Burned 583 calories?! Is this possible?!

BrittanyBrines
BrittanyBrines Posts: 144 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I need help. I used the app cardio trainer for the droid and ended up walking around 5 miles in 1 hr 30 min. I am 118 lbs. Is this possible? If so YES!!! Ideas?

Replies

  • AzhureSnow
    AzhureSnow Posts: 289 Member
    when walking, I burn between 5-8 calories per minute, so, using that math, then yes it is possible to burn between 450-800 calories in 90 minutes, depending on hills and walking speed.
  • jendraka
    jendraka Posts: 117 Member
    I plugged those numbers into one walking calories calculator and got 313 calories (at 3mph) and another produced around 360 calories. 583 does seem a bit high. Though, I guess, if you're going up and down all kinds of hills that might make a difference.
  • BrittanyBrines
    BrittanyBrines Posts: 144 Member
    Holy cow, I've been burning a lot more calories than I thought. I normally just plug my mileage and time into MFP and it tells me around 200 calories were burned. this walk was an average walk for me. Normally I walk faster though, but sweet!! Thanks! That makes me really happy and excited. lol
  • AzhureSnow
    AzhureSnow Posts: 289 Member
    I should note, however, that I walk at a speed between 3-4 miles per hour (so, a 15-20 minute mile). I also walk a few hills during my walks. If you're walking a 22+ minute mile on flat terrain, you're probably only burning 3-5 calories per minute.
  • BrittanyBrines
    BrittanyBrines Posts: 144 Member
    I am normally walking 4 mph, today was bit slower, but it was very hilly. I walked/jogged when I could, but it was super crowded. I looked and the weight setting on the app was set at 170 lbs and I'm only 117, so that is probably why it was so high, but still, knowing I burn more than 200 calories is exciting for me. :)
  • Jynus
    Jynus Posts: 519 Member
    I need help. I used the app cardio trainer for the droid and ended up walking around 5 miles in 1 hr 30 min. I am 118 lbs. Is this possible? If so YES!!! Ideas?
    not really possible. If it was your daily mailmen walking for 8 hours while carrying heavy mailbags would be needing to eat like 4k calories a day just to maintain.

    For your average dude, standing = 3cal/min, walking at that pace would be about 5cal/min. meaning from exercise in 90min you're looking at 180calories. not 600.
  • quietcoral
    quietcoral Posts: 64 Member
    Well, you probably burn close to 100-150 calories just doing normal activities for 90 min, so walking for 90 minutes should burn more than 200 calories, but 583 does seem a little high to me....
  • JennifercitaDEgomez
    JennifercitaDEgomez Posts: 79
    Buy a HRM....u will love it
  • jcr85
    jcr85 Posts: 229
    On average every mile burns about 100 calories regardless of how long it takes.
  • josavage
    josavage Posts: 472 Member
    583 seems a little high to me. I weigh a lot more than you. I just walked for 64 minutes at a fast pace and burned 260 per my HRM.
  • tadpole242
    tadpole242 Posts: 507 Member
    On average every mile burns about 100 calories regardless of how long it takes.
    sorry but that is just a myth
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I need help. I used the app cardio trainer for the droid and ended up walking around 5 miles in 1 hr 30 min. I am 118 lbs. Is this possible? If so YES!!! Ideas?

    Walking is great because it just takes so much energy to move so much mass so fast up so much incline. Very mathematical.

    3.33 mph, 1% incline, 118 lbs, 90 min.

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    I show 339 Gross, which would include what your body was going to burn during that time anyway.
    Or 254 Net, above and beyond what it was going to burn anyway.

    And that is at 1% grade, in case you had wind. I'm assuming any uphills had downhills and you made it back home.

    When you start jogging faster, then your own abilities come more into play for efficiency and HR can reflect that.
    For walking, HR is mainly going to tell you if this was hard effort and carb-burning, or easy effort and fat-burning mainly.
  • WendySue67
    WendySue67 Posts: 17 Member
    Buy a HRM....u will love it

    I agree! There is no way you will EVER know exactly without one. How many calories you burn depends on way too many criteria--your age, your weight, and your level of fitness. Two people working out/walking/jogging together will be totally different. No phone app, computer calculation, and no one else's numbers will ever be very accurate for you. Not only that, wearing a HRM has changed my workout--because I can actually watch what my heart rate is doing, I am working harder.
  • KhaosTh30ry
    KhaosTh30ry Posts: 17 Member
    it depends on many different factors, such as your weight, height, rate/speed and intensity of exercise, duration... very rarely will a single person get similar results to another person doing the same exact exercise.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    On average every mile burns about 100 calories regardless of how long it takes.

    Very much varies.

    http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html

    Walking approximately 5.6 km/h (3.5 mph) is the most efficient speed. Running efficiency appears to taper off at higher speeds.

    Transitioning from walking to running requires an increase of energy unlike once speculated. The primary stimulus for the transition from walking to running [Preferred Transition Speed (PTS)] is prompted by the perceived or imminent fatigue and discomfort in the tibialis anterior and other dorsal flexion muscle of the ankle (Hreljac 1995, Prilutshy et al 2001).

    Usain Bolt was the fasted human on record during the 100 meter sprint at 44.72 km/h (27.79 mph). That was the average speed between the 60th and the 80th meter.
  • Sarah_Wins
    Sarah_Wins Posts: 936 Member
    Invest in an HRM. No more calculating and wondering.
  • lifescircle
    lifescircle Posts: 108
    Is it possible? ummm...

    I burned about 830 calories today, walked 5.52 miles. The terrain is not flat at all and there are some rather hilly spots. My average HR was 141, my average pace was about 17:30/mile and I am at 164 pounds.

    I think, just by your stats, that 583 is a bit high for you, especially when you know it has 170 lb person input into the program... that's a huge difference.
  • TheRealParisLove
    TheRealParisLove Posts: 1,907 Member
    I like endomondo as my training app. It is entirely possible to burn that many calories if you are moving at a good pace. For more accuracy a heart rate monitor is helpful. A HRM is on my wish list, maybe as a gift to myself when I land a new job. :smile:
  • wendymaci
    wendymaci Posts: 61 Member
    Invest in a good heart rate monitor it's the only way to know how many calories you burn!
  • ShaunMc1968
    ShaunMc1968 Posts: 204
    Hi,
    I am 210 pounds.
    I have a Garmin HRM (GPS) and it is set to my current weight profile.
    On one of my walks I walked for 77 mins over rough terrain some hills at an average speed of 2.9mph.
    I burned 448 calories and covered 3.79 miles.
    Hope this helps,
    S.
  • kayfrog
    kayfrog Posts: 109 Member
    Went hiking for 2.7 miles at a 3-4.5 mph pace and my HRM was beeping at me the entire time because my heart rate was in the 170-180s. I burned a little over 800 calories.
  • EccentricDad
    EccentricDad Posts: 875 Member
    Most of the apps require you to put in your weight. If my math is correct, you were going just over 3.5 mph; if you weight under 120 lbs then you shouldn't be losing that much at that intensity. Try the app again and see if it was set up wrong; or use endomondo which is free for android users too.

    I weigh 160 lbs and I was going at the same speed and I lost only 290 calories. When I weight 170 and I was going the same speed I lost more. It makes since because your body is the resistance and the more the resistance, the more calories you'll burn.

    If you want to lose a LOT of calories, buy some ankle, wrist, and hand weights and walk while holding those (and track your "weight" as the total weight combined".
  • ladyark
    ladyark Posts: 1,101 Member
    Buy a HRM....u will love it


    Yes a HRM is definately a good investment. I do 3.5 - 4 miles on the treadmill at 3.5mph and it takes me about 70 minutes and i am usually pumping my arms the whole time and my HRM puts me at about 518 and in that range on several occasions.
  • lauehorn04
    lauehorn04 Posts: 3
    If you walked for 5 miles at 3.5MPH uphill the entire time, you may have burned that much. Comparatively speaking, 3.0MPH for that time on a flat surface would get you less than 300.

    I use this for calorie estimates: http://www.my-calorie-counter.com/Activity_Calorie_Calculator.asp
  • JamesBurkes
    JamesBurkes Posts: 382 Member
    I'm not so sure if HRMs are accurate for lower heart rates (as attained when walking). I'm pretty fit but my HRM says I burn 1000 cals walking at almost 4 miles an hour for 1 hr and 45 minutes. Now okay, I'm 210 lbs and my route has a lot of (shortish) hills and inclines, but that seems excessive.

    The online calculator that someone posted a link to above has me at 650 cals for that time and speed (I didn't enter the incline as I wasn't sure what to put in). That seems a lot more reasonable to me. Interestingly, the calorie burns for running on that calculator tie in almost exactly to what my HRM says for running.

    As I say, I just don't think they're accurate for lower heart rates (like, 55- 60% max). To push it even further, it says I burn 6000 cals a day just sitting at the computer, which is obviously wrong. I suspect this may be because the algorithms are calculated using averages of people who maintain steady cardio exercise (mine actually says "running at a steady pace" in the manual), so doing less intense work throws the accuracy of the calculation out.

    That online calculator was interesting, though - thanks for posting that!
  • Jynus
    Jynus Posts: 519 Member
    I'm not so sure if HRMs are accurate for lower heart rates (as attained when walking).
    correct, they are not. and not accurate for strength training too. HRM's only really estimate exercise done while using the cardio energy system. Not the fatty acid energy system (the one used to power the muscles for low intensity things like walking and general living) or the anaerobic ones.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I'm not so sure if HRMs are accurate for lower heart rates (as attained when walking). I'm pretty fit but my HRM says I burn 1000 cals walking at almost 4 miles an hour for 1 hr and 45 minutes. Now okay, I'm 210 lbs and my route has a lot of (shortish) hills and inclines, but that seems excessive.

    The online calculator that someone posted a link to above has me at 650 cals for that time and speed (I didn't enter the incline as I wasn't sure what to put in). That seems a lot more reasonable to me. Interestingly, the calorie burns for running on that calculator tie in almost exactly to what my HRM says for running.

    As I say, I just don't think they're accurate for lower heart rates (like, 55- 60% max). To push it even further, it says I burn 6000 cals a day just sitting at the computer, which is obviously wrong. I suspect this may be because the algorithms are calculated using averages of people who maintain steady cardio exercise (mine actually says "running at a steady pace" in the manual), so doing less intense work throws the accuracy of the calculation out.

    That online calculator was interesting, though - thanks for posting that!

    Curious what your avgHR was for that walk, if the HRM keeps past workouts, and the maxHR reached?

    Because inclines can play a difference. Usually people slow down instead of powering up at the same speed, so when you enter avg speed, it does indeed workout correctly. Sounds like you just powered up, HR just went up as expected.
    Good job.

    Now, your HRM may have the stat of HRmax, with your personal stats, incorrect, which would lead to reporting inflated burns.
    If it defaulted to 220-age HRmax, and that is much lower than your actual HRmax, the HRM would think you were doing a massive workout when you really aren't.
    And that applies all the way down to low intensity stuff too.

    You are correct too - that calculator for flat walking, like treadmill at known speed, would be more correct than HRM that is mis-setup, and is actually a great way to get it corrected. Just takes some experimentation a couple times to adjust the HRmax correctly so the calorie counts end up the same. Then when you do more active stuff, still as good as it gets. Because that's actually when the calculators lose accuracy, because your own personal efficiency at running takes over.

    Though, walking 10% grade at 4mph is a great way to show upper ends of HR too.
    Hmmm.

Categories