Does walking count as exercise!

Then please explain how someone (me) who has walked 178 miles in the last 4 weeks, who burns an average (mode) of 7.5 kcal/minute while walking (1.5 kcal/min lying down, I'm rarely sitting or standing still), who has eaten back 35,070 exercise calories in the last 4 weeks, who has a target deficit of 1,125 kcal/day, has lost 9.8 pounds in the last 4 weeks.

Easy. your BMR is higher than you think it is.

Then please explain how the 3 weeks I was in bed with the flu I also lost the amount I expected.

easy. You had the flu.

Of course!

YES!!!! That is how I started my journey and it is still my favorite exercise! I love to walk and see what God had placed before me in his amazing beauty! Pace does not matter, just keep it moving! Keep on walking girl!
Blessings!!

phjorg, you've lost exactly 0 pounds in ten days and unsurprisingly don't actually have any friends on here. Perhaps you should spend less time on the forums arguing semantics (because let's face it, that's all you're doing at this point) and more time actually burning calories--however you want to say it's done.

phjorg, you've lost exactly 0 pounds in ten days and unsurprisingly don't actually have any friends on here. Perhaps you should spend less time on the forums arguing semantics (because let's face it, that's all you're doing at this point) and more time actually burning calories--however you want to say it's done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Seriously?? you're actually using this as your debate tool?

And I think semantics means something different than you seem to think it does. Because I'm in no way doing that..

phjorg, you've lost exactly 0 pounds in ten days and unsurprisingly don't actually have any friends on here. Perhaps you should spend less time on the forums arguing semantics (because let's face it, that's all you're doing at this point) and more time actually burning calories--however you want to say it's done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Seriously?? you're actually using this as your debate tool?

And I think semantics means something different than you seem to think it does. Because I'm in no way doing that..

I'm not the one in a debate, so I'm not using it as a tool. I am stating fact.

P.S. Yeah, you are. You're arguing about the meaning or the way that a calorie is burned at this point, and not that people are actually burning calories by walking. That's pretty much the definition of a semantics argument. Now I am adding to you to the list of users I choose to ignore. Good luck with your goals :flowerforyou:

The time I lost the most weight the most effortlessly was when I lived in DC. I walked EVERYWHERE, at a "normal" to somewhat brisk (e.g. constantly late for meetings, but not power walking) pace. I didn't do much other deliberate working out and I ate pretty cavalierly - I wanted to try all the restaurants! I only used 1/4 tank of gas the whole summer and was the thinnest I've ever been after 3 months there. Keep steppin' and ignore the haters.

I also have to disagree with some of his logic, mainly because I would assume an elite athlete burns less in an hour of exercise than an out of shape person, based on my own experiences getting more and more fit and now struggling to burn as many calories in exercise.

Yes and no. the energy required to do x amount of exercise at Y amount of weight will be not too different regardless of your fitness level. This is where heart rate monitors fall flat. It's an estimation of calories burned based upon Z amount of O2 per beat. Problem is, the more trained you are, the more O2 per beat you get. thus lower heartrate, even though calorie burn is the same.

Granted there are some things that can fluctuate this so it's not a direct corolation. an elite athlete will have better technique and strength. so even at same work they will burn less calories. I will grant this. But the difference I would assume to be rather overstated. The key is they make it up by having more top end output. Their average run is faster than a lot of peoples on here full out sprint.

Point still remains, I have yet to see anyone tested at more than 16cal/min going full out cardio. Beginner or otherwise. Trying to claim similar burns from walking, regardless of your shape is laughable. If you're losing weight, then grats, keep at it. But don't assume you're the burning machine you think you are.

Meh, Idk man, my heart rate monitor seems to be adjusting nicely to my changing fitness.

Today I went looking for mushrooms which involved an 8.5 hour bike ride/walk. Total burned, 2586. On low intensity exercise I subtract 90 cals per hour (my bmr divided by 24). So 1820 in 8.5 hours. Before I started jump rope and bike riding on these hills, I was getting much higher heart rates, and much higher burns per hour. Changing to an exercise I'm not as good at seems to give me higher burns, which is consistent with what we know about specificity resulting in more efficient movement when performing an athletic activity. Nt changing my activities gets me lower numbers on the hrm, and also slower fat loss.

So it actually makes a lot of sense for someone out of shape to burn more than an elite athlete. It actually is conceivable for someone very out of shape and overweight to exert a lot while walking. Maybe even 900 cals in two hours, now that I think about it.

You're making the classic mistake by thinking that your heartrate = calorie burn. It doesn't.

What burns calories is your muscles doing work. Not your heart beating. the harder you work your muscles, the more calories they are burning.

Where your heartrate comes into this equation is that the harder you work your muscles, the more oxygen they demand. So the heart beats faster to provide it. As you get into better shape, your heart is trained to improve this system. More oxygen, less beats. Even with muscles doing the same work. Thats why good HRM's have VO2MAX components in them that need to be calibrated to try and compensate for this. but even then, it's still a guess.

so no, it makes no sense whatsoever that someone out of shape burns more calories than someone in shape.

Actually, I very much understand its an estimate, and haven't made a mistake. Rather than worry about being too precise about my calorie burn, I stick to the heart rate based estimate which only takes into account height, weight, gender, and age. THEN, I apply a simple error correction to my other simple estimates, which are caloric values for the food I eat based on measurements of weight and volume. It goes something like this: if I'm not losing fat, I update my calorie goal and run bigger nominal deficits, or I eat a bit more, run a smaller nominal deficit, and try to increase intensity. If I make a mistake, worst case scenario is that I put on a bit of muscle.

This is cheap, and effective, and as many people on the thread have pointed out, works very well for accomplishing the desired goal, which is fat loss and body recomposition, not precisely measuring and predicting change.

I understand all the concepts you lay out and I know they are true. But relevance is key here. For the sake of simplicity and functionality, all I need to do is worry about "activity", "exercise", and "intake". I can, for the purposes of inputting relevant data into my fitness pal, simply classify all exertion related to daily duties as "activity" and leave them in the background. Then I can classify all additional exertion designed to raise my caloric needs as "exercise", because it will change the "intake" line.

So yeah, walking is "exercise" for the purpose of losing weight using the MFP approach, and yeah, just going by heart rate is pretty much "good enough", and yeah, if you keep doing the same routine your body adapts and not only does the hrm give you a lower number, you stop losing as much fat unless you bring more intensity or switch to a different kind of exercise.

And btw someone with a few extra pounds is not just experiencing a higher heart rate. They are exerting more. On top of that, fat loss or weight loss follows an exponential growth curve in reverse, so when you have a lot to lose, high levels of precision and accuracy are not even required to accomplish big improvements.

Yes- Especially difficult walks, like on soft sand or hills.

Um... I just started a more serious walking routine and not only have my TDEE gone way up but I am so sore my kids are teasing me. Higher cal burn plus soreness... definitely exercise imo. Now, I don't consider walking through my regular day as "exercise" for myself because I am slower, it isn't continuos and lack intension. I do count my morning walks as I focus on form and it is continuous. That said, it all helps.

PS: I lost a lot of weight in the past before my foot surgery and lost more walking than when I became a runner. Walking increased my burn without leaving me hungry while marathon training left me famished and was only good for maintenance and my mental health.

Almost all my exercise is walking.

So much so that yesterday, I had cataract surgery and they couldn't believe I wasn't a runner b/c my RHR was 53 bpm.

So, yes. Walking counts.