but I'm strapped for extra money right now cuz i have a 3 year old and a house with lots of bills and am still in college so am not not making good money at my job til, I'm done with school. So you're saying it's possible I am burning that much but that I should rest somewhere in between because the mfp and my hrm are so off??

FatFreeFrolicking

Those numbers should like they could be right.. Well, no HRM will be exact, but those sound reasonable depending on your height and weight.

I burned 500 calories walking for two hours today... And depending on the yoga routing I can burn anywhere from 170-300 calories an hour

Ok well why did the person before u say it's not right? I'm so confused
. I just did yoga and it said 224 which I know is high so I subtracted calorie burned just being alive which I read somewhere is like 120 an hour and I did yoga for a half hour so that'd be minus 60 so I burned like 165 doing yoga for 30 minuted. To me that seems excessive BUT idk. I'm pissed I spend money on a hrm when everyone's saying they're bull. Why are the fitbit so good then if they do the same as a hrm watch

A $10 fitness watch isn't going to be accurate. If you want the most accurate calorie burn, buy a heart rate monitor such as Polar FT4. A good HRM will cost you $100. http://www.polar.com/us-en/products/get_active/fitness_crosstraining/FT4

Wby can't it be accurate and why do some people say they work perfectly fine? What about people that can't afford an expensive hrm? And do the post ones require chest straps cuz id like oNE that doesn't

A HRM without a chest strap is not accurate. The chest strap is convenient because it will constantly monitor your heart rate, so if you happen to increase or decrease the intensity, it will automatically adjust the calorie burn based on that plus your gender, weight, height, and age. So one without a chest strap is basically useless.

Why do you want one without a chest strap? It's very comfortable. You can't even feel it. The ones that don't require a chest strap, require that you stop your exercise and press a button to determine your heart rate. That's a pain in the *kitten* if you ask me.

brianpperkins

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single


HRMs are only good for steady state cardio and most of them report gross (exercise + BMR) calories rather than net (exercise only) calories. They are useless for yoga, pilates, weight lifting, etc.

Call me stupid but I don't get what that article tells me about my calories burned while doin any one exercise using my hrm.

The article contains a very basic formula for net calories burned walking and running. If simple multiplication confuses you there really isn't much I can do to help. Netting a 300 calorie burn from walking requires a 5 mile walk for a 200 pound person .... 4 miles for a 250 pound person .... or a 3 mile walk for a 330 pound person. Net burn of .3 calories per pound per mile walked.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/773451-is-my-hrm-giving-me-incorrect-calorie-burn

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

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1044313-this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories?hl=why+your+HRM


But keep using and depending on a HRM to give you calorie burns for activities that they simply are not designed nor programmed to calculate if you want ... it's your body... your calorie in / calorie out balance that will be wrong, not mine.

cwolfman13

I burn right around that walking for an hour. Also, there's not a huge difference between 280 and 300...

keep in mind that it's all just an estimate...none of it is "accurate" Also, the further you remove yourself from a steady state cardio event, the less accurate a HRM will be for determining calories burned. Your calories burned are not directly correlated to your HR...you HR is just used in an algorithm that assumes a steady state aerobic event as well.

thavoice

70-90 calories per mile walking for a somewhat fit person so if you walked for 60 minutes at 3mph you about 3 miles which is in the ballpark of 210-270.

Chimis_Siq

I burn about 400 cals walking for 45 minutes. That is walking with effort and on "not" flat ground. So it also depends on your weight and effort and how healthy you are. When I first started working out, I could burn almost 1000 cals in an hour, but my heart rate was super high and I was alot heavier...:)

TheStephil

Everything you use is an estimate. $10 fitness watch, $100 fitbit, free calculation online, mfp calculation. The more money you spend the more technology it will probably have which can help provide a more accurate estimate. Personally, I wouldn't waste anything under $20 on fitness technology because its about as useful as the free calculators online. I'd suggest using mfp calculations and eating back 50-75% of the calories back. See how much weight you lose after a few weeks and adjust accordingly.

HRM with the chest strap are only meant for steady cardio, like walking or running. They aren't meant for yoga, weight lifting, interval training, etc. They are just an estimate though using your heart rate and can be off. Yours only takes the heart rate at the end of the workout so that can skew the data extremely since your heart rate isn't going to be the same at the beginning, middle and end of the workout.

anaconda469

Those numbers should like they could be right.. Well, no HRM will be exact, but those sound reasonable depending on your height and weight.

I burned 500 calories walking for two hours today... And depending on the yoga routing I can burn anywhere from 170-300 calories an hour

Ok well why did the person before u say it's not right? I'm so confused
. I just did yoga and it said 224 which I know is high so I subtracted calorie burned just being alive which I read somewhere is like 120 an hour and I did yoga for a half hour so that'd be minus 60 so I burned like 165 doing yoga for 30 minuted. To me that seems excessive BUT idk. I'm pissed I spend money on a hrm when everyone's saying they're bull. Why are the fitbit so good then if they do the same as a hrm watch

A $10 fitness watch isn't going to be accurate. If you want the most accurate calorie burn, buy a heart rate monitor such as Polar FT4. A good HRM will cost you $100. http://www.polar.com/us-en/products/get_active/fitness_crosstraining/FT4

I have a Polar FT4 with chest strap. I am an avid bicyclist and ride tons of miles. I am finding that it is way more accurate than MFP on calories burned. That being said, I too bought a 19.99 New Balance HRM with the button push for reading the heart rate. Well according to that I rode 20 miles and burned 180 calories. Here is another link to check out Polar FT4 http://www.heartratemonitorsusa.com/polar-ft4f-purple-h1.html?productid=polar-ft4f-purple-h1&channelid=FROOG&utm_source=CSEs&utm_medium=GoogleShopping&utm_campaign=heartratemo#prettyPhoto

momma2azoo

they arent bull. i use them when i do cardio. your walking, that's cardio so its giving you an accurate read. just dont use it for weights.

I know walking is cardio that's why I'm using it but is it accurate even if it's only taking my hr at rhe end of my workout cuz it's not attached to my chest the whole time?

No, it is not accurate. The chest strap HRMs are the most accurate we have as home users and even they have their limits and margins of error. The wrist/ finger cheapy HRMs are renounced for being very inaccurate. I would return yours and go with online calorie burned averages from calculator sites.

Remember, all calorie burned info is just an estimate. Your scale will let you know how close you're coming to making an accurate guess. A good rule of thumb is to be honest in estimating your calorie burned (don't say you ran an 8 min mile when you walked a 20 min one) and then only eat back 1/2 your given calories for an activity. That gives you a good margin for error. If on weigh day you're loosing too fast eat more the next week. If you haven't lost enough, eat less. It's an art, not a hard science.

RunnersLament

As a runner, the general rule that I have heard is 100 calories per mile. But that is a generalization. It applies to an average runner (150'ish pounds) of average size and health.

I don't imagine walking is that different... 100 calories per mile...the average person can walk around 3 miles per hour. Sounds reasonable.

That being said, I don't know your body composition, height, weight, pace etc.

Well my cheap hrm watch does know my composition, weight, age etc, so that's why I assumed it took an accurate read. But I read somewhere that I have to subtract calories from the final number that it took to just live. Like my watch isn't taking into factor that it takes close to 120 calories an hour burned just to live, so whatever my final number is I should subtract calories burned just breating/living, which would make that number actually 200 for 65 minutes.

I wouldn't subtract anything. This website calculates all that (Basal Metabolic Rate) and incorporates it into your logging. The number MFP tells you is based on this. Your watch should tell you how many calories you burned period (based on your body composition) no subtraction required.

my_2_cents

I'm a fan of gadgets, but I have to go with the majority opinion here. Forget the gadget for monitoring calories burned and simply use the calculators on MFP. Its a simple easy way to get started, and then you can modify your plan after a couple of weeks of comparing your weight change with your goals for the week.

If you find you are losing faster than anticipated, be happy, but increase your eating slightly to compensate. If you are losing slower than expected, then decrease your calorie intake just slightly and slowly until you start to reach where you expect. Also, to lose weight, try to eat your largest meals earlier in the day and have your dinner in the evening as the smallest meal, less than 25% of your daily calories.

brianpperkins

As a runner, the general rule that I have heard is 100 calories per mile. But that is a generalization. It applies to an average runner (150'ish pounds) of average size and health.

I don't imagine walking is that different... 100 calories per mile...the average person can walk around 3 miles per hour. Sounds reasonable.

That being said, I don't know your body composition, height, weight, pace etc.

Well my cheap hrm watch does know my composition, weight, age etc, so that's why I assumed it took an accurate read. But I read somewhere that I have to subtract calories from the final number that it took to just live. Like my watch isn't taking into factor that it takes close to 120 calories an hour burned just to live, so whatever my final number is I should subtract calories burned just breating/living, which would make that number actually 200 for 65 minutes.

I wouldn't subtract anything. This website calculates all that (Basal Metabolic Rate) and incorporates it into your logging. The number MFP tells you is based on this. Your watch should tell you how many calories you burned period (based on your body composition) no subtraction required.

If subtraction is needed or not depends on if you are provided with net or gross calories burned. If it is net, no subtraction needed. If gross, then BMR for that time period gets doubled which requires subtraction to fix.

Accuracy matters.

xxshelbyxx0818

Those numbers should like they could be right.. Well, no HRM will be exact, but those sound reasonable depending on your height and weight.

I burned 500 calories walking for two hours today... And depending on the yoga routing I can burn anywhere from 170-300 calories an hour

Ok well why did the person before u say it's not right? I'm so confused
. I just did yoga and it said 224 which I know is high so I subtracted calorie burned just being alive which I read somewhere is like 120 an hour and I did yoga for a half hour so that'd be minus 60 so I burned like 165 doing yoga for 30 minuted. To me that seems excessive BUT idk. I'm pissed I spend money on a hrm when everyone's saying they're bull. Why are the fitbit so good then if they do the same as a hrm watch

A $10 fitness watch isn't going to be accurate. If you want the most accurate calorie burn, buy a heart rate monitor such as Polar FT4. A good HRM will cost you $100. http://www.polar.com/us-en/products/get_active/fitness_crosstraining/FT4

Wby can't it be accurate and why do some people say they work perfectly fine? What about people that can't afford an expensive hrm? And do the post ones require chest straps cuz id like oNE that doesn't

A HRM without a chest strap is not accurate. The chest strap is convenient because it will constantly monitor your heart rate, so if you happen to increase or decrease the intensity, it will automatically adjust the calorie burn based on that plus your gender, weight, height, and age. So one without a chest strap is basically useless.

Why do you want one without a chest strap? It's very comfortable. You can't even feel it. The ones that don't require a chest strap, require that you stop your exercise and press a button to determine your heart rate. That's a pain in the *kitten* if you ask me.

Do the fitbit have chest strap? Cuz everyone seems to think those work. Where do u wear the strap?

xxshelbyxx0818

As a runner, the general rule that I have heard is 100 calories per mile. But that is a generalization. It applies to an average runner (150'ish pounds) of average size and health.

I don't imagine walking is that different... 100 calories per mile...the average person can walk around 3 miles per hour. Sounds reasonable.

That being said, I don't know your body composition, height, weight, pace etc.

Well my cheap hrm watch does know my composition, weight, age etc, so that's why I assumed it took an accurate read. But I read somewhere that I have to subtract calories from the final number that it took to just live. Like my watch isn't taking into factor that it takes close to 120 calories an hour burned just to live, so whatever my final number is I should subtract calories burned just breating/living, which would make that number actually 200 for 65 minutes.

I wouldn't subtract anything. This website calculates all that (Basal Metabolic Rate) and incorporates it into your logging. The number MFP tells you is based on this. Your watch should tell you how many calories you burned period (based on your body composition) no subtraction required.

If subtraction is needed or not depends on if you are provided with net or gross calories burned. If it is net, no subtraction needed. If gross, then BMR for that time period gets doubled which requires subtraction to fix.

Accuracy matters.

How am I supposed to know if my watch shows net or gross

my_2_cents

Fitbit have no straps. They are either a clip on model worn on your belt, pocket or clipped to your bra, or a wrist worn model that goes on your wrist like a watch. They're basically just a really good pedometer, its the computer software behind their website and apps that adds power to them.

FatFreeFrolicking

Those numbers should like they could be right.. Well, no HRM will be exact, but those sound reasonable depending on your height and weight.

I burned 500 calories walking for two hours today... And depending on the yoga routing I can burn anywhere from 170-300 calories an hour

Ok well why did the person before u say it's not right? I'm so confused
. I just did yoga and it said 224 which I know is high so I subtracted calorie burned just being alive which I read somewhere is like 120 an hour and I did yoga for a half hour so that'd be minus 60 so I burned like 165 doing yoga for 30 minuted. To me that seems excessive BUT idk. I'm pissed I spend money on a hrm when everyone's saying they're bull. Why are the fitbit so good then if they do the same as a hrm watch

A $10 fitness watch isn't going to be accurate. If you want the most accurate calorie burn, buy a heart rate monitor such as Polar FT4. A good HRM will cost you $100. http://www.polar.com/us-en/products/get_active/fitness_crosstraining/FT4

Wby can't it be accurate and why do some people say they work perfectly fine? What about people that can't afford an expensive hrm? And do the post ones require chest straps cuz id like oNE that doesn't

A HRM without a chest strap is not accurate. The chest strap is convenient because it will constantly monitor your heart rate, so if you happen to increase or decrease the intensity, it will automatically adjust the calorie burn based on that plus your gender, weight, height, and age. So one without a chest strap is basically useless.

Why do you want one without a chest strap? It's very comfortable. You can't even feel it. The ones that don't require a chest strap, require that you stop your exercise and press a button to determine your heart rate. That's a pain in the *kitten* if you ask me.

Do the fitbit have chest strap? Cuz everyone seems to think those work. Where do u wear the strap?

No, FitBit's don't have a chest strap. FitBits are best used for counting steps. I know a lot of people who purchased FitBit's and did not like it and switched to a Polar HRM. I have a Polar FT4 and love it. I've had no problems with it. The strap is worn right underneath your breasts. That way it can pick up your heart beat.

brianpperkins

As a runner, the general rule that I have heard is 100 calories per mile. But that is a generalization. It applies to an average runner (150'ish pounds) of average size and health.

I don't imagine walking is that different... 100 calories per mile...the average person can walk around 3 miles per hour. Sounds reasonable.

That being said, I don't know your body composition, height, weight, pace etc.

Well my cheap hrm watch does know my composition, weight, age etc, so that's why I assumed it took an accurate read. But I read somewhere that I have to subtract calories from the final number that it took to just live. Like my watch isn't taking into factor that it takes close to 120 calories an hour burned just to live, so whatever my final number is I should subtract calories burned just breating/living, which would make that number actually 200 for 65 minutes.

I wouldn't subtract anything. This website calculates all that (Basal Metabolic Rate) and incorporates it into your logging. The number MFP tells you is based on this. Your watch should tell you how many calories you burned period (based on your body composition) no subtraction required.

If subtraction is needed or not depends on if you are provided with net or gross calories burned. If it is net, no subtraction needed. If gross, then BMR for that time period gets doubled which requires subtraction to fix.

Accuracy matters.

How am I supposed to know if my watch shows net or gross

Really it comes down to trial, error, and math. Most report gross calories. Most online calculators also report gross calories.

If you walk a mile and it tells you that you burned about 1/2 calorie per pound per mile (100 cals per mile for a 200 pound person), it's gross calories reported. If it's closer to 1/3 calorie per pound per mile (60 calories per mile for a 200 pound person), it's net.

Fitbits are nothing more than advanced pedometers. Again, some trial and error and entering the right information into its settings can turn it into a fairly useful tool. One of the data points it accepts in its settings is stride length so it can translate your walking and running strides (it can tell the difference by intensity of movement) into a closer approximation of distance traveled.