hrm running vs. walking

T1mH
T1mH Posts: 568 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I walk ran 5k last night. Mostly walking, my 8 yr old just started training for a 5k. It took 53 minutes. My hrm reported 488 calories burned. Tonight I ran (a little walking) the exact same route in 36 minutes and my hrm reported 500 calories burned. 2 questions. First does that seem right? I would have thought I'd burn more running even though it was near half as long because I was working what felt like more than twice as hard. Second question does that seem like a high calorie burn amount for a 200 lb 40 yr old male? The mfp calc for 5mph for 36 minutes would have only been 388 and everbody is always complaining mfp is high.

Replies

  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    You did burn more. 51% more per minute.
  • T1mH
    T1mH Posts: 568 Member
    You did burn more. 51% more per minute.
    Hmmm, but same distance, I think I'm looking at this wrong and your right that is significant.
  • tadpole242
    tadpole242 Posts: 507 Member
    You did burn more. 51% more per minute.
    Hmmm, but same distance, I think I'm looking at this wrong and your right that is significant.

    http://lamb.cc/calories-burned-calculator/
    Google MET calculator
    (metabolic equivalent tables)
  • twinmom_112002
    twinmom_112002 Posts: 739 Member
    Hate to say it but I burn the same amount of calories per mile whether I walk or run. The difference is how long it takes me to burn that amount.
  • T1mH
    T1mH Posts: 568 Member
    Hate to say it but I burn the same amount of calories per mile whether I walk or run. The difference is how long it takes me to burn that amount.
    No thats good to know.
  • tutti777
    tutti777 Posts: 72
    Please walk....and you won't be having knee surgeries like me at age 60....My orthopedic doctor told me "not" to run or even light job. Walk only and walking "outside" is better than using a machine like a treadmill. I know....jogging makes you feel wonderful and will take the weight off.
  • sara1077
    sara1077 Posts: 89 Member
    I would expect them to be quite similar. It takes just X amount of energy to move you body that distance.

    Now the calorie burn diff between HRM and MFP ... that is a question I have too. I JUST did my very first run/walk with my new HRM and got 310 calories. MPF said something like 270. Not that much of a difference, but I was only working out for 35 minutes. I too had read her that MFP OVERestimates and to get a HRM. Now that I have a HRM, use it or the lower MPF?
  • sara1077
    sara1077 Posts: 89 Member
    Also, I did not that my HR was out of my recommended range quite a bit. While the average was 86% of my maximum HR, it was often in the 95-100% range! I was probably working a bit harder than MFP would estimate? I should probably be taking it a tad easier at the outset, but I've been a jogger in the past so it does not feel like overdoing it to me for what amounted to only 17 minutes of running, The rest was walking briskly.
  • baldzach
    baldzach Posts: 1,841 Member
    Seems right to me. I'm also about 200 lbs and burn about 160 cal per mile, give or take a little.
  • T1mH
    T1mH Posts: 568 Member
    Please walk....and you won't be having knee surgeries like me at age 60....My orthopedic doctor told me "not" to run or even light job. Walk only and walking "outside" is better than using a machine like a treadmill. I know....jogging makes you feel wonderful and will take the weight off.
    Huh? Our bodies were designed to run. It's one of the reasons that we are the dominant species on the planet. You can't just state that running is bad because you need knee surgeries. That doesn't mean it's bad for everyone.
  • CarsonRuns
    CarsonRuns Posts: 3,039 Member
    Please walk....and you won't be having knee surgeries like me at age 60....My orthopedic doctor told me "not" to run or even light job. Walk only and walking "outside" is better than using a machine like a treadmill. I know....jogging makes you feel wonderful and will take the weight off.
    Huh? Our bodies were designed to run. It's one of the reasons that we are the dominant species on the planet. You can't just state that running is bad because you need knee surgeries. That doesn't mean it's bad for everyone.

    Exactly. An experiment of one does not make it true for everyone. Studies has actually shown that running does NOT negatively impact the knee joint and in many cases is beneficial to said joint. I would be looking for another doctor.
  • T1mH
    T1mH Posts: 568 Member
    Now the calorie burn diff between HRM and MFP
    Depending on the activity MFP is usually pretty close to what my HRM says. I occasionally see calorie burns on MFP that are lower than my HRM and I'm constantly reading that MFP over estimates calories burned. So I don't know what to believe but for consistency I use my HRM numbers. That way if I don't see the results I'm expecting I'll compensate by changing my daily calorie goal. So far I'm seeing the results expected.
  • Live_To_Kayak
    Live_To_Kayak Posts: 16
    Ive noticed that over a longer duration of cycling, say 45 or 60 minutes, the calorie differences burned between a HR of almost 160 and say 140 doesn't amount to a whole lot of difference.
  • ny2298pdsgt
    ny2298pdsgt Posts: 62 Member
    i have checked multiple websites for calorie burning on various exercises, MPF has usually been pretty close to what other sites give me.

    Check out this website, it seems to be fairly accurate since its based on YOUR weight. http://whatscookingamerica.net/Information/CalorieBurnChart.htm
  • neverstray
    neverstray Posts: 3,845 Member
    There is a study that was done that disputes your HRM. someone posted it here on MFP. It suggested that walking does not burn the same at all. In fact, if I remember correctly, it burns about 30 to 40% less. An HRM simply has an algorithm built into it. Who knows what that algorithm contains? It could be off. It doesn't really read calories, that's not its function, it reads your heart beat and it does that pretty well. Cals burned is a pretty wild guesstimate.
  • T1mH
    T1mH Posts: 568 Member
    Exactly. An experiment of one does not make it true for everyone. Studies has actually shown that running does NOT negatively impact the knee joint and in many cases is beneficial to said joint. I would be looking for another doctor.
    What the poster didn't say is why he needs knee surgeries. If he's been significantly overweight for most of his life, if he has an illness, disease, or damage from an accident. If years of over training have worn his knees out, if he worked a job that caused a repetitive injury, His doctor may have had a legit reason to tell him not to run, but he shouldn't be telling everyone not to run because of his knee problem.
  • otis9791
    otis9791 Posts: 1
    Whether or not you burned more calories, you put 53 minutes of your day towards walking/running with your son. Calories burned aside you did something beneficial to your body and basic mindset. The weight loss will come, just keep it up and most importantly, enjoy it!
  • CarsonRuns
    CarsonRuns Posts: 3,039 Member
    Exactly. An experiment of one does not make it true for everyone. Studies has actually shown that running does NOT negatively impact the knee joint and in many cases is beneficial to said joint. I would be looking for another doctor.
    What the poster didn't say is why he needs knee surgeries. If he's been significantly overweight for most of his life, if he has an illness, disease, or damage from an accident. If years of over training have worn his knees out, if he worked a job that caused a repetitive injury, His doctor may have had a legit reason to tell him not to run, but he shouldn't be telling everyone not to run because of his knee problem.

    True.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Yes, you will burn more running vs. walking the same distance. It's a fallacy that you burn the same per mile no matter the speed. It could be true for some people (those who are VERY efficient at running) but for most people, it's not. Not even close for me LOL.
  • T1mH
    T1mH Posts: 568 Member
    There is a study that was done that disputes your HRM. someone posted it here on MFP. It suggested that walking does not burn the same at all. In fact, if I remember correctly, it burns about 30 to 40% less. An HRM simply has an algorithm built into it. Who knows what that algorithm contains? It could be off. It doesn't really read calories, that's not its function, it reads your heart beat and it does that pretty well. Cals burned is a pretty wild guesstimate.
    Less is more what I expected and it could very well be because from my reading and understanding an HRM is good for constant activity at an elevated level. I generally don't use it for non exercise activities but I was walk/running (mostly walking) with my 8 yr old who just began training for a 5K. My HRM connects to my phone and I use an app that tracks and maps. I'd like to put the HRM on her more out of curiosity than anything else but I don't want her to worry about that kind of stuff right now. Right now we walk when she wants to walk and we run when she wants to run. No plan, no structure, I just want it to be fun with her and us spending time together has been great.
  • T1mH
    T1mH Posts: 568 Member
    Whether or not you burned more calories, you put 53 minutes of your day towards walking/running with your son. Calories burned aside you did something beneficial to your body and basic mindset. The weight loss will come, just keep it up and most importantly, enjoy it!
    My daughter, but absolutely I loved doing it. She's 8 so some 1 on 1 bonding time has been great. I have 4 of them so 1 on 1 time is something I work hard to create for each of them.

    Edit: Great first post, welcome to MFP!
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Whether or not you burned more calories, you put 53 minutes of your day towards walking/running with your son. Calories burned aside you did something beneficial to your body and basic mindset. The weight loss will come, just keep it up and most importantly, enjoy it!
    My daughter, but absolutely I loved doing it. She's 8 so some 1 on 1 bonding time has been great. I have 4 of them so 1 on 1 time is something I work hard to create for each of them.

    Edit: Great first post, welcome to MFP!

    If you're in the US, there is a program called Girls on the Run that starts in 3rd grade. It's a running/self-esteem program. Look into it - maybe your school has a chapter or you could start one. My daughter started it this year and LOVES it.
  • neverstray
    neverstray Posts: 3,845 Member
    There is a study that was done that disputes your HRM. someone posted it here on MFP. It suggested that walking does not burn the same at all. In fact, if I remember correctly, it burns about 30 to 40% less. An HRM simply has an algorithm built into it. Who knows what that algorithm contains? It could be off. It doesn't really read calories, that's not its function, it reads your heart beat and it does that pretty well. Cals burned is a pretty wild guesstimate.
    Less is more what I expected and it could very well be because from my reading and understanding an HRM is good for constant activity at an elevated level. I generally don't use it for non exercise activities but I was walk/running (mostly walking) with my 8 yr old who just began training for a 5K. My HRM connects to my phone and I use an app that tracks and maps. I'd like to put the HRM on her more out of curiosity than anything else but I don't want her to worry about that kind of stuff right now. Right now we walk when she wants to walk and we run when she wants to run. No plan, no structure, I just want it to be fun with her and us spending time together has been great.

    That's far more important. I did the same with my son.

    FWIW, my HRM calculates walking and running the same as far as cals burned. But, I just don't believe it. With running, your hopping, with breif periods of no feet on the ground. With walking, there is always a foot on the ground, so no hopping. It is more effort to run. But, that's not really the point with what you are doing. So, non-issue.
  • faceoff4
    faceoff4 Posts: 1,599 Member
    I have been using a HRM for over 10+ years and monitoring my calorie's taken in during that time and I have to tell you they are pretty close to accurate. The HRM is going to be your best and most accurate option for your true burn and the MFP and others I have found (in my opinion) to be way off).

    Keep in mind your body and exercises are not static and they wont always be consistent. There are a lot of variables that come into play and I can do the same exact workout, at the same exact pace, etc for a week straight and come up with different calories burned. Its not a significant difference but there will always be some.
  • T1mH
    T1mH Posts: 568 Member
    If you're in the US, there is a program called Girls on the Run that starts in 3rd grade. It's a running/self-esteem program. Look into it - maybe your school has a chapter or you could start one. My daughter started it this year and LOVES it.
    My daughter is signed up for that but it doesn't start till March. She's been bugging me to run with me since I started running so she's getting a jump start on it.
  • tweetymom8
    tweetymom8 Posts: 15 Member
    My knees ache when I run. I am 52. I try to never run. But I can kick butt on an elliptical and it never bothers them at all. High calorie burn and very low impact.

Categories