Walking speeds off? (3.0, 3.5 mph?) Help!

Well, I used walking for the first few months on the site and went more by the descriptions than anything else because I don't have any sort of pedometer or HRM or anything, either. And I know sometimes I walk practically as fast as I would jog, but I also know that walking a mile in 20 minutes isn't that unheard of (a.k.a. 3.0 miles/hour), and if you walk fast, then you won't take that long at all, either. When I walk 4.5 or 5.0 miles an hour (according to my judgement, again), I am going super fast, and I think it's pretty close to accurate, just based on the length of time to go the same distance.

I'm not sure if that helps or not.

Well I would think about getting in HRM because that is the best way to get accurate calorie burn. However, yes, you can walk 3 miles per hour... You can actually get up to 5 miles per hour, but that would be power walking/jogging. A good fitness pace to walk a mile is 15 minutes, but you might want to start off slower so perhaps 15 to 20 minutes per mile... Then just gradually increase your pace overtime.

I checked how long from my door to where I was walking to by doing a maquest direction search, if that makes sense. As an example, I walked from my place to the local grocery store at a good pace and timed it. I basically worked out that I walk at the 2.5 mph when I'm on my own. But I mostly walk my dog for the exercise and have found that he and can usually walk at the 2.5 mph, which they consider leisurely! . I work up a good sweat as well, because we are walking through a forest that has trails, which can be quite hilly at times. I know for a fact that him and I would never be walking at the 3 mph, which they consider the dog walking speed, so that always made me laugh.

The other thing that I've had to do is figure out what calories I am burning when I'm walking home at a slower pace but carrying approx. 10 pounds of groceries in each arm. The best example that I could come up with was "moving furniture, carrying boxes" because the calorie burn seemed close enough.

I never eat back all of my calories, unless I'm on a cheat day, so I don't mind being off by a few calories here and there.

100 calories is probably correct. A rough estimate is 100 calories per mile with heavier people burning more and lighter people burning less. If you did 0.6 mile and are overweight 100 is likely accurate.

I would also suggest getting a HRM. I finally invested in one and it was the best investment I have made (besides good running shoes). There are also apps for some phones (I have a blackberry) that will give you your speed/distance/ and an estimate of calories burned based on that and your height.weight. I do run/walk intervals and I walk at 3mph and jog at about 5-6mph. Truthfully I burn about the same amount in the same distance whether I walk or run, I just burn the calories faster the faster I go. It takes 20 minutes to burn x amount of calories when I walk a mile and would take 10 minutes to burn the same amount of calories running a mile (if I could run a full mile without stopping to walk).

A heart rate monitor is a great suggestion. Timex has some nice models with the chest strap on Amazon around the $70 range. Otherwise you pick a set route that is a known distance and then record your time to figure out the pace is pretty easy.

It is actually pretty easy to hit the 3-4 MPH range when walking fast. For me jogging would starts at around 5 MPH. When my wife and I go for a good walk on the weekend it is not uncommon for us to log 7 miles in two hours and that with a few hills (it's difficult to walk that far in San Francisco without hitting a few).

Although if you are not self conscious there is always speed walking. Although I can't think of that without thinking about Hal in that one episode of Malcolm in The Middle.

The HRM is cool, and I eventually bought one, but one method to figuring out you distance is to download Google Earth and use the path tool to trace your walk. That will give you pretty close to exact distance. Then just do the math with the time it took and average it out to miles per hour.

Now, I walk a VERY brisk pace and cover a mile in about 15 minutes, which is about 4.0 miles per hour (easy math) and I burn about 100 calories per mile. I know MFP has walking rates from 2.5 up to 4.0, so when you click 'Add Exercise' just look for Walking at X.X MPH.

I am a short person so walking fast is harder for me, but my son and and walked to my office this weekend which is 1.3 miles from my house and we did it in 20 minutes (he was on his bike). Now, it took us 30 minutes to get home because it is more uphill and he just can't pedal that fast, but that was probably closer to 3 or 3.5 miles per hour...I don't have any way to track it though.

The energy expended walking is dependent on the distance traveled and the mass being moved (weight), to get a reasonable estimate of net energy expended Runners World suggests the following formula:

.30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

eg 150lb person walking 3 miles .30 x 150 x 3 = 135 cal

Net calories are those expended as a direct result of the activity and do not include BMR.

Yes this makes sense if you\re calculating net burn, as opposed to gross burn.

Anyone know if heart rate monitors calculate gross or net burn?

i use the runkeeper app it automatically syncs to mfp (i've set it up that way) but it tells you the speed.

On-foot exercise is really easy to track based on two variables: mass (weight) and distance.

If you feel it is "brisk" to walk 2 flat miles in an hour that only shows that a) you're trying (walking an hour is good) and b) you're relatively out of shape (and in the process of improving it. Just divide the distance by the time to get a speed range.

In my case it was discouragingly low to record casual walks, like taking my daughter to daycare. 1 mile away, not even worth recording considering I actually work out (and record that more precisely).

Most HRM calculate gross burn - in other words, if you wear them in bed they still record caloric losses. HRM is not as accurate for walking because heart rate variability (say, if you had an extra coffee or slept poorly) can be very high. So stick to distance! If you start running in uneven terrain, probably the HRM would be more valuable.

A slight rant and in no way directly aimed at the OP. I don't understand people's mentality sometimes. We spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on phones, food, shoes, clothes, supplements, vitamins and whatever the latest craze is. Hell, things like Candy Crush Saga bring in $500,000-$600,000 A DAY! But spending $50-$70 on a HRM always alludes people. You don't need to guesstimate "well, i think i walked a mile in like 15-ish minutes" and some arbitrary entry on MFP told me that was 150 calories. You put on the monitor and it gives you a much more accurate (albeit still estimated) snapshot of your caloric burn.

Invest in your health, you won't be disappointed.

Here is a straight answer:

I'm 5'4" so not tall
3.0 is a nice steady walk for me.
3.5 is a faster paced walk
4 is a power walk
4.5 or higher is too fast to walk.

However, my fiancee is 6 foot and 3.5 is a nice steady walk for him. etc

If you are keeping a nice steady pace you are probably doing 3. If you are trying to do a nice fast walk you are probably doing 3.5

This confused me for awhile because I walked without a machine. I straightened it all out in my head by going to the gym. Get a trial membership and go walk on a machine, figure out what your paces are and then use them from that day forward outside of the gym

Yep! .......When I used to walk on a treadmill (no uneven terrain).....my top "walking" speed was 4.2 MPH. Having shorter legs (I'm almost 5'5")......does reduce the top speed quite a bit.

now I'm wondering who actually does walk three miles in an hour. Isn't that called jogging? >_>

I do. I walk between 3 1/2 and 4 miles in an hour. No running or jogging. Brisk, yes. But not jogging.

i regularly do 1 mile in under 16 mins, it's called the school run when i'm running late lol and it's mainly up hill
i use endomondo as a rough guide to how far i've walked (not always as accurate as it should be, once placed me in the middle of the north sea after walking 119 miles in 20 mins) and what pace i have kept, when doing the school run in a morning it tends to be a fast pace there, and a very fast pace back (2.7 miles in 50 mins ish) dinner time school run its very fast pace there and moderate pace back, and afternoon school run is always very fast pace there, crawling speed back, mfp puts me at burning between 900-1200 cals a day, the problem with that is i upload from endomondo and mfp only takes the high walking speed, so for example the afternoon run i do 1.35 miles in 20ish mins and 1.35 miles in 40ish mins, mfp has me at doing 60 mins at 4.5 mph when in reality i probably on kept up that speed for minutes
that said if you haven't got endomondo on your phone (i would highly recommend it even with the flaws) you can physically draw your route in on the endomondo website, if you put in time started and time finished it can accurately tell you how far/fast you walked