did I really burn 300 calories in 65 minutes walking
Options
Replies
-
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#prettyPhoto0 -
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?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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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 gross0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
shelby- If you weigh 130, you're not burning 120/hour in BMR, maybe half that. So if you do subtract from your 300 estimate, you could probably subtract 60-80.
If you don't have a lot of money and have 5 lbs. to lose, I wouldn't buy more gadgets. I would figure you burn around 80-100 calories a mile and call it a day. That's a good enough estimate, in my opinion, and it sounds like it even jibes with your hrm.
Good luck!!
0 -
I can burn 250-400 running for 3 miles or 30 minutes depending on speed, incline, terrain and can burn 400/450 an hour alternating powerwalking with jog/run intervals, and can burn probably up to 500 walking fast for 90 minutes but that's it. I think it depends.0
-
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...:)
Holy crap that's a lot for an hour! I wish I could do that but Id have to be doing something crazy lol. How fast do u wall when u burn 400 in 45 minutes?0 -
I can't afford a fitbit but I dealt wanna know how much I'm burning, don't just wanna go by mfp data.
Fitbit is more accurate, but it's always going to be an estimate. Rely on reducing your calories and don't eat more when you exercise unless you've had a huge workout and are hungry. Weigh yourself regularly, and monitor your body fat percentage and body dimensions.0 -
shelby- If you weigh 130, you're not burning 120/hour in BMR, maybe half that. So if you do subtract from your 300 estimate, you could probably subtract 60-80.
If you don't have a lot of money and have 5 lbs. to lose, I wouldn't buy more gadgets. I would figure you burn around 80-100 calories a mile and call it a day. That's a good enough estimate, in my opinion, and it sounds like it even jibes with your hrm.
Good luck!!
Thank you!!
But plz clarify cuz you said at my weight I'm probably NOT burning 120 an hour but then you said to keep subtracting the 80 from my numbers, which would make it 220 for 65 minutes. So you're saying I'm probably burning MORE than 120 per hour? And you're right I don't wanna keep spending money because I only have a few lbs to shed, but I guess I'm just impatient because ice never had to go through this before and it's bugging me that I only need a small amount gone and I've yet to see results despite eating only healthy foods and walking once a day and doing different work outs as often as possible. Im about to make a post asking someone yo give me the perfect workout for my 5 lbs I need home cuz everyone told me different things so I've been trying to do them all so maybe that's why it's not helping?0 -
Well how come everyone so far has told me i CAN eat back what I worked out? I'm so confused. How do I measure my bmi regularly? It's already healthy..I can't afford a fitbit but I dealt wanna know how much I'm burning, don't just wanna go by mfp data.
Fitbit is more accurate, but it's always going to be an estimate. Rely on reducing your calories and don't eat more when you exercise unless you've had a huge workout and are hungry. Weigh yourself regularly, and monitor your body fat percentage and body dimensions.0 -
Fitbit & HRM are 2 different tools for different jobs. Fitbit shows your activity level based on movement and unless you tell it different by inputting an activity into its website it assumes all movement is walking. A HRM is used to see the calories burned doing steady state cardio. I use both and input the data from the HRM into the Fitbit website (I add the type of exercise eg running, the start time, duration, distance and cal burn from my HRM) for increased accuracy.
A HRM where you only check your heart rate at the end of an activity is worthless IMO. I know for me my heart rate is almost always highest at the end of a run so if I based my calories burn on having that heart rate for the whole run I'd massively overestimate the burn.
Also based on your height & weight your BMR is going to be far less than 120cals per hr, close to 60 per hr is more realistic.0 -
I think body fat percentage is different to BMI and body dimensions maybe measurements? have you taken measurements as they can be more telling than the scale.
I have a polar ft4 and whilst I believe it is accurate, I don't take it as gospel. That said, when I use a running app (with my stats in) both my HRM and app calorie burn are within 20kcals of each other, which I think is pretty good.0 -
the calories burned for any gadget is going to be an estimate, because so many factors depend on it...but it sounds reasonable. I use Runkeeper to track my runs, etc., and if you know you distance, and your time, you can get a decent enough estimate of calories burned. I would just do somehting like that. Runkeeper is free and talks to MFP. You can use for walking etc.0
-
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
This is sensible. In short, any HRM is going to be more accurate than the averages that MFP gives, because the HRM is based on your actual exertion. BUT, a cheap HRM costing $10 isn't likely to be as accurate as say a Garmin or Polar version. Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where you do get what you pay for!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 979 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions