Did I seriously only burn 72 calories?

in terms of doing more -- i have roughly (??) the same stats -- 5'3 and 149 lbs. I'm trying to get back into running, and at the moment I run for a song and then I walk for a song on my ipod.

I'll walk at around 3.5/3.7 and then jog at 5.5. Sometimes I find that if I'm a bit more winded from one of the songs I'll then walk for 2 songs, and then jog for the next song. I'm finding that I don't have to do that as often anymore. I also make sure that the songs I have on my playlist have some really pumpy (?? is that a word??) songs. If I'm jogging to a song that doesn't do it for me I find that I actually can't go as fast!!! So get yourself a good playlist!!!

No I hate it but I have a four year old and watch a two year old so doing most stuff is out. I can get in maybe an hr before the two year old comes to my house. Plus it's freakin freezing out.
I wanna do more but I can only stay on 30 min at a time before I loose my mind...so bored. I'd go faster but I can't do it (physically) at this point. 3.5 is top speed for me. I can do 2.5 with a 5 incline but like I said, switching it up or inclines are really hard to log

Walking slower at an incline will burn more calories than walking a bit faster and being flat. Get a HRM, I have a feeling you burned more than 72 calories.

Whether you run or walk, you generally lose the same calories for one mile, so don't push yourself so hard! Maybe come up with a mile goal and do it at a pace that will keep you interested but not so hard you will quit.

no, no, no, no, no...........

Running burns approximately double the net calories as walking does (unless you're race / speed walking which doesn't apply to most people going 3.5 to 4 mph)

Walking: .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

Running: .63 x weight(in lbs) x distance (in miles)


source: http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

Please note ......these are net caloric expenditures ie additional calories expended as a direct result of the activity (gross calories include BMR - you'd be burning that portion lying in bed)

To the OP It would be reasonable to assume that a steeper incline would result in a higher caloric expenditure but 72 cal for 1 mile for a 150lb person would be high for a level surface.

solid gold! thank you for this info-- i usually just input the mfp stuff but as is im going at a lower speed ( in case of mfp error)

Sweating is GOOD! I routinely get to about 160-170 at a jog around 4.3 mph. I think if you're doing your best and it's hard for you at 17 mph, don't worry about the calories THAT much, and just worry about getting more efficient.

I'm 130 lbs, and I burn about 4-5 cal/min walking and about 8 cal/min jogging. All according to my Bodymedia...

It's an estimate. You'll need a good HRM to determine how much you are actually burning.

As with what others have been saying already, it is affected by weight, height, age, sex, and fitness level. The incline also plays a part. As does, speaking from experience here, carrying extra weight.

I'm currently training for the MoonWalk, and have done a few walks to work as part of my training. When I do that, I am carrying a heavy backpack on my back which holds my lunch, an umbrella, a water bottle and my handbag. I burn considerably more calories on those walks than I do on my weekend walks (when all I have is a water bottle and my phone).

For comparison, my average HR on those walks (a 14 min mile), is around the 160 mark, with the max HR being around 178 (now, it was 185 to begin with). So, if your HR is only 135, that's pretty low (comparatively speaking) and you could stand to push it harder. But I am not clear if that was after having stopped for a minute, or not. If so, it would suggest that your max HR was probably around the same as mine and was coming down nicely.

If you want to maximise your walks, without having to walk longer, then work on the speed and/or add a heavy backpack to your back.

And don't be hard on yourself, I was doing 16 min miles to start with, but have got it down to 14 min miles over the course of 4 weeks. Progress takes time, but you'll get there.

Also, a HRM is invaluable if you're interested in accurate calorie burns.

I think that's a reasonable amount of calories, 72x3=216 calories per hour (more or less). If you wanna burn more, you have to work out for at least one hour.

Not sure but is 135 for a heart-rate that high when you've been working out? Mine gets around 160. Just curious.

Lol I was thinking the same thing, When I'm doing the 30 Day Shred mine gets up to about 180 and I burn around 380 cal. in 25 min.

Try doing some weight lifting, and developing muscles.

Will go a long way to help you in your goals and the benefits are great.

I haaattteee running. I highly highly suggest the c25k app if you're going to free walk/jog or using the treadmill. The apps free, pur in your headphones and it tells you what to do and when to do it. I've been using it for a few days and have noticed a GREAT improvement already. Also, Google proper breathing techniques while jogging etc. They've helped me a lot also.


Don't focus on calories lost. Focus on the workout itself. If you get 17inutes one day, push to 20, etc. You're going to sweat and its going to suck but it'll get easier I swear!!

Have you thought about weight lifting?

How about a stair stepper or elliptical?

Try different things! The point is to get healthy, just be more active!

This content has been removed.

It's an estimate. You'll need a good HRM to determine how much you are actually burning.

As with what others have been saying already, it is affected by weight, height, age, sex, and fitness level. The incline also plays a part. As does, speaking from experience here, carrying extra weight.

I'm currently training for the MoonWalk, and have done a few walks to work as part of my training. When I do that, I am carrying a heavy backpack on my back which holds my lunch, an umbrella, a water bottle and my handbag. I burn considerably more calories on those walks than I do on my weekend walks (when all I have is a water bottle and my phone).

For comparison, my average HR on those walks (a 14 min mile), is around the 160 mark, with the max HR being around 178 (now, it was 185 to begin with). So, if your HR is only 135, that's pretty low (comparatively speaking) and you could stand to push it harder. But I am not clear if that was after having stopped for a minute, or not. If so, it would suggest that your max HR was probably around the same as mine and was coming down nicely.

If you want to maximise your walks, without having to walk longer, then work on the speed and/or add a heavy backpack to your back.

And don't be hard on yourself, I was doing 16 min miles to start with, but have got it down to 14 min miles over the course of 4 weeks. Progress takes time, but you'll get there.

Also, a HRM is invaluable if you're interested in accurate calorie burns.

HR does not equal calorie burn. There is a relationship between HR and VO2 that allow for an estimation under certain circumstances (steady state cardio, which this would apply to).
Calorie burn is two things - intensity and weight. That's it. (incline would fall under intensity).

HRMs are very misunderstood on here and often overestimated in their accuracy. They are a good tool, however, they are not infallible.

I'm pretty sure I linked it above but just in case, this post is a really great explanation of how they work.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

Thank you.

I have the Polar FT4. Looks like I'll need to consider an upgrade for more accurate calorie burns though. I have been regularly updating it with my weight, as it has decreased, at least.

Could it not be said that *some* HRM's are at least slightly more accurate than MFP's estimates though, because they are at least taking some stats into account that MFP does not?

Ps I wonder if it makes a difference that I don't sweat? Like ever. I get sticky but I've never had a bead of sweat in my life. I lived in fl at one point. Does my heart race, feel like I can't breath, throat burns,get super thirsty, want to stop just to catch my breath? Yes to all of the above, sweat? Never

No. Like HR, sweat can be an indication of effort, but not necessarily. I am a sweater. My husband jokes I sweat if I think too hard. If burning calories was about sweating, I'd be a stick. I run races and am completely drenched. Some of the women who ran faster or farther (if there is moe than one distance) than I did don't even look like they ran. They certainly were working at a higher intensity. Its more of an individual thing on how our bodies handle heat.

Ps I wonder if it makes a difference that I don't sweat? Like ever. I get sticky but I've never had a bead of sweat in my life. I lived in fl at one point. Does my heart race, feel like I can't breath, throat burns,get super thirsty, want to stop just to catch my breath? Yes to all of the above, sweat? Never

No. Like HR, sweat can be an indication of effort, but not necessarily. I am a sweater. My husband jokes I sweat if I think too hard. If burning calories was about sweating, I'd be a stick. I run races and am completely drenched. Some of the women who ran faster or farther (if there is moe than one distance) than I did don't even look like they ran. They certainly were working at a higher intensity. Its more of an individual thing on how our bodies handle heat.

Yep. I, generally, sweat quite a bit also. And go bright red to boot. But if it's a cold day, I don't tend to sweat at all. My fiance, however, could probably break out in a sweat in temps of minus 20!

No I hate it but I have a four year old and watch a two year old so doing most stuff is out. I can get in maybe an hr before the two year old comes to my house. Plus it's freakin freezing out.
I wanna do more but I can only stay on 30 min at a time before I loose my mind...so bored. I'd go faster but I can't do it (physically) at this point. 3.5 is top speed for me. I can do 2.5 with a 5 incline but like I said, switching it up or inclines are really hard to log

Walking slower at an incline will burn more calories than walking a bit faster and being flat. Get a HRM, I have a feeling you burned more than 72 calories.

Keep in mind that all bets are off if you start holding on. A common mistake that people make.

Why do you think she burned more than 72 calories?

Why assume I meant for her to hike up the elevation just to hold on to the railings? People do hold on to the treadmills with inclines yes (I've seen it too) - but not everyone does. Common sense has to kick in at some point if you don't feel the burn in your legs from walking up hill.

I think she burned more than 72 calories walking at an incline for 17 minutes because it takes way more effort to walk uphill than it does to walk flat. I'm just suggesting the use of a HRM to know exactly what her body is doing.

Using estimates from an exercise database is as useful as relying soley on the nutrition database. Everyone touts the use of a food scale to measure food. Why not the use of a HRM for exercise?

I did not assume you meant for her to hold on, nor did I say that. I was adding that to what you said because it is a common mistake. It is hard to walk uphill on a treadmill and the first instinct is to hold on.

72 is generous for walking at her weight, even uphill, based on data tables that are well researched. I was just wondering where the decision that it wasn't high enough came from.

I didn't say not to use a HRM, I didn't say anything about a HRM in that post. Earlier I did say they are far too often misunderstood and the accuracy is overrated. The link I added had suggestions on how to use it more effectively.

ETA - HRMs are intended for estimations during steady state cardio, which is what we are talking about here, that is good. The link suggests ways to help increase accuracy. It is not good for all exercise.