Walking slow and burning calories

Uhfgood

Today I walked around Disney World for about 3 hours. Now I used the exercise database and added that, it claims I burned 769 calories, doesn't seem right, because me and my Dad were doing that when we moved down here at least 3 times a week for a couple of months, and we didn't see any weight loss. Now either I'm grossly exaggerating how much I walked, or I'm eating grossly more food than I think. Only problem is, I don't eat tons and tons, I'm eating the same I did in Montana, where I was for 8 months, and not doing any exercise whatsoever.

So something is odd here. In fact I was eating more candy in Montana than I am here as well. Going to the movies less, which means less concessions. So in reality I should be losing, but I'm not.

I understand I don't move enough and I don't eat little enough not to lose weight, but I think the exercise here in the database is way too high. I could see me burning about 450 for today, not 769

brianpperkins

Today I walked around Disney World for about 3 hours. Now I used the exercise database and added that, it claims I burned 769 calories, doesn't seem right, because me and my Dad were doing that when we moved down here at least 3 times a week for a couple of months, and we didn't see any weight loss. Now either I'm grossly exaggerating how much I walked, or I'm eating grossly more food than I think. Only problem is, I don't eat tons and tons, I'm eating the same I did in Montana, where I was for 8 months, and not doing any exercise whatsoever.

So something is odd here. In fact I was eating more candy in Montana than I am here as well. Going to the movies less, which means less concessions. So in reality I should be losing, but I'm not.

I understand I don't move enough and I don't eat little enough not to lose weight, but I think the exercise here in the database is way too high. I could see me burning about 450 for today, not 769

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

For the most part, calories burned is mass x distance with different multiplication factors for different activities based upon the required actions. For walking, 3/10ths of a calorie per pound per mile walked is a starting point for net calories burned. You might be a little higher or lower but not significantly.

Uhfgood

Thanks, although, I don't know the distance I walked since we sort of went all over the park.

Cathalain

Try downloading an app called RunKeeper. Turn it on when you walk and it'll measure distance, pace, speed, etc. It will measure calories burned, and I go by that, but you may want to do it differently.

I love my RunKeeper app - would never go without it.

AmyWhims

I just got back from Disneyland - I wore my FitBit all week long. We never walked LESS than 10 miles a day. Sometimes up to 13! My FitBit had me burning close to 3000 calories per day, whereas my normal burn is somewhere around 1800.

brianpperkins

Thanks, although, I don't know the distance I walked since we sort of went all over the park.

Most people walk about 3 mph. Be honest with yourself ... did you walk continuously for three hours or was it walk, see something, stop, then walk again?

jeremywm1977

I've actually had this discussion with another MFP'er in another forum post, although many people didn't like my response. Nonetheless, here it goes:

If all you did was walk from A to B, no matter what the distance between A and B is, and you did not increase speed, vary your incline, or add any weight resistance, don't add it to your MFP log..........you will be doing yourself a disservice.

Even set at "sedentary", your MFP macros are set at abourt 110 - 125% of your Resting Metabolic Rate. In other words, MFP will already calculate your body in motion, and if all you are doing is walking, and doing nothing to increase the resistance or your heartrate, then your body doesn't even know you were exercising.

For example, as a 37 year old man, my approximate maximum heart rate is about 183 bpm (give or take). If I am not exerting myself to get my heart rate to between either 95 to 119 (fat burning) or between 119 and 156 (aerobic) beats per minute, then my body doesn't know that I'm putting forth any effort worthy of burning fat for energy.

Another factor may be muscle loss. If all you are doing is walking and not building muscle through strength training, your body, in an effort to get better at your chosen activity (walking) will begin burning away the muscles that you are no longer using. As you begin losing muscle, your body will start burning fat at a lower and lower level of efficiency. Muscle burns fat..........lose muscles, lose your fat burners. (Simple formula - 1 pound of added muscle will burn approximately as many calories in a day at rest as a 30 minute session on a elliptical.)

Bear in mind, I don't know your whole situation, but I figured I would throw out some stuff to mull over.

_Zardoz_

Another factor may be muscle loss. If all you are doing is walking and not building muscle through strength training, your body, in an effort to get better at your chosen activity (walking) will begin burning away the muscles that you are no longer using.

I'm sorry that's just rubbish. For starters you wont build muscle eating at a calorie deficit. and you don't burn away muscle either. Yes when you are on a diet of any sort no matter what you do you will lose some muscle mass that's just a fact. Yes you can minimise some of this by weight training and proper nutrition. In reality a lot of people just want to lose some weight and get a little healthier all this scaremongering that if you don't weight train all your muscle will burn away is just that scaremongering. As long as you get adequate nutrition and exercise a little that will be fine for a lot of people. All there muscle is not going to suddenly burn off as a lot of posters like yourself keep implying.

There seems to be a lack of context and perspective in a lot of peoples replies to these sort of posts. I suggest people read the posters original posts as it helps a lot. Not everyone wants to weight train or needs to If it fits in with your goals that's fine but not doing it does not mean that your muscles will spontaneously combust.

NYfirefighter

I've actually had this discussion with another MFP'er in another forum post, although many people didn't like my response. Nonetheless, here it goes:

If all you did was walk from A to B, no matter what the distance between A and B is, and you did not increase speed, vary your incline, or add any weight resistance, don't add it to your MFP log..........you will be doing yourself a disservice

Never took a stroll for 15+miles obviously
Even at a 3 to 3.5 mph you burn quite a few calories

jennifer_417

It's widely agreed upon that MFP overestimates calorie burns. If you have no other of recording calories, then I recommend you only record about 2/3 of the exercise that you actually did.

TavistockToad

I've actually had this discussion with another MFP'er in another forum post, although many people didn't like my response. Nonetheless, here it goes:

If all you did was walk from A to B, no matter what the distance between A and B is, and you did not increase speed, vary your incline, or add any weight resistance, don't add it to your MFP log..........you will be doing yourself a disservice

Never took a stroll for 15+miles obviously
Even at a 3 to 3.5 mph you burn quite a few calories

3mph isnt really strolling.

OP, i would log maybe 1/3 to half the time at a slow pace if ordinarily you would have been sedentary at that time.

NYfirefighter

I've actually had this discussion with another MFP'er in another forum post, although many people didn't like my response. Nonetheless, here it goes:

If all you did was walk from A to B, no matter what the distance between A and B is, and you did not increase speed, vary your incline, or add any weight resistance, don't add it to your MFP log..........you will be doing yourself a disservice

Never took a stroll for 15+miles obviously
Even at a 3 to 3.5 mph you burn quite a few calories

3mph isnt really strolling.

OP, i would log maybe 1/3 to half the time at a slow pace if ordinarily you would have been sedentary at that time.

Depents on who you ask
3mph is really slow in my book, I can use my phone, read a newspaper etc
My normal pace is 4 to 5mph

But you should get what I meant

pinkiezoom

I did 1 hour on a treadmill, with my heart rate monitor on, it was on a level 10 incline at 5 miles per hour, and i only burnt 230 cals, although the machine suggested it was 600!! and the mfp was waaaayyyy over too!

sijomial

If all you did was walk from A to B, no matter what the distance between A and B is, and you did not increase speed, vary your incline, or add any weight resistance, don't add it to your MFP log..........you will be doing yourself a disservice.

Being active is incredibly important for health, if you are moving you are supporting your weight and burning calories. Three hours of walking is significant. No reason not to log it, it's not included in your activity setting.

Even set at "sedentary", your MFP macros are set at abourt 110 - 125% of your Resting Metabolic Rate. In other words, MFP will already calculate your body in motion, and if all you are doing is walking, and doing nothing to increase the resistance or your heartrate, then your body doesn't even know you were exercising.

Activity level reflect their activity level it doesn't assume they are adding three hours of walking on top of their normal routine.
BTW - your body doesn't "know" anything! If you are walking you are exercising.

For example, as a 37 year old man, my approximate maximum heart rate is about 183 bpm (give or take). If I am not exerting myself to get my heart rate to between either 95 to 119 (fat burning) or between 119 and 156 (aerobic) beats per minute, then my body doesn't know that I'm putting forth any effort worthy of burning fat for energy.

Low intensity exercise burns calories and most will be coming from fat.

Another factor may be muscle loss. If all you are doing is walking and not building muscle through strength training, your body, in an effort to get better at your chosen activity (walking) will begin burning away the muscles that you are no longer using. As you begin losing muscle, your body will start burning fat at a lower and lower level of efficiency. Muscle burns fat..........lose muscles, lose your fat burners. (Simple formula - 1 pound of added muscle will burn approximately as many calories in a day at rest as a 30 minute session on a elliptical.)

Almost completely wrong! Agree with adding resistance training but walking does not burn muscles. Muscles are a fuel of last resort.
One pound of added muscle will burn approximately 6 calories a day.
Thirty minutes on an elliptical will probably burn around 300!

hookilau

Thanks, although, I don't know the distance I walked since we sort of went all over the park.

Most people walk about 3 mph. Be honest with yourself ... did you walk continuously for three hours or was it walk, see something, stop, then walk again?

I walk for a living (I'm a local dog walker) and at 3 mph (on a treadmill) I'm walking pretty fast, not slow enough to take in the sights, looking around, etc. As in, walking somewhere with a purpose, such as to meet a bus or something. As in, if I were walking a dog & she wanted to stop, I would have to stop short in order to do so.

Walking at 2.0 mph (again, on a treadmill) It's a slow, sauntering walk. It's basically the pace I use when walking with dogs, so when walking, if she wants to stop & investigate something, I can easily continue 1 or 2 steps while slowing down to accommodate.

I expect walking at Disney is like walking at 2.0 mph since you're taking in the sights & deciding on what's interesting to visit, while moving.

This counts toward your NEAT, but I wouldn't classify it as 'exercise' & unless I was losing weight when I didn't want to. If I were looking to lose weight, I wouldn't count it towards calories to 'eat back'.

A quick internet search pulled up this:

"...N.E.A.T. stands for Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis. Dr. James Levine is credited for his research and findings on NEAT. According to Dr. Levine, "You can expend calories in one two ways. One is to go to the gym and the other is through all the activities of daily living called NEAT (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis)."

Get a fitbit As a dog walker, I personally liked the fit bit zip and found it incredibly useful.
It will help you figure out what your actual daily activity is and interacts with MFP to deduct or add calories in accordance with your activity or lack thereof.

It's also worth mentioning that I've heard that both fitbit & MFP over-estimate the amount of calories burned.

It should be noted that I've never used it or MFP or fitbit to calculate calories burned, just to use the points of data that were created in relation to my daily activity. :drinker:

hookilau

I've actually had this discussion with another MFP'er in another forum post, although many people didn't like my response. Nonetheless, here it goes:

If all you did was walk from A to B, no matter what the distance between A and B is, and you did not increase speed, vary your incline, or add any weight resistance, don't add it to your MFP log..........you will be doing yourself a disservice

Never took a stroll for 15+miles obviously
Even at a 3 to 3.5 mph you burn quite a few calories

3mph isnt really strolling.

OP, i would log maybe 1/3 to half the time at a slow pace if ordinarily you would have been sedentary at that time.

I agree, but now that I think of it, maybe it's because I have a short stride?
I'm 5' tall, so 3 mph is a pretty quick clip for me and 3.5 is just short of 'jogging' while 4.0-4.5 is a full on jog.
Forget 5.0....T Rex would have to be after me for that to happen

Doing as many dog walks as I do per day, with dogs of different preferred activity levels, I'm able to compare a great deal. Probably too much judging from how much I have to say on the subject. :laugh:

ETA: 3.0 to 3.5 is the pace you'd be walking on a NYC sidewalk while dodging tourists trying not to spill your coffee.

Uhfgood

Thanks, although, I don't know the distance I walked since we sort of went all over the park.

Most people walk about 3 mph. Be honest with yourself ... did you walk continuously for three hours or was it walk, see something, stop, then walk again?

I think we were walking at most 2 mph. It was mostly continuously walking. We did stop in for an attraction, that had us sitting for about 15 minutes at the most. Then walked an additional 40 minutes at costco.

brianpperkins

I've actually had this discussion with another MFP'er in another forum post, although many people didn't like my response. Nonetheless, here it goes:

If all you did was walk from A to B, no matter what the distance between A and B is, and you did not increase speed, vary your incline, or add any weight resistance, don't add it to your MFP log..........you will be doing yourself a disservice.

Even set at "sedentary", your MFP macros are set at abourt 110 - 125% of your Resting Metabolic Rate. In other words, MFP will already calculate your body in motion, and if all you are doing is walking, and doing nothing to increase the resistance or your heartrate, then your body doesn't even know you were exercising.

For example, as a 37 year old man, my approximate maximum heart rate is about 183 bpm (give or take). If I am not exerting myself to get my heart rate to between either 95 to 119 (fat burning) or between 119 and 156 (aerobic) beats per minute, then my body doesn't know that I'm putting forth any effort worthy of burning fat for energy.

Another factor may be muscle loss. If all you are doing is walking and not building muscle through strength training, your body, in an effort to get better at your chosen activity (walking) will begin burning away the muscles that you are no longer using. As you begin losing muscle, your body will start burning fat at a lower and lower level of efficiency. Muscle burns fat..........lose muscles, lose your fat burners. (Simple formula - 1 pound of added muscle will burn approximately as many calories in a day at rest as a 30 minute session on a elliptical.)

Bear in mind, I don't know your whole situation, but I figured I would throw out some stuff to mull over.

It has nothing to do with liking or disliking your answer ... it's that your answer is wrong in every single paragraph.

Uhfgood

It's widely agreed upon that MFP overestimates calorie burns. If you have no other of recording calories, then I recommend you only record about 2/3 of the exercise that you actually did.

Hmm yeah I might even counter with 1/3 -- sounds like a good idea. At least until I start adding something a little more intense.

Uhfgood

Thanks, although, I don't know the distance I walked since we sort of went all over the park.

Most people walk about 3 mph. Be honest with yourself ... did you walk continuously for three hours or was it walk, see something, stop, then walk again?

I walk for a living (I'm a local dog walker) and at 3 mph (on a treadmill) I'm walking pretty fast, not slow enough to take in the sights, looking around, etc. As in, walking somewhere with a purpose, such as to meet a bus or something. As in, if I were walking a dog & she wanted to stop, I would have to stop short in order to do so.

Walking at 2.0 mph (again, on a treadmill) It's a slow, sauntering walk. It's basically the pace I use when walking with dogs, so when walking, if she wants to stop & investigate something, I can easily continue 1 or 2 steps while slowing down to accommodate.

I expect walking at Disney is like walking at 2.0 mph since you're taking in the sights & deciding on what's interesting to visit, while moving.

This counts toward your NEAT, but I wouldn't classify it as 'exercise' & unless I was losing weight when I didn't want to. If I were looking to lose weight, I wouldn't count it towards calories to 'eat back'.

A quick internet search pulled up this:

"...N.E.A.T. stands for Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis. Dr. James Levine is credited for his research and findings on NEAT. According to Dr. Levine, "You can expend calories in one two ways. One is to go to the gym and the other is through all the activities of daily living called NEAT (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis)."

Get a fitbit As a dog walker, I personally liked the fit bit zip and found it incredibly useful.
It will help you figure out what your actual daily activity is and interacts with MFP to deduct or add calories in accordance with your activity or lack thereof.

It's also worth mentioning that I've heard that both fitbit & MFP over-estimate the amount of calories burned.

It should be noted that I've never used it or MFP or fitbit to calculate calories burned, just to use the points of data that were created in relation to my daily activity. :drinker:

Thanks for the info. I'll have to see if I can scrape up the money to get a fitbit (I'm unemployed)

hookilau

Thanks, although, I don't know the distance I walked since we sort of went all over the park.

Most people walk about 3 mph. Be honest with yourself ... did you walk continuously for three hours or was it walk, see something, stop, then walk again?

I walk for a living (I'm a local dog walker) and at 3 mph (on a treadmill) I'm walking pretty fast, not slow enough to take in the sights, looking around, etc. As in, walking somewhere with a purpose, such as to meet a bus or something. As in, if I were walking a dog & she wanted to stop, I would have to stop short in order to do so.

Walking at 2.0 mph (again, on a treadmill) It's a slow, sauntering walk. It's basically the pace I use when walking with dogs, so when walking, if she wants to stop & investigate something, I can easily continue 1 or 2 steps while slowing down to accommodate.

I expect walking at Disney is like walking at 2.0 mph since you're taking in the sights & deciding on what's interesting to visit, while moving.

This counts toward your NEAT, but I wouldn't classify it as 'exercise' & unless I was losing weight when I didn't want to. If I were looking to lose weight, I wouldn't count it towards calories to 'eat back'.

A quick internet search pulled up this:

"...N.E.A.T. stands for Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis. Dr. James Levine is credited for his research and findings on NEAT. According to Dr. Levine, "You can expend calories in one two ways. One is to go to the gym and the other is through all the activities of daily living called NEAT (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis)."

Get a fitbit As a dog walker, I personally liked the fit bit zip and found it incredibly useful.
It will help you figure out what your actual daily activity is and interacts with MFP to deduct or add calories in accordance with your activity or lack thereof.

It's also worth mentioning that I've heard that both fitbit & MFP over-estimate the amount of calories burned.

It should be noted that I've never used it or MFP or fitbit to calculate calories burned, just to use the points of data that were created in relation to my daily activity. :drinker:

Thanks for the info. I'll have to see if I can scrape up the money to get a fitbit (I'm unemployed)

No prob
Just to be clear, it counts, but not enough to warrant the amount of calories either fitbit or MFP wants to give you. I've struggled with this in the past, that's why I have so much to say about it :laugh:

Be on the look out for sales this up-coming holiday season. Target and Walmart often have them on sale. The bonus is the additional data you get to analyze to help figure out where you stand.
Good luck :drinker:

SezxyStef

Today I walked around Disney World for about 3 hours. Now I used the exercise database and added that, it claims I burned 769 calories, doesn't seem right, because me and my Dad were doing that when we moved down here at least 3 times a week for a couple of months, and we didn't see any weight loss. Now either I'm grossly exaggerating how much I walked, or I'm eating grossly more food than I think. Only problem is, I don't eat tons and tons, I'm eating the same I did in Montana, where I was for 8 months, and not doing any exercise whatsoever.

So something is odd here. In fact I was eating more candy in Montana than I am here as well. Going to the movies less, which means less concessions. So in reality I should be losing, but I'm not.

I understand I don't move enough and I don't eat little enough not to lose weight, but I think the exercise here in the database is way too high. I could see me burning about 450 for today, not 769

If you aren't losing you are eating more than you thing and/or over estimating calorie burns.

It is that simple.

Calorie deficit for weight loss..exercise for health.

Tammy_1971

I did 1 hour on a treadmill, with my heart rate monitor on, it was on a level 10 incline at 5 miles per hour, and i only burnt 230 cals, although the machine suggested it was 600!! and the mfp was waaaayyyy over too!

230 seems low to me...

markiend

For me personally , i log all that I do specifically for exercise. Anything else that is part of my day.. a walk to the shops, a trip, mowing the lawn ...or whatever... is just part of my normal day

20yearsyounger

I did 1 hour on a treadmill, with my heart rate monitor on, it was on a level 10 incline at 5 miles per hour, and i only burnt 230 cals, although the machine suggested it was 600!! and the mfp was waaaayyyy over too!

230 seems low to me...

+1

Try entering your values in an online calculator. Use the time, your weight, and your average heart rate.

caseymtemple

Ditto. I was going to suggest the same thing. I only log exercise when it's above and beyond what I do normally just by existing.

johnnylakis

You burn 100 calories per mile (regardless of speed). At disney, that much walking IS a real possibility.

johnnylakis

I did 1 hour on a treadmill, with my heart rate monitor on, it was on a level 10 incline at 5 miles per hour, and i only burnt 230 cals, although the machine suggested it was 600!! and the mfp was waaaayyyy over too!

You burn 100 calories per mile, so in your case, 500 calories. You burn more on incline, so the machine is right!

dennis_legori

I did 1 hour on a treadmill, with my heart rate monitor on, it was on a level 10 incline at 5 miles per hour, and i only burnt 230 cals, although the machine suggested it was 600!! and the mfp was waaaayyyy over too!

I agree with that - I did 1 hour on an eliptical and at the end it todl me that I had burnt about 2,200 calories. I entered lass than half that amount into MFP and I believe even that was too high.

You can't trust what a machine tells you. When I go biking I use 2 apps - mapmyride and cyclemeter. On the same route, both give me different amounts for calories burnt.

The only way to somehow accurately calculate calories burnt is by tracking weight - either daily at the same time each day or weekly. The recommend rate of weight loss is 1lb per week which equates to 3,500 calorie deficit per week or approximately 500 calorie deficit per day.

jennifer_417

I've actually had this discussion with another MFP'er in another forum post, although many people didn't like my response. Nonetheless, here it goes:

If all you did was walk from A to B, no matter what the distance between A and B is, and you did not increase speed, vary your incline, or add any weight resistance, don't add it to your MFP log..........you will be doing yourself a disservice.

Because it's nonsensical. You're basically saying that no steady-state cardio burns calories. I lost 50 lbs with my only exercise being steady-state cardio, and a few others have lost a few lbs as well. The best way to discourage a beginner is to tell them something like this.

brianpperkins

You burn 100 calories per mile (regardless of speed). At disney, that much walking IS a real possibility.

A 100 calories per mile? For everyone?

Not really.