10k steps a day are not enough
mostafa1975
Posts: 6 Member
Take care. 10k steps a day may be not enough to create calorie deficit.
I have done even 15k steps with low pace without exercise and measure the total burned calories in a day by jawbone up3 and surprisingly I didn't reach even the default estimation by MFP.
Other days I made less steps but with some exercises and I passed my estimation.
I have done even 15k steps with low pace without exercise and measure the total burned calories in a day by jawbone up3 and surprisingly I didn't reach even the default estimation by MFP.
Other days I made less steps but with some exercises and I passed my estimation.
0
Replies
-
i don't do 10K steps to create a calorie deficit, i do it for health and fitness purposes. And yeah its probably not even enough for that , its just a bare minimum, its better than nothing and a motivation to get sedentary people up and moving . I'd like to get up to 15-20K a day for just an average day, but being in a desk job, its hard for me to find the time. It takes a few hours of walking to get 20K.3
-
Totally right. Anyway 10k is better than nothing.
Just warning people who is planning to loose weight using that only. This is not going to help.0 -
mostafa1975 wrote: »Take care. 10k steps a day may be not enough to create calorie deficit.
I have done even 15k steps with low pace without exercise and measure the total burned calories in a day by jawbone up3 and surprisingly I didn't reach even the default estimation by MFP.
Other days I made less steps but with some exercises and I passed my estimation.
I don't note the estimate calorie expenditure for exercises because it's inaccurate, but I have noticed that during periods when I walked considerably more than 10K steps it had no effect on weight loss. I walk and do other exercise for health, not weight loss.0 -
mostafa1975 wrote: »Totally right. Anyway 10k is better than nothing.
Just warning people who is planning to loose weight using that only. This is not going to help.
True. Many people will need something more rigorous: strength training and vigorous cardio. As I just wrote, walking alone was never sufficient for me. But creating a calorie deficit in the diet is the principal thing.
Note: If walking counts as a rigorous activity for an individual then it will qualify as exercise, but I usually need to exert myself to the point where I'm breathless and sweaty to get a real benefit. Walking is simply not that hard for me; even extended walks (over 10 miles) don't seem to make a difference in terms of weight loss for me. I'm just sore afterwards and saw a lot of interesting things during the hike.0 -
mostafa1975 wrote: »Totally right. Anyway 10k is better than nothing.
Just warning people who is planning to loose weight using that only. This is not going to help.
Well, it sorta matters how much those people are planning on eating every day before we can say where they will hit a calorie deficit, no?2 -
you lose weight in the kitchen.
you exercise for fitness.3 -
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »you lose weight in the kitchen.
you exercise for fitness.
Exactly! Thank you for putting this out there.0 -
10k steps, depending on your stride, is probably between 3 and 6 miles. Closer to the former if you are just kinda shuffling along pacing around type walking, closer to 6 if you're really out walking briskly.
Calories from that will depend on size and efficiency, but probably fall somewhere between 200-400 kcal/10,000 steps. For me it works well, knowing that I tend to walk with a stride that averages 2,200 steps per mile to assume 4.5 miles, or approx 350 kcal for 10,000 steps. I add that to BMR and then add exercise.
So let's say I have a 15,000 step day and also ride my bike for 2 hours at 230w average power. My expenditure I then estimate at
1800 (BMR) + 1.5 * 350 (calories from steps) + 1800 (calories from 2hr cycling) = 4,125 kcal.
0 -
Too many pizzas?0
-
mostafa1975 wrote: »Totally right. Anyway 10k is better than nothing.
Just warning people who is planning to loose weight using that only. This is not going to help.
Well then I'm a special snowflake!
I earn 500 calories extra (average) when I manage to hit 10k steps throughout the day. It's not jogging, it's me taking an extra trip upstairs to get a toy a kid forgot, or having to quickly traverse the room to stop an argument. Those extra calories are the only extras I really burn beyond my basic bodily functions.
So I'm sorry, but your well meaning advice is not applicable to every person- it is applicable to you.2 -
mostafa1975 wrote: »Take care. 10k steps a day may be not enough to create calorie deficit.
I have done even 15k steps with low pace without exercise and measure the total burned calories in a day by jawbone up3 and surprisingly I didn't reach even the default estimation by MFP.
Other days I made less steps but with some exercises and I passed my estimation.
No amount of exercise is enough if your diet is not controlled
And your jawbone is an HRM isn't it? If so then it is not measuring calorie burn from ambling along because that's not steady state cardio0 -
As others have said, I get 10k for fitness and general health, not the deficit. Calories are controlled through food, not exercise.0
-
Does your stride length change that significantly with pace of walking? @L_Master
Not within a reasonable range. I.e. if I am doing uninterrupted walking I primarily seem to control speed from cadence. "Default" if I'm outside walking is right in at 3.5mph, at roughly 120 spm (7,200/hr). which is 2' 6.7" stride length. If I walk at 4mph briskly I get there by upping cadence towards 130, and if I walk along slower cadence drops a bit.
Where it gets different is for much of the steps an activity tracker measures, which is moving around casually on the job or around the house. When I'm moving around like this, I often have a slightly different gait that feel less hip driven and more 'ambling', and using this stride I've noticed individual strides are about 20-30% shorter.
I tend to play it safe, going with the lower estimate of distance traveled per step, unless I know I did a significant amount of regular walking, in which case I use the midpoint.0 -
mostafa1975 wrote: »Totally right. Anyway 10k is better than nothing.
Just warning people who is planning to loose weight using that only. This is not going to help.
Well then I'm a special snowflake!
I earn 500 calories extra (average) when I manage to hit 10k steps throughout the day. It's not jogging, it's me taking an extra trip upstairs to get a toy a kid forgot, or having to quickly traverse the room to stop an argument. Those extra calories are the only extras I really burn beyond my basic bodily functions.
So I'm sorry, but your well meaning advice is not applicable to every person- it is applicable to you.
Admittedly we don't know weight. But if we assume you have an absolutely HUGE stride length, something like 3' 0", you might be walking 5.5 miles in that time. That's a really, really generous estimate though. I'd guess probably 99% of people have shorter natural strides than that, so more likely you're walking between 4-5 miles.
5.5 miles and 500 calories would be 90 calories a mile, which is a reasonable estimate if you're around 200lbs.
At the more realistic 4.5 miles that would be closer to 400 kcal, and for a smaller woman something like 250-300 kcal would be the most likely probability.
My hunch would be that your tracker is being a little generous to you, but if you're a larger person and extreme walking outlier that 500kcal number is within the realm of possibility, if not probability.0 -
Does your stride length change that significantly with pace of walking? @L_Master
Not within a reasonable range. I.e. if I am doing uninterrupted walking I primarily seem to control speed from cadence. "Default" if I'm outside walking is right in at 3.5mph, at roughly 120 spm (7,200/hr). which is 2' 6.7" stride length. If I walk at 4mph briskly I get there by upping cadence towards 130, and if I walk along slower cadence drops a bit.
Where it gets different is for much of the steps an activity tracker measures, which is moving around casually on the job or around the house. When I'm moving around like this, I often have a slightly different gait that feel less hip driven and more 'ambling', and using this stride I've noticed individual strides are about 20-30% shorter.
I tend to play it safe, going with the lower estimate of distance traveled per step, unless I know I did a significant amount of regular walking, in which case I use the midpoint.
So how can you say steps impacts on distance travelled to that extent? eg ambling along to walking at pace doubles the distance travelled
not being picky just confused0 -
Does your stride length change that significantly with pace of walking? @L_Master
Not within a reasonable range. I.e. if I am doing uninterrupted walking I primarily seem to control speed from cadence. "Default" if I'm outside walking is right in at 3.5mph, at roughly 120 spm (7,200/hr). which is 2' 6.7" stride length. If I walk at 4mph briskly I get there by upping cadence towards 130, and if I walk along slower cadence drops a bit.
Where it gets different is for much of the steps an activity tracker measures, which is moving around casually on the job or around the house. When I'm moving around like this, I often have a slightly different gait that feel less hip driven and more 'ambling', and using this stride I've noticed individual strides are about 20-30% shorter.
I tend to play it safe, going with the lower estimate of distance traveled per step, unless I know I did a significant amount of regular walking, in which case I use the midpoint.
So how can you say steps impacts on distance travelled to that extent? eg ambling along to walking at pace doubles the distance travelled
not being picky just confused
"depending on your stride" - I think he means that my stride might be twice yours. or vice versa.
0 -
10k steps, depending on your stride, is probably between 3 and 6 miles. Closer to the former if you are just kinda shuffling along pacing around type walking, closer to 6 if you're really out walking briskly.
Calories from that will depend on size and efficiency, but probably fall somewhere between 200-400 kcal/10,000 steps. For me it works well, knowing that I tend to walk with a stride that averages 2,200 steps per mile to assume 4.5 miles, or approx 350 kcal for 10,000 steps. I add that to BMR and then add exercise.
So let's say I have a 15,000 step day and also ride my bike for 2 hours at 230w average power. My expenditure I then estimate at
1800 (BMR) + 1.5 * 350 (calories from steps) + 1800 (calories from 2hr cycling) = 4,125 kcal.
No - it was that bit I was confused by - I inferred from that the suggestion that my pace would impact on distance travelled0 -
10k steps, depending on your stride, is probably between 3 and 6 miles. Closer to the former if you are just kinda shuffling along pacing around type walking, closer to 6 if you're really out walking briskly.
Calories from that will depend on size and efficiency, but probably fall somewhere between 200-400 kcal/10,000 steps. For me it works well, knowing that I tend to walk with a stride that averages 2,200 steps per mile to assume 4.5 miles, or approx 350 kcal for 10,000 steps. I add that to BMR and then add exercise.
So let's say I have a 15,000 step day and also ride my bike for 2 hours at 230w average power. My expenditure I then estimate at
1800 (BMR) + 1.5 * 350 (calories from steps) + 1800 (calories from 2hr cycling) = 4,125 kcal.
No - it was that bit I was confused by - I inferred from that the suggestion that my pace would impact on distance travelled
Oh, right. No idea then by what he means.
I don't think my foot stride changes that much during walking.
I've got a foot pod, could test that some day. But I'd have to walk somewhere. Ugh.0 -
Well that depends really...on how much you're eating!
If 10k steps are more than you normally do and you eat at deficit you will lose weight.
10k for me is around 4 1/2 miles, it depends on the stride length which differs for each of us.
Personally 10k is easy, I always push on to get 15-17k a day. I like to eat more so I'll work harder so I can!
I once read someone say that 12k is for wanting to lose and 10k for maintaining weight.
Anything that gets us up and moving is good for our heart health. 0 -
I get a minimum of 10k steps during my commute and lunchbreak, which for me is around 4 miles. Eating at a modest deficit, very little other exercise, 33lbs down so far. I get a good couple of hundred calories out of my 10k steps. I don't walk to lose, I walk to ensure that I maintain a reasonable level of activity around my desk job.1
-
0
-
I am also a special sort of snowflake! Started just after Christmas, 10k steps a day using my misfit shine, calories limited to 1200 by weighing and counting food here, down 13lb in just over a month, an inch of each thigh and off my hips,. Sure seems to be working for me!0
-
I am also a special sort of snowflake! Started just after Christmas, 10k steps a day using my misfit shine, calories limited to 1200 by weighing and counting food here, down 13lb in just over a month, an inch of each thigh and off my hips,. Sure seems to be working for me!
Of course you're going to lose weight at 1200 calories a day1 -
10,000 steps a day burns about 430 or so calories for me. If I didn't eat those back I'd be loosing close to a pound a week.0
-
Does your stride length change that significantly with pace of walking? @L_Master
Not within a reasonable range. I.e. if I am doing uninterrupted walking I primarily seem to control speed from cadence. "Default" if I'm outside walking is right in at 3.5mph, at roughly 120 spm (7,200/hr). which is 2' 6.7" stride length. If I walk at 4mph briskly I get there by upping cadence towards 130, and if I walk along slower cadence drops a bit.
Where it gets different is for much of the steps an activity tracker measures, which is moving around casually on the job or around the house. When I'm moving around like this, I often have a slightly different gait that feel less hip driven and more 'ambling', and using this stride I've noticed individual strides are about 20-30% shorter.
I tend to play it safe, going with the lower estimate of distance traveled per step, unless I know I did a significant amount of regular walking, in which case I use the midpoint.
So how can you say steps impacts on distance travelled to that extent? eg ambling along to walking at pace doubles the distance travelled
not being picky just confused
I think it is a time/distance comparison?
With speed of walking one tends to shorten steps, more steps are used to cover the same distance in a shorter time.
When I started training for a 10k my speed couldn't increase until I learnt how to shorten my step accordingly. I was verging on shin splints trying to do my natural stride at a 4-4.5mph pace. It was fine for 3-3.5.
My stride almost halves with speed and is just over my foot length. (Short legs, small feet)
So ambling along gives me nearly double the distance I travel for the same number of steps when taken at a fast pace.
The amble will obviously take a longer time though.
Cheers, h.0 -
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »you lose weight in the kitchen.
you exercise for fitness.
amen0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »I am also a special sort of snowflake! Started just after Christmas, 10k steps a day using my misfit shine, calories limited to 1200 by weighing and counting food here, down 13lb in just over a month, an inch of each thigh and off my hips,. Sure seems to be working for me!
Of course you're going to lose weight at 1200 calories a day
But that's the point many are trying to bring up. That whether 10k is enough steps will depend heavily on how much you are eating.mostafa1975 wrote: »Take care. 10k steps a day may be not enough to create calorie deficit.
I have done even 15k steps with low pace without exercise and measure the total burned calories in a day by jawbone up3 and surprisingly I didn't reach even the default estimation by MFP.
Other days I made less steps but with some exercises and I passed my estimation.
OP - what did you set as your default activity level with MFP? I have mine set to sedentary. I don't use a FitBit but I typically get about 10k steps (per my phone) if I only walk, or about 17k steps if I go for a run later. Out of those 10k steps, about 8k are a deliberate 3 mile walk so I get about 300 calories for that. I agree if I had set my baseline activity level to 'lightly active' then I shouldn't be giving myself an additional 300 calories for walking. But maybe folks have their activity level set too high.1 -
Yes you lose weight in the kitchen but every additional calorie you burn is another penny in the jar. Not much when you look at it but over time it does add up. I did really well when I would run in the mornings and walk in the afternoon before dinner. Just not sure if it was the walking or the delay stating cocktails.0
-
10k is a good minimum daily goal0
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