Does walking really burn as many cals as it says it does?

Greentreefrog1
Greentreefrog1 Posts: 7
in Fitness and Exercise
I went walking yesterday for 2.5 hours at a moderate pace on flat ground and it supposedly burned 441 cal (according to MFP)?! I find that soooooo hard to believe... I'm only 115lbs or so btw, it's not as though I have HEAPS of weight to lug around, and I wasn't the slightest bit short of breath (obviously, haha, it was just a walk), and I'm pretty sure my heart rate wouldn't have been up that high at all. I don't know, it just didn't feel like exercise, it really didn't feel much more strenuous than sitting around.
It's not like running when it actually feels like exercise.
Or like hiking up a hill when you can feel your muscles working.
So it it legit that it burns that many cals?!

Replies

  • cantfail
    cantfail Posts: 169 Member
    Yes, that sounds reasonable. I wear a heart rate monitor when I walk my dogs (not strenuous but a little faster than 3 miles/hour) and the HRM says I'm burning about 130 calories in 25 minutes. I'm a little taller and heavier than you are.
  • allaboutthecake
    allaboutthecake Posts: 1,535 Member
    Yep.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
  • AmykinsCatfood
    AmykinsCatfood Posts: 599 Member
    I'm skeptical so for this reason I always take half an hour or so off my actual time to account for any discrepancies.
  • Yagisama
    Yagisama Posts: 595 Member
    A medium 117 gram blueberry muffin is 441 calories. You don't think walking 2.5 calories should burn away at least one mealy muffin? :tongue:
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    I'm skeptical so for this reason I always take half an hour or so off my actual time to account for any discrepancies.

    Walking for time is pretty much irrelevant. Distance matters.
  • nyiballs
    nyiballs Posts: 147 Member
    Correct regarding speed not mattering for the most part. Running two miles in 10 minutes and walking 2 miles in an hour burn virtually the same calories.

    Work = force x distance
  • suetallgirl
    suetallgirl Posts: 1
    Walking for time still counts ... I was out walking for a couple of hours yesterday and know it's good for everything . Obviously the time on a treadmill is going to be better but walking is still really really good in my opinion
  • Greentreefrog1
    Greentreefrog1 Posts: 7
    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

    This article is fab! Thank you
    nyiballs, check out this article's explanation of why running 2 miles actually burns considerably more cals than walking 2 miles- "The investigators at Syracuse didn't explain why their results differed from a simplistic interpretation of Newton's Laws of Motion, but I figured it out with help from Swain and Ray Moss, Ph.D., of Furman University. Running and walking aren't as comparable as I had imagined. When you walk, you keep your legs mostly straight, and your center of gravity rides along fairly smoothly on top of your legs. In running, we actually jump from one foot to the other. Each jump raises our center of gravity when we take off, and lowers it when we land, since we bend the knee to absorb the shock. This continual rise and fall of our weight requires a tremendous amount of Newtonian force (fighting gravity) on both takeoff and landing."

    I also like the distinction between total calorie burn and net calorie burn- I've always wondered about that!! So say my BMR is around 1200 a day, that's 50 cal an hour, so if I walk for say 2 hours I have to subtract 100 cal from the total calorie burn. Another reason why running burns more than walking, as running that same distance would take a shorter amount of time so there would be fewer cals to subtract to get the net cal burn
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Correct regarding speed not mattering for the most part. Running two miles in 10 minutes and walking 2 miles in an hour burn virtually the same calories.

    Work = force x distance

    The force is differs greatly between the two events.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

    This article is fab! Thank you
    nyiballs, check out this article's explanation of why running 2 miles actually burns considerably more cals than walking 2 miles- "The investigators at Syracuse didn't explain why their results differed from a simplistic interpretation of Newton's Laws of Motion, but I figured it out with help from Swain and Ray Moss, Ph.D., of Furman University. Running and walking aren't as comparable as I had imagined. When you walk, you keep your legs mostly straight, and your center of gravity rides along fairly smoothly on top of your legs. In running, we actually jump from one foot to the other. Each jump raises our center of gravity when we take off, and lowers it when we land, since we bend the knee to absorb the shock. This continual rise and fall of our weight requires a tremendous amount of Newtonian force (fighting gravity) on both takeoff and landing."

    I also like the distinction between total calorie burn and net calorie burn- I've always wondered about that!! So say my BMR is around 1200 a day, that's 50 cal an hour, so if I walk for say 2 hours I have to subtract 100 cal from the total calorie burn. Another reason why running burns more than walking, as running that same distance would take a shorter amount of time so there would be fewer cals to subtract to get the net cal burn

    The net/gross calorie difference can be important for those using MFP's NEAT calorie methodology and doing prolonged exercises. Many HRMs and pieces of gym equipment report gross calories. That's fine if the person is aware that the number they get at the end of every workout includes BMR and adjusts accordingly.

Categories