Just got a HRM and am in shock.

Options
2»

Replies

  • arc918
    arc918 Posts: 2,037 Member
    Options
    800 calories burned on a 4 mile walk is WAY high, unless the person is extremely heavy. I run <11 min miles and only burn about 120 cals/mile

    Big time! 200 calories per mile walking is crazy high. I weight ~ 175 and I burn ~ 125 per mile when I run.
  • albinogorilla
    albinogorilla Posts: 1,056 Member
    Options
    800 calories burned on a 4 mile walk is WAY high, unless the person is extremely heavy. I run <11 min miles and only burn about 120 cals/mile

    Big time! 200 calories per mile walking is crazy high. I weight ~ 175 and I burn ~ 125 per mile when I run.

    if it takes someone twice as long to walk that distance at a brisk pace than it does for you to run it, then isn't it conceivable they would burn an extra 75 calories?
  • kyle4jem
    kyle4jem Posts: 1,400 Member
    Options
    Yea same thing happned to me,mfp said my 4 mile brisk pace walk was about 400 calories,when I got my HRM I was kinda mad at mfp. My HRM says I burn(on average) 800+ on my walks.

    that seems high to me. although I don't do a lot of walking. Just seems high, even at a brisk pace.
    It really is dependent on weight. I have a FT4 and burn ca.229kc walking 21mins at a brisk pace 3-3.5mph. I'm 5'4" and weigh 232lbs Also carrying a laptop rucksack weighing another 14lbs.

    I also know from cycling that as my weight has dropped, so has the calorie count on my HRM over the same distance/time.
  • arc918
    arc918 Posts: 2,037 Member
    Options
    800 calories burned on a 4 mile walk is WAY high, unless the person is extremely heavy. I run <11 min miles and only burn about 120 cals/mile

    Big time! 200 calories per mile walking is crazy high. I weight ~ 175 and I burn ~ 125 per mile when I run.

    if it takes someone twice as long to walk that distance at a brisk pace than it does for you to run it, then isn't it conceivable they would burn an extra 75 calories?

    hard to say, as I understand it (not a science guy, just a runner) you burn more running than walking, it isn't a about the time spent as much as distance covered

    perhaps somebody who weighs 250+ can burn 200 a mile walking?
  • ATT949
    ATT949 Posts: 1,245 Member
    Options
    A web-based calculator, FWIW:

    http://www.runnersworld.com/article/1,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html
  • ATT949
    ATT949 Posts: 1,245 Member
    Options
    How did you arrive at that value?

    I'm using a Forerunner 305 and I learned a few weeks ago, to my surprise, that it's algorithm-based not HR-based (the Garmins that end in 10 are HR based).
  • jeffpettis
    jeffpettis Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    800 calories burned on a 4 mile walk is WAY high, unless the person is extremely heavy. I run <11 min miles and only burn about 120 cals/mile

    Big time! 200 calories per mile walking is crazy high. I weight ~ 175 and I burn ~ 125 per mile when I run.

    if it takes someone twice as long to walk that distance at a brisk pace than it does for you to run it, then isn't it conceivable they would burn an extra 75 calories?

    hard to say, as I understand it (not a science guy, just a runner) you burn more running than walking, it isn't a about the time spent as much as distance covered

    perhaps somebody who weighs 250+ can burn 200 a mile walking?

    I have to disagree, it is absolutely about the time spent, not the distance covered. Just using this as an example, if you ran a mile in 5 minutes and walked that same mile at a brisk pace in 10 minutes, your heart rate is elevated for twice the amount of time. Granted it is not going to be as high if you are walking as it would be if you are running, but depending on the person, it's not going to be that much different.

Categories