What should I log for a 45 minute walk?

PAV8888 wrote: »

In my case it is a 3.5 to 4 MET activity which means a NET burn of about 250 calories an hour, for on average 2 to 3 hours a day... hey: that equals my total deficit!

That would require your BMR to be ~2400 calories/day. I'm a substantial 6'1" male and mine is hundreds of calories lower than that.

Anyway, your numbers, your plan! :drinker:

PAV8888 wrote: »

Christine the Fitbit adjustment cuts through any 'settings' issue in MFP.
It essentially replaces the MFP "activity" setting with the calories expended as measured by Fitbit.

The only problem I've run into is that with the latest firmware update on the Charge HR it has started undercounting steps and overstating calories burned, at least for me.

My CICO based on my MFP logging and Fitbit "expenditures" used to be bang on in terms of correspondence to actual weight change. It looks to me like the burn is about 300 calories overestimated compared to before (with an average of about 19,000 steps a day)

Thanks for the heads up I'll keep a close eye on it.

I log my walking as exercise when I actually go out and walk for a set amount of time. I do not log walking around the house (chasing children, doing chores, etc) as exercise, but my vivofit counts the steps. I've been averaging over 20k/day, but that includes my exercises. Would I be able to bump up to active?

I went from hardly being able to walk a mile to walking 8 or more a day. I also run but on my long walk days I definitely do count them. Those long walk days usually account for 180 or more minutes of my day.

rabbitjb wrote: »

I hit sedentary at between 2500-3000 steps

By the time I hit 10,000 I have earned an additional 350-450 calories

Of course I eat them

It works

My cardio fitness and strength gains I get in the gym and I use my HRM. My fitbit I consider my general activity tracker and it adjusts my activity setting automatically

This is where I am too. I set mine to "lightly active" because I get between 10-15k steps six days a week. I don't get any exercise credit until I go over 5k steps, then I eat back about 75% of them. (I also swim 3 hours a week plus 3 hours of water aerobics and eat back about 25-50% of those calories, depending on how hungry I am)

And yes, it works:

The only excerise I can do is walking. I started 127 days ago by walking. In the beginning I only walked about 30 mins a few days a week. Now I am up to 60 mins or 3.75 miles, 5 times aweek. I have lost 27#!

DeguelloTex wrote: »

earlnabby wrote: »

DeguelloTex wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

Miles walked * body weight in pounds * 0.3 => calories burned walking

My understanding is that the speed at which you walk makes a significant difference. An 18:30 mile is not a 13:30 mile.

Is that not the case?

Not as much as you would think. Same thing with walking vs running. If you walk a mile you will burn about 90% of the same calories as if you ran that mile. Running just gets you there faster. Time, on the other hand, makes a difference. Running for 30 minutes definitely burns more than walking for 30 minutes. Walking at 4 mph burns more than walking at 3 mph over the same period of time.

"Walking is a different kind of animal. Increases in walking speed dramatically raise calorie burn per mile as well as per minute. Indeed, at about 12:30 per mile, walking hits a point where it burns about the same calories/mile as running. Walk faster than 12:30 and you will burn more calories/mile than running at 10:00 pace."

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn

"Actually, the difference in calories burned per mile or kilometer is very small, and there is no difference at higher walking speeds."

walking.about.com/od/calorie1/a/calorieswalkrun.htm

"Distance wise, a 160 pound person burns about 100 calories per mile walking or running. If you look at it on a calories-burned-per-hour basis, a person will burn more calories by running an hour rather than walking an hour. "
fitday.com/fitness-articles/fitness/walking-vs-running-which-one-is-best.html#b

etc, etc, etc.

When I take my dog for a standard "walk" I give it about 100 calories for 1 mile. 200 calories for 2 miles. I gave myself some extra calories yesterday because while it was 2 miles, it was partly on rocky terrain with some small hills (hiking in the woods) as opposed to just walking on the flat road like I usually do. So for that I gave myself 225 calories. It took me a little over an hour, because the dog had to stop and go swimming, and chase chipmunks and ducks, and snuffle here and there, so while she did more miles than me (probably double lol), she slowed me down a lot.

The app however, (Map My Walk) wanted to tell me I did 450 calories. I never take the full amount.

I do not give myself credit for walking around in the grocery store shopping, or showing houses to people while I'm working, or walking around the house (unless I am doing "deliberate" extra walking up and down the stairs for exercise.)

christinev297 wrote: »

angelexperiment wrote: »

Regardless I always log my walks and I do not eat back my calories. And I think walking is way underrated! The physical changes I see just from walking are phenomenal

Angel what kind of physical changes have you seen?
I've only been walking seriously for the last couple of weeks. I'm shiny and new and still excited by the whole walking as exercise thing :bigsmile:

Me toooooo! I can't wait till next month for my FitBit Charge HR. I've been using a stop watch and walk as fast as I can (almost run, but not), so I log it as 3.5 mph. I only just started eating back some of the calories, but with the FitBit I am hoping to be more accurate. I also started weight training (do my 4th session today in a week) and walking was the gateway to that and step aerobics! I feel "shiny and new" as well and my clothes are falling off.. I am excited about weighing next month! The endorphins are awesome and it seems the more walks I take throughout a day, the more stuff I want to do. It's an addictiton I am enjoying the hecka heck out of