How are walking calories calculated?

LoriIAM
LoriIAM Posts: 73 Member
edited November 15 in Fitness and Exercise
I've noticed that some people's walking burns more calories than others. Why is that?

Replies

  • Nightcometh
    Nightcometh Posts: 67 Member
    Weight, age. It's an estimate anyway, and probably an over-estimate. Only way to really tell is a heart rate monitor. As your weight changes and you get older, the number of calories you burn doing anything goes down.
  • Nightcometh
    Nightcometh Posts: 67 Member
    Check this out: http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/
  • Dred_855
    Dred_855 Posts: 31 Member
    Some people weigh more (more to move around), or their pace is faster. Either or both.
  • rachelwindon
    rachelwindon Posts: 11 Member
    I use a heart monitor with my band so that it is totally correct.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    rachelwindon wrote: »
    I use a heart monitor with my band so that it is totally correct.

    You're using your HRM wrong - it's not intended to estimate burns for walking, and will over-estimate significantly.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Nightcometh wrote: »
    Only way to really tell is a heart rate monitor.

    That'll probably lead to an overestimate as walking shouldn't be raising the heart significantly into the aerobic range.
  • cocobongo
    cocobongo Posts: 186 Member
    I was wondering this also as I've logged 90 mins walking of just over 4 miles at a 2.5mph pace based on what Runkeeper told me pace and distance wise. MFP said that I will have burned around 200 cals.

    Someone else on my news feed walked the same amount of time at the same speed and logged over 1000 cals - I queried it and was told it was correct based on Fitbit data and working out herself how much it would burn.

    Surely it can't vary by 800 cals even if we are different weights/ages? Is there any way of relatively accurately logging it or is it best not to log it at all and see it as a bonus if we have burned anything? I did it in place of my workout today but now wondering if that was a big mistake.
  • llUndecidedll
    llUndecidedll Posts: 724 Member
    Well, the calorie burn depends on height, weight, age, elevation, speed, etc.

    What I do is if I'm exercising outside I give myself 50 calories per mile walked/jogged. If I'm using the treadmill, then I just record half of what the treadmill calorie reading gives me.
  • cocobongo
    cocobongo Posts: 186 Member
    Yes I know that, I just didn't realise it could vary as much as 800 cals for two people walking the same distance and speed just based on differences in height/weight/age etc.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    cocobongo wrote: »
    I was wondering this also as I've logged 90 mins walking of just over 4 miles at a 2.5mph pace based on what Runkeeper told me pace and distance wise. MFP said that I will have burned around 200 cals.

    Someone else on my news feed walked the same amount of time at the same speed and logged over 1000 cals - I queried it and was told it was correct based on Fitbit data and working out herself how much it would burn.

    Surely it can't vary by 800 cals even if we are different weights/ages? Is there any way of relatively accurately logging it or is it best not to log it at all and see it as a bonus if we have burned anything? I did it in place of my workout today but now wondering if that was a big mistake.

    The only way to burn 1000 calories on a 4 mile walk is to weigh 800 pounds.

    That is a comically over-estimated burn...holy cow...
  • cocobongo
    cocobongo Posts: 186 Member
    Ok good I'm not going crazy then!
  • dv7834
    dv7834 Posts: 11 Member
    I walk when I play golf. Sometimes I carry; sometimes I pull. Some websites claim that close to 1000 cals are burned by walking 18 (5 or 6 miles depending on how wayward your shots were, distance green to tee between holes, etc). I find it hard to believe.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Here is a good explanation
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/estimating-calories-activity-databases-198041

    Ditto the comments about HRMs, they are not ideal for walking.
  • llUndecidedll
    llUndecidedll Posts: 724 Member
    edited April 2015
    .
  • bmillerl45
    bmillerl45 Posts: 1
    How many steps does fitness pal count as normal? If I walk 10,000 steps can I count any steps as extra exercise or calories burned?
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    The equation to estimate aerobic workload from walking is simple and pretty accurate. Workload (METs) x weight = calories burned (per hour).

    Age, gender, heart rate are not significant factors. Outdoor walking is a little trickier, because it is harder to account for changes in terrain and some walking surfaces outdoors (treadmill is easier because more consistent).
  • cocobongo
    cocobongo Posts: 186 Member
    Runkeeper said 350...MFP around 200, just worked it out via that equation and it says 531 based presumably on if I did that walking on a treadmill so presumably even higher than that?

    See why I'm confused as to what is the most accurate? They vary wildly. I suppose at least the one I've logged was the lowest option but just wonder if I even should log it at all if it can be so wildly wrong.
  • barbiereynolds701
    barbiereynolds701 Posts: 98 Member
    bmillerl45 wrote: »
    How many steps does fitness pal count as normal? If I walk 10,000 steps can I count any steps as extra exercise or calories burned?

    It would.depend on your activity setting. If your sedentary, anything over 5000 steps would give a exercise calorie
  • shawnaready736
    shawnaready736 Posts: 11 Member
    Here's a question- when I go full out running on the elliptical on level 13 I burn apx 300 calories. When I keep my heart rate at 117 (ideal fat burn rate) I only burn 200 calories. So how can you really be doing better with lower heart rate equalling lower calorie burn? Confused :neutral:
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    shawnaready736 wrote: »
    Here's a question- when I go full out running on the elliptical on level 13 I burn apx 300 calories. When I keep my heart rate at 117 (ideal fat burn rate) I only burn 200 calories. So how can you really be doing better with lower heart rate equalling lower calorie burn? Confused :neutral:

    You aren't.

    HR zones for fat burning are pretty much useless. First of all, most are just generalized zones so you may or may not actually be in the correct zone. But assuming you are, in the "fat burning" zone, you burn a higher percentage "fat" calories but your overall burn is pretty low. At higher levels, your percentage of "fat" calories burned may be a little lower, but overall the burn is higher, so the number of "fat" calories burned are too.

    too complicated - forget the ideal fat burning zone.
  • shawnaready736
    shawnaready736 Posts: 11 Member
    Thank you very much for that response. I've read so many articles saying it's the way to go but it just didn't add up!! Thanks again <3
This discussion has been closed.

Categories