Walking calorie burn question

Options
affacat
affacat Posts: 216 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I've got my diet down to where, generally I'm nailing a good caloric intake based on what I thought I was burning -- basing my goal intake off of a couple sources, but mainly calculating my sedentary TDEE off of scoobysworkshop and eating my exercise, though that ends up being surprisingly close to the base mfp calculations.

Here's my question, though. I've been basing my exercise burn off of myfitnesspal.

I recently was digging through scoobysworkshop, and found a more specific exercise calculator that I hadn't seen before.
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calories-burned/

Now, as a 40 year old male, about 5'5, 161lbs... it says I'm burning 196 cals if I walk for an hour at around 3mph. (270 if calculated to include my base cal burn during that hour)

At 4mph, it's 312 by/ 386 during.

Here's my issue:
I was just looking at the numbers I use from myfitness pal, and for the longest time it's been calculating 1 hr of walking at:
3mph = 475 cals burned (i count street walking at this, though I probably walk a bit faster)
4mph = 367 cals burned (treadmill, fixed)

Now, the 4mph is pretty close to that other calculator.

But the 3mph? It's way, way off. Over double. And it's more cals than 4mph, which doesn't make any sense.

So my questions:
1) Does Myfitnesspal expect 'calories burned' BY exercise, or DURING exercise? (that is, does it take into account the normal cals burned by existing)?

2) Do the vastly reduced numbers calculated off of scoobysworkshop sound more correct than what I've been using? Is it really only 200 cals (for me) to go for an hour walk outside?

This could drastically effect how many cals I'm supposed to be eating by over 500... I'm really good about weighing everything I use, even condiments, etc, but this has thrown everything into confusion for me. Last week, I was eating around 2150 cals a day and thinking I was doing great, but I've dropped down 500 until I figure this out.

That's a significant amount of cals, and I don't want to undereat (or overeat). Due to injuries and my current family situation, I'm limited to walking and only have so much time per day (as it is i wake up at 5am to walk), so if my burn just got halved I really need to further limit my diet.

Replies

  • JamesDanek
    JamesDanek Posts: 95 Member
    Options
    At this point in my training I have stopped counting walking calories... (35m 5'10'' 193lb so broadly where you are physically)

    I walk EVERYWHERE. To the gym 3 mornings a week, to work and back most of the week, strolls at the weekend so I do a reasonable amount.

    I stopped counting walking calories because of all the conflicting data about burn. Instead I eat back my training calories (lifting running and eliptical based on MFP) and use my walking as a buffer if those numbers are a little generous.

    It also means if someone brings treats into the office or I decide i NEED a jack and coke at the end of a day I dont have to beat myself up over a slight breach of my Calorie amount because chances are I walked that in.

    Its adding that little bit of flexibility to my lifestyle to stop me going completely nuts...
  • affacat
    affacat Posts: 216 Member
    Options
    At this point in my training I have stopped counting walking calories... (35m 5'10'' 193lb so broadly where you are physically)

    I walk EVERYWHERE. To the gym 3 mornings a week, to work and back most of the week, strolls at the weekend so I do a reasonable amount.

    Last year at this point I was almost at my goal weight, thin/fit and maybe a couple pounds to go. I was running, lifting, etc.

    Then between having a son and a serious back injury, I ended up putting back on almost 25 lbs due to sheer inactivity (plus some stress eating, I'm sure). I can do some limited strength training right now, but running is out of the question. I've dropped about half of that added weight (12lbs) so far but still feel like I have a wall to climb (those last few pounds always seem the hardest).

    So, at least for now, walking is all I've got that really has any 'burn'. So I need to count it. Or else I'd be starving myself at the default 1200-1500 cals.

    I'm waking up at 5am and putting 80 minutes in at 4.0mph (some spikes to 4.5, but nothing to write home about). And then I go for a walk with my son for 1-2 hours a day. Add in some basic strength training and that's that. (last year this time I was jogging, running, sprinting, and more but that's out of the question for the time being).

    Anyway, that's why I need guidance on what I'm actually burning. Those are the cals I'm eating back, and with the wide range in possible burn, it's the difference between overeating and accidentally starving myself.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    Virtually none of them give your 'net burn', as far as I know.

    The MFP estimate looks ridiculously high to me. Any time you're way over 100 calories a mile, I think that's a red flag (though maybe not if you're obese).

    You're not going to accidentally starve yourself if you don't 'eat back' some walked miles.
  • alighterday
    alighterday Posts: 28
    Options
    I DO understand your problem. For a while walking was all I did. From 2009 to about 2012. MFP told me what I was burning on those walks and I ate them back. It seemed like I was working my buns off burning all those calories but I wasn't. I said to myself if I can burn all these calories walking, why would I want to kill myself trying to do things I'm not able to do? Didn't lose any weight. What I did was cut that number they gave me in half. That gave me about half a pound a month loss for the next two years. Got stuck this year with no loss, but have gotten stronger and learning how to do other things. Glad you posted this information.
  • alighterday
    alighterday Posts: 28
    Options
    Virtually none of them give your 'net burn', as far as I know.

    The MFP estimate looks ridiculously high to me. Any time you're way over 100 calories a mile, I think that's a red flag (though maybe not if you're obese).

    You're not going to accidentally starve yourself if you don't 'eat back' some walked miles.

    Thanks!!!
  • alighterday
    alighterday Posts: 28
    Options
    JAMES DANEK - this seems like a good idea to me - thank you too!

    QUOTE: At this point in my training I have stopped counting walking calories... (35m 5'10'' 193lb so broadly where you are physically)
  • Ninkyou
    Ninkyou Posts: 6,666 Member
    Options
    A good rule to follow for walking and running is 100 calories per mile. Of course, this number changes based on your fitness level, on your weight, etc. But it's a good starting point.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,988 Member
    Options


    Now, as a 40 year old male, about 5'5, 161lbs... it says I'm burning 196 cals if I walk for an hour at around 3mph. (270 if calculated to include my base cal burn during that hour)

    At 4mph, it's 312 by/ 386 during.

    Here's my issue:
    I was just looking at the numbers I use from myfitness pal, and for the longest time it's been calculating 1 hr of walking at:
    3mph = 475 cals burned (i count street walking at this, though I probably walk a bit faster)
    4mph = 367 cals burned (treadmill, fixed)


    The 4 mph figure seems to be fairly reasonable, but the 3 mph figure seems awfully high.
    HOWEVER, if you've been using those figures "for the longest time" and you've been satisfied with your progress, I don't think you necessarily need to make any changes. Maybe you're regularly overestimating calorie intakes on some food(s) you eat a lot, or maybe your 3 mph street walking involves a lot of hills or stairs and really is "a bit faster." In any case, if you've been doing things one way "for the longest time" and are achieving progress at a healthy rate (or maintaining or gaining in healthy fashion -- whatever your goal is), I don't see why you would start cutting your intake by a few hundred calories a day just to comply with the numbers that online calculators are spitting out. Your body is the ultimate tracker and evidence of your calorie deficit/balance/surplus.
  • BigGuy47
    BigGuy47 Posts: 1,768 Member
    Options
    A good rule to follow for walking and running is 100 calories per mile.
    Agreed. It give's you a ball park estimate to work from. If the MFP numbers are double the ball park estimate then the MFP numbers are most likely wrong.
  • affacat
    affacat Posts: 216 Member
    Options
    Virtually none of them give your 'net burn', as far as I know.

    The MFP estimate looks ridiculously high to me. Any time you're way over 100 calories a mile, I think that's a red flag (though maybe not if you're obese).

    You're not going to accidentally starve yourself if you don't 'eat back' some walked miles.

    The scoobysworkshop I linked to in the OP gives both 'cals burned by' exercise and 'cals burned during' exercise. The 'during' includes the cals your burn naturally, the 'by' doesn't. I was just wondering which I should use for MFP.

    Perhaps I was being overdramatic about 'starving'... but I tend to under eat when trying to lose weight and work hard at adding cals to my diet to stay within what research says is a healthy range.
    A good rule to follow for walking and running is 100 calories per mile. Of course, this number changes based on your fitness level, on your weight, etc. But it's a good starting point.

    Thanks for this! It's a fair number.

    That would put my 80 minutes at 4mph at around 533, and an hour walk outside at around 300. I'm okay with those numbers.

    My bmr = 1550
    My sedentary TDEE to maintain weight is = 1860
    My weight loss cals per day = 1488 (plus exercise, since I calculated as sedentary)

    Adding back that walking, somewhere in the 2000-2300 cals per day seems healthy and aimed at weight loss.

    Speaking back to undereating, I have no problem sticking to around 1600 a day despite exercise... adding in that extra 500+ feels odd and i need to force myself to do it.
  • Ninkyou
    Ninkyou Posts: 6,666 Member
    Options
    Speaking back to undereating, I have no problem sticking to around 1600 a day despite exercise... adding in that extra 500+ feels odd and i need to force myself to do it.

    You don't necessarily have to add food as quantity. You could do simple things, like cooking with oil, or adding some butter. If all else fails, have some ice cream at the end of the night. There aren't any 'bad' foods, just fit them into your calorie goal. If there's a food you're missing, like, a cheeseburger, for example, have the cheeseburger, just fit it into your calorie goal. I'll tell you what, in the 10/11 months it took me to lose my 58 lbs (before pregnancy), I had ice cream every single night. It really helped bumping up my calories to the right amount, and it made me feel happy because I didn't feel deprived. When you're happy with your calories & food, sustainability becomes much much easier.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    If you don't like the MFP directive to 'eat back' 500 calories, change your base activity level setting to incorporate it and suddenly it's no longer dangerous not to eat it back.

    If you're happy at 1600, you're not hurting anything by not eating 2000+. You suspect you burn WITH exercise around 2360, right? 1600 is about 750 below that, so not even 2 lbs/week. You're fine.

    Based on this info below, if you eat back you're racking up like 375 calories a day in deficit is all, or 3 lbs/month of weight loss?

    My sedentary TDEE to maintain weight is = 1860
    My weight loss cals per day = 1488 (plus exercise, since I calculated as sedentary)
  • affacat
    affacat Posts: 216 Member
    Options

    You don't necessarily have to add food as quantity. You could do simple things, like cooking with oil, or adding some butter.

    Ah, no. I love food in quantity. I can easily eat 3x the food I'm supposed to per meal. A box of cookies and then an ice cream chaser? Sure. 3 servings of pasta? No problem.

    But I'm also good at controlling what I eat if I force myself too. And so I go the other direction -- I want to ensure I don't 'undo' my exercise so I under eat. Myfitnesspal, and the various calculations we can get off the net, help me make sure I hit my 'target'. I can do that if I have an accurate target. The reason I started this thread was that all of a sudden I thought my target was way off, which throws a huge wrench into the works.
    If you don't like the MFP directive to 'eat back' 500 calories, change your base activity level setting to incorporate it and suddenly it's no longer dangerous not to eat it back.

    I actually like the 'eat it back' since it feels the most accurate. Start at sedentary as a baseline, then I can track my exact effort for the day. The issue was just that all of a sudden my exercise tracking (especially 3mph) looked like I was overestimating by a massive amount.

    I feel much better about it now, thanks to some of the answers here. MFP was definitely overestimating my 3mph walks by a significant amount, but by the same token it was underestimating my 4mph a bit. Overall, since I'm walking a minimum of 8 miles a day, sometimes much more, that's about 800 cals to work with. For a bit, earlier today, I thought it was more like 400.
  • Ninkyou
    Ninkyou Posts: 6,666 Member
    Options
    Ah, no. I love food in quantity. I can easily eat 3x the food I'm supposed to per meal. A box of cookies and then an ice cream chaser? Sure. 3 servings of pasta? No problem.

    But I'm also good at controlling what I eat if I force myself too. And so I go the other direction -- I want to ensure I don't 'undo' my exercise so I under eat. Myfitnesspal, and the various calculations we can get off the net, help me make sure I hit my 'target'. I can do that if I have an accurate target. The reason I started this thread was that all of a sudden I thought my target was way off, which throws a huge wrench into the works.

    I love food in quantity too. My point was more that, you don't have to 'force' yourself to meet your calorie goal by increasing quantity... it could just be something simple like adding oils or butters... maybe a little ice cream ;)

    But yes, once you have your actual target set, it's much easier to plan for those things. If you're worried about the calorie burns, you can switch to the TDEE method.
    http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/
    Put your info in, and it will tell you how many calories you need to maintain and how many you need to lose, with your exercise already factored in. With this method, you eat the same amount of calories everyday, regardless if it's a rest day or exercise day, etc. I personally prefer this method, because I don't have to math it all up and figure out how many calories I need to 'eat back'. My calorie goal doesn't bounce all around. It's just one flat number. It makes planning ahead easier too, and I like to 'pre-log' my day in the morning, and I know exactly how many calories I have to work with.
  • Kimsied
    Kimsied Posts: 232
    Options

    Here's my issue:
    I was just looking at the numbers I use from myfitness pal, and for the longest time it's been calculating 1 hr of walking at:
    3mph = 475 cals burned (i count street walking at this, though I probably walk a bit faster)
    4mph = 367 cals burned (treadmill, fixed)

    Something is wrong here because it makes no sense that you would burn more for an hour at 3mph vs. 4mph speed. Walking 3 miles during an hour will burn fewer calories than 4 miles in an hour. Does the 3mph factor in hills or an incline? Or do you have the calorie burns for 3 mph and 4 mph reversed? If it isn't a typo, I think something is wrong with the 3mph estimate. All else equal (inclines/hills) walking faster and covering more distance will burn more calories.

    ETA: I just checked to see if anything weird came up for me with these activities. When logged 60 minutes "walking 3mph, moderate pace" it credited 224 calories, for 60 minutes "walking 4mph, very brisk pace" it credited 340 calories. That seems okay, it is a total including BMR. Other sources such as my heart rate monitor, fitbit and another online calculator tend to credit me with about 91 - 95 calories a mile at 4mph speed. MFP is on the slightly low side of that, but within the same ballpark and close enough. You are male and heavier than me so I would expect you to burn more. The other calculator I compared was: http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html , I just looked at Scooby and it credited slightly higher than MFP for me. Walking 2.8-3.2 was 250 calories. I don't think that is specific enough on speed though, but it is higher than the 224 calories MFP would have credited for walking 3mph. Walking 4mph, Scooby credited me with 358 calories for an hour, which is a little more than the 340 MFP credited. I am not sure why yours would be much different? I think it could be a good idea to use the net amount on Scooby if you are adding it on top of your allowance as the MFP total does include BMR.
  • lhippen
    lhippen Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    I have not been able to get my hands on the actual study, but this article from Runner's World (Running v. Walking: How Many Calories Will You Burn? http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn) has been very helpful to me. Don't worry that it is in a running magazine, even if you are just walking it is a helpful article that helps expain the "100 calories per mile" rule of thumb.

    I hope it helps you too.
  • mom2my4boys
    mom2my4boys Posts: 148 Member
    Options
    I use a free app for my phone called runtastic. (you can set it to walking too) It uses GPS to track your route/distance/speed combined with your stats.I can't afford a fitbit yet. It gives me pretty close to the 100 cals per mile everyone says is good. (i'm f/5"4/180lbs) When i first started using MFP, i was using whatever MPF said i burnt and eating back 1/2 cals burned. I've maintained more or less the same rate of loss either way. Maybe this app would help you too? Good luck!
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    Net calories burned walking is closer to .3 calories per pound per mile .... so a 200 pound person nets 60 calories per mile on average.

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

Categories