Calories burned hiking vs. walking

cvilledan
cvilledan Posts: 4
edited September 22 in Fitness and Exercise
Hi,

I'm fairly new here and have been trying to figure out the best way to estimate how many calories I'm burning when I exercise. I've come across a number of calculators that take into account one's weight, the activity and the duration to give an estimate. What I can't figure out is why there's such a difference between "walking" at, say 3 miles per hour and "hiking cross country" Of course, in both activities, I'm doing pretty much the same thing, the only difference being that I'm wearing different shoes. But the estimates vary considerably. One site says that for a 3 MPH walk for 75 minutes, I'll burn 362 calories. If I "hike" for the same amount of time, I burn 572 calories. Certainly this isn't accounted for by wearing hiking boots rather than sneakers. What gives? Does anyone have a good suggestion on how best to estimate calories burned when I'm walking 3 mph through the woods? Do I call this "walking," or "hiking."

Thanks--any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

CvilleDan

Replies

  • Fuhgeddaboudit
    Fuhgeddaboudit Posts: 88
    different terraine, varying inclines, obstacles
  • AmandaJ
    AmandaJ Posts: 1,950 Member
    Hi,

    I'm fairly new here and have been trying to figure out the best way to estimate how many calories I'm burning when I exercise. I've come across a number of calculators that take into account one's weight, the activity and the duration to give an estimate. What I can't figure out is why there's such a difference between "walking" at, say 3 miles per hour and "hiking cross country" Of course, in both activities, I'm doing pretty much the same thing, the only difference being that I'm wearing different shoes. But the estimates vary considerably. One site says that for a 3 MPH walk for 75 minutes, I'll burn 362 calories. If I "hike" for the same amount of time, I burn 572 calories. Certainly this isn't accounted for by wearing hiking boots rather than sneakers. What gives? Does anyone have a good suggestion on how best to estimate calories burned when I'm walking 3 mph through the woods? Do I call this "walking," or "hiking."

    Thanks--any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

    CvilleDan

    The only thing that comes to mind is maybe the walking miles are based on a treadmill and the hiking miles are based on the road with slight hills in them. Wish I had more of an answer for you!
  • toots99
    toots99 Posts: 3,794 Member
    Hiking is definitely more of a workout than just walking. I hiked for two hours today!

    The only way to be accurate about how many calories you burn is to get a heart rate monitor.
  • ka_42
    ka_42 Posts: 720 Member
    I'm also looking for answers here... I agree the level of difficulty seems too similar for burning so much more.. I've just always hoped it was legit because of the occasional incline. Unfortunately, the only way to truly know how much you're burning is a HRM and they're too pricey for me. Thanks for posting!
  • KeriA
    KeriA Posts: 3,338 Member
    Definitely think it has to do with terrain. However I walk uphill from a parking lot several days. I also realized there is also a Walking with baby or loa15 lbs exercise entry on MFP and I often wear a back pack when walking.
  • Stewie316
    Stewie316 Posts: 266 Member
    It really depends on the type of hike. Hiking comes in all varieties, from hiking through the woods to mountain hiking. Most of the hikes I go on is hiking up a mountain. And with this, there's more inclines and rocky terrain, which is a big difference then walking around the block. Even when I go hiking through the woods, it's a little more difficult than a normal walk because there's more obstacles. If you don't wear a heart rate monitor, you should take the incline, terrain, and obstacles into account when deciding which activity to record for calories burned.

    Trust me, you'll know the difference between a true hike and a 3mph walk.
  • JanW01
    JanW01 Posts: 91 Member
    I know this is an older thread but.......yesterday I went out hiking and wore my HRM. When I went to log it MFP suggested my hike was over 900 calories. My HRM said 385. That's a huge difference! I am very glad I was wearing my HRM.
  • ka_42
    ka_42 Posts: 720 Member
    I know this is an older thread but.......yesterday I went out hiking and wore my HRM. When I went to log it MFP suggested my hike was over 900 calories. My HRM said 385. That's a huge difference! I am very glad I was wearing my HRM.

    Thanks for sharing, Jan! That is good to know. I knew MFP was off- I live in a flat climate too so I"m sure I've often over estimated my "hiking".
  • JanW01
    JanW01 Posts: 91 Member
    Your welcome Kimberly :smile: I had a few big hills so I think flat would have burned even less for me.
  • karneble
    karneble Posts: 1
    I believe there needs to be an "urban hiking" category. I live in Tempe, AZ and just walked about 5 miles total throughout the city which included a very strenuous hike (definitely a hike) up a butte and back down. Is this a hike? Is it taking a walk? Felt like a hike to me.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories