How many calories do YOU burn from walking?
lemonlionheart
Posts: 580 Member
I'm curious to know how others are logging calories burned from walking, particularly women with similar stats to myself (5'4, 130lbs). I have a pedometer on my phone that tells me I burn over 300 calories for 10000 steps, which is similar to what other calculations on various websites have told me. I usually log half of that because it seems high to me. Does anyone wear a HRM while walking, and does this give an accurate measure? What do you log for 10000 steps, or for an hour of moderately paced walking?
ETA: This is the online calculator I found. Has anyone else used it and found it to be accurate? Are there any more accurate calculators out there?
ETA: This is the online calculator I found. Has anyone else used it and found it to be accurate? Are there any more accurate calculators out there?
0
Replies
-
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
HRMs can struggle with calculating caloric burn from walking ... it doesn't rise to the level of steady state cardio that all HRMs base their formulas upon.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
HRMs can struggle with calculating caloric burn from walking ... it doesn't rise to the level of steady state cardio that all HRMs base their formulas upon.
Thanks! The formula in that article estimated closer to 200 calories per 10000 steps for me, which is a lot lower than my pedometer and the other site I used
0 -
How many of those steps are part of normal activity and therefore already counted in your settings?0
-
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
You do have to realize something though for manual logging, unless you are synced with an activity tracker.
Especially for low burn type of exercise.
MFP already estimated how much you would burn each day, and therefore each minute.
Under Goals - Calories burned from normal daily activity.
Divide that by 1440 for how many calories per minute you are already accounted for burning, which your diet is based on.
If say that is 1638 for you, that means you are accounted to burn 1.1375 cal/min already.
If by moderate pace walk for exercise (not daily walking, some level that is already incorporated into your activity level and daily calorie burn) you mean say 3 mph for say 60 min, that would be from calc above using Gross option like MFP uses - 205 calories.
But, that is in total.
1.1375 x 60 min = 68.25 you were expected to burn anyway.
205 - 68 = 137 calories actually burned above and beyond already expected.
That's what you would log and eat back.
And yes, MFP could easily correct that issue, but I guess at this point they expect you to get an activity tracker, in which case none of the above applies when manually logging exercise.
Oh, you can't base calories burned on steps, without there being a distance that goes along with it. Steps could be running or walking, fast or slow. It's the distance with time that makes pace, it's the pace with weight that gives calories.
Ditto's to HRM being wrong tool for walking calories.
Even if totally out of shape that your HR is in the exercise zone, it soon won't be unless you are pumping up some inclines at fast pace.
But not daily life walking.
Your pedometer function shouldn't really be used except for real exercise level walking - not the daily stuff.0 -
Would you accept 15-17% inaccuracy from somebody owing you money?TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
HRMs can struggle with calculating caloric burn from walking ... it doesn't rise to the level of steady state cardio that all HRMs base their formulas upon.
I wear my HRM with my VO2 tests several times now. And it is off everytime between 15% to 17%
So not that bad at all
Are you comparing the end results of your VO2 max test and what your HRM or each phase of the test? It matters.
0 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
HRMs can struggle with calculating caloric burn from walking ... it doesn't rise to the level of steady state cardio that all HRMs base their formulas upon.
I wear my HRM with my VO2 tests several times now. And it is off everytime between 15% to 17%
So not that bad at all
How nice is yours, and is it using lab measured stats?
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study
Might do better with your own calorie burn formula, if you do enough endurance cardio to care for increased accuracy.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/getting-your-personalized-calorie-burn-formula-6636250 -
300 burn sounds about right to me, if you are walking at a moderate pace.0
-
Walking doesn't burn many calories, but it's about the greatest exercise to do!0
-
I am 5'1, 128 lbs. when I wear my HRM to walk around the neighborhood I burn around 100 calories in 25 minutes. There are some slight inclined though and I am pushing a stroller with a 30lb kid in it.0
-
Like 110
-
You know, I don't even know. MFP gives me a calorie amount depending upon approximately how fast I've been walking, but I don't pay that much attention to it (and I don't "eat the calories back," generally). I walk more for overall health than to have more calories. I keep track because I want to look back and see what kind of exercise I've gotten during any given period of time.
I know walking makes me feel better, and I've always loved it, so that's why I do it.
0 -
I have a fitbit charge HR. It tracks my steps and heart rate calculates the calories and loads the into MFP. I love it and think it's worth every penny.0
-
What what what...so according to super science based calculator I burn 273kj for an hour of walking. MFP says 1352kj. Bit of a difference!
Quite cool really. So an hour of walking per day at 4.8km per hour or 3mph would net me an extra weight loss of about 50 grams per week.0 -
I'm 5'8 and 163 ...I hit sedentary levels at around 2500-4000 steps and log on average 350 for 10000 calories measured by my fitbit over the last 8 months (and continual on track weight loss over the last 8 months so I'm pretty confident of my tracking accuracy)
I only use my HRM for gym workouts but wear my fitbit constantly. Generally 6-8000 steps are higher intensity dog walking (around 4 mph for around 40 -60 mins)0 -
I'm using the TDEE method now so I don't log my exercise, but when I did, I used the MapMyRun app (or MapMyFitness, MapMyWalk, they're all the same), which gave me a better view of my walking speed/time/distance, and it syncs with MFP. I always assumed I walked at a moderate pace, but according to the app my average walking speed was 8-9 minutes per km, or a "very brisk" to "very, very brisk pace" according to MFP. Even still, I take the burn MFP lists with a grain of salt, because it tends to seem high.0
-
I'm not sure how it does with running and walking, but MapMyRide seems like it runs high on calories burned. I adjusted it down to closer to what the online predictive software says I burn by entering a lower weight than what I actually am.0
-
I'm 5'4, 159 lbs. BTW, you're at my goal weight.
Anyway, I've been tracking my walks for years. I walk appr. 4.9 miles in 1:22 mins. Depending on the temperature outside, It usually shows about 550 calories, however, I will log about 400. I usually deduct about 150 calories from my HRM for calories I would have burned anyway.
HTH0 -
I'm 5'4, 159 lbs. BTW, you're at my goal weight.
Anyway, I've been tracking my walks for years. I walk appr. 4.9 miles in 1:22 mins. Depending on the temperature outside, It usually shows about 550 calories, however, I will log about 400. I usually deduct about 150 calories from my HRM for calories I would have burned anyway.
HTH
5 miles at 159 lbs is closer to a 240 net calorie burn than the 400 you log.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »I'm 5'4, 159 lbs. BTW, you're at my goal weight.
Anyway, I've been tracking my walks for years. I walk appr. 4.9 miles in 1:22 mins. Depending on the temperature outside, It usually shows about 550 calories, however, I will log about 400. I usually deduct about 150 calories from my HRM for calories I would have burned anyway.
HTH
5 miles at 159 lbs is closer to a 240 net calorie burn than the 400 you log.
Really? So, my HRM with my chest strap, linked through bluetooth to MapMyFitness, tracking my speed and pace per mile, is incorrect? I wonder why I lose weight eating back most of my calories. I guess my scale is wrong too.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »I'm 5'4, 159 lbs. BTW, you're at my goal weight.
Anyway, I've been tracking my walks for years. I walk appr. 4.9 miles in 1:22 mins. Depending on the temperature outside, It usually shows about 550 calories, however, I will log about 400. I usually deduct about 150 calories from my HRM for calories I would have burned anyway.
HTH
5 miles at 159 lbs is closer to a 240 net calorie burn than the 400 you log.
Really? So, my HRM with my chest strap, linked through bluetooth to MapMyFitness, tracking my speed and pace per mile, is incorrect? Okay, Got it. I wonder why I lose weight eating back most of my calories.
Yes, really. As discussed earlier in this thread, HRMs are not accurate for calculating caloric burns from walking. The formulas produce inflated results and most devices then report gross, not net from exercise, calories which only compounds the errors.
As for why you're still losing weight ... all of this is based on estimates. Unless you had your RMR tested, that number is an approximation. Even if you're weighing your foods, you're just minimizing errors there ... not eliminating them. Exercise burns are approximations. Sometimes those margins of error cancel each other out, other times they compound each other.0 -
I would ignore the advice that stems from the Runners World article linked to above. That has some bad math in it. It assumes an unrealistically high BMR.brianpperkins wrote: »I'm 5'4, 159 lbs. BTW, you're at my goal weight.
Anyway, I've been tracking my walks for years. I walk appr. 4.9 miles in 1:22 mins. Depending on the temperature outside, It usually shows about 550 calories, however, I will log about 400. I usually deduct about 150 calories from my HRM for calories I would have burned anyway.
HTH
5 miles at 159 lbs is closer to a 240 net calorie burn than the 400 you log.
Really? So, my HRM with my chest strap, linked through bluetooth to MapMyFitness, tracking my speed and pace per mile, is incorrect? I wonder why I lose weight eating back most of my calories. I guess my scale is wrong too.
A Fitbit would credit you around 100 calories per mile. In reality, your net burn is probably between 60-80 per mile. Using a number that motivates you to keep walking is probably way more important than nailing the calories estimate, which I think is Fitbit's logic.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
I would ignore the advice that stems from the Runners World article linked to above. That has some bad math in it. It assumes an unrealistically high BMR.brianpperkins wrote: »I'm 5'4, 159 lbs. BTW, you're at my goal weight.
Anyway, I've been tracking my walks for years. I walk appr. 4.9 miles in 1:22 mins. Depending on the temperature outside, It usually shows about 550 calories, however, I will log about 400. I usually deduct about 150 calories from my HRM for calories I would have burned anyway.
HTH
5 miles at 159 lbs is closer to a 240 net calorie burn than the 400 you log.
Really? So, my HRM with my chest strap, linked through bluetooth to MapMyFitness, tracking my speed and pace per mile, is incorrect? I wonder why I lose weight eating back most of my calories. I guess my scale is wrong too.
A Fitbit would credit you around 100 calories per mile. In reality, your net burn is probably between 60-80 per mile. Using a number that motivates you to keep walking is probably way more important than nailing the calories estimate, which I think is Fitbit's logic.
Thank you. I was going to anyway.
Only because I know HRM are not accurate, however, I've been using them for over 5 years. I've bought more than one. (Polar, IronMan, MapMyfitness) Have lost my initial 35 lbs using it and eating back my calories.
When I'm at the gym, the machines Heart Rate reading are close to my Heartrate, also that would mean when I'm rollerblading, elliptical, walking, bicycling (sp) all those are wrong and I've been eating double my calories from my workouts.
I wouldn't compare myself to someone who is running, because I Don't run. I'm glad I have my own results to go by, because this guy's response would have me believing, I will have to walk 3 hours, at top speed to burn 500 approximately... lol
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »I'm 5'4, 159 lbs. BTW, you're at my goal weight.
Anyway, I've been tracking my walks for years. I walk appr. 4.9 miles in 1:22 mins. Depending on the temperature outside, It usually shows about 550 calories, however, I will log about 400. I usually deduct about 150 calories from my HRM for calories I would have burned anyway.
HTH
5 miles at 159 lbs is closer to a 240 net calorie burn than the 400 you log.
Really? So, my HRM with my chest strap, linked through bluetooth to MapMyFitness, tracking my speed and pace per mile, is incorrect? I wonder why I lose weight eating back most of my calories. I guess my scale is wrong too.
That wasn't very nice. Everyone is different. You walk 4.9 miles in less than two minutes? WOW!!!! Really? In which case, your HRM with chest strap is wrong, and probably your scales too.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »I'm 5'4, 159 lbs. BTW, you're at my goal weight.
Anyway, I've been tracking my walks for years. I walk appr. 4.9 miles in 1:22 mins. Depending on the temperature outside, It usually shows about 550 calories, however, I will log about 400. I usually deduct about 150 calories from my HRM for calories I would have burned anyway.
HTH
5 miles at 159 lbs is closer to a 240 net calorie burn than the 400 you log.
Forgot to quote the last comment - 4.9 miles in 1:22 MINUTES!0 -
Some of the commenters to that article also mentioned the bad math, and that the article it lists as its source doesn't include any such info at all.
The article table says we all burn .23 x weight per mile walked in BMR. Figure 3mph, 150 lb. person, that implies 103 BMR calories burned per hour, or 2484 in BMR per day. Mine is closer to half that. So assuming the gross walking estimate is good (which I'm not sure is wise) what you'd actually adjust the estimate down by to get net burn should be more like maybe half what they did- or .12, so use .41 as the walking multiplier. That would give me over 60 calories per mile, which is about 30% higher than the .30 multiplier gives.
Which I point out every time brianpperkins posts that article.0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »I'm 5'4, 159 lbs. BTW, you're at my goal weight.
Anyway, I've been tracking my walks for years. I walk appr. 4.9 miles in 1:22 mins. Depending on the temperature outside, It usually shows about 550 calories, however, I will log about 400. I usually deduct about 150 calories from my HRM for calories I would have burned anyway.
HTH
5 miles at 159 lbs is closer to a 240 net calorie burn than the 400 you log.
Really? So, my HRM with my chest strap, linked through bluetooth to MapMyFitness, tracking my speed and pace per mile, is incorrect? I wonder why I lose weight eating back most of my calories. I guess my scale is wrong too.
That wasn't very nice. Everyone is different. You walk 4.9 miles in less than two minutes? WOW!!!! Really? In which case, your HRM with chest strap is wrong, and probably your scales too.
I think she meant 1 hour 22 minutes.0 -
MFP gives ~402 kcal for 4.9mi in 88 min (i.e., "Walking, 3.5mph"). Your estimates pass plenty of sanity checks. HRMs do well for steady-state cardio, only 7-10% error for my Garmin. Walking can be that. Some people beat themselves up taking only 50% of their hard-earned exercises calories, but I eat back all or most of mine, and am making excellent progress as well (-80#).spicy618 wrote:Forgot to quote the last comment - 4.9 miles in 1:22 MINUTES!
0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »I'm 5'4, 159 lbs. BTW, you're at my goal weight.
Anyway, I've been tracking my walks for years. I walk appr. 4.9 miles in 1:22 mins. Depending on the temperature outside, It usually shows about 550 calories, however, I will log about 400. I usually deduct about 150 calories from my HRM for calories I would have burned anyway.
HTH
5 miles at 159 lbs is closer to a 240 net calorie burn than the 400 you log.
Forgot to quote the last comment - 4.9 miles in 1:22 MINUTES!
You understand a colon is not a decimal point, right?
0 -
[/quote]
I think she meant 1 hour 22 minutes.[/quote]
I'm sure you are right, but couldn't help pointing that out
0 -
I have absolutely no idea how many calories I burn by walking. I am short, with short legs, and it takes me about 2500 steps to do a mile. But then I'm not carrying as much weight as taller people, just as overweight as I am, who even though they take less steps, burn more calories, yet have more calories to lose. Assuming that MFP takes into account your height and weight, I just let it figure it out for me. That's what I'm here for!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions