How many calories does 1 hour of walking burn for a 135 lb female?

I'm scouring the internet trying to find a good answer... Some sites say 450, and some say 130. I have no idea. Has anyone tracked this on a heart rate monitor? Thanks in advance!
«13

Replies

  • meritage4
    meritage4 Posts: 1,441 Member
    you could just enter it as an exercise here on MFP and see what it says. It does depend on your speed as well as your weight.
  • besaro
    besaro Posts: 1,858 Member
    yes, i track with a HRM, it depends on a few other factors, like hills, speed, but 130 is most likely closer than 450. I consistently burn about 60 calories a mile on a brisk walk.
  • AmandaOmega
    AmandaOmega Posts: 70 Member
    It depends. I can burn up to 500 calories if I am walking at 3.2mph on a 9% incline. If you are walking flat at about 2.5 - 3mph, probably 150 max.
  • annette_15
    annette_15 Posts: 1,657 Member
    Depends how fast you walk? I would guess somewhere between 150-250 if you are walking on flat terrain at your natural walking speed
  • oneallmama
    oneallmama Posts: 108 Member
    I guess my next question would be how to find out how fast i'm walking lol...
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,893 Member
    fatfudgery wrote: »

    That's gross calories. This link here also gives net calories, which is what the TO should be looking at:
    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

    I find that the equation for running works quite well for me. I log it with 'walking very briskly at 8min/km' here and the numbers are pretty much the same, maybe 10kcal lower than the equation gives. I would think that logging walking here might work with the 11 or 12min/km entry.
  • jaga13
    jaga13 Posts: 1,149 Member
    oneallmama wrote: »
    I guess my next question would be how to find out how fast i'm walking lol...

    If you are walking outside, you can use a free app like mapmyrun or mapmywalk which will record the distance in miles and therefore your speed (speed is simply how much distance you cover in that hour you walked).

    So if the app says you covered 3 miles in an hour, you then go to mfp and select walk at 3 miles per hour for 60 minutes and mfp will calculate the calories burned.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Heart rate monitor is not a good choice for estimating walking calories, your HR is probably out of the range where it can have reasonable accuracy.
    Simplest way (not necessarily most accurate) is use a phone app such as Runkeeper or one of the many other GPS based apps.

    Once you know your distance you can verify the numbers with this formula:
    Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)

    So if you walked 3 miles it would be 121.5 cals
  • robininfl
    robininfl Posts: 1,137 Member
    I use mapmyrun, and just tell it I am walking, when I am walking instead of running. It even has "dog walk" as a category. It knows my weight (which is the same as yours) and for 1 mile walked at 17 minute pace (brisk but not pushing like race walk by a long shot) it gave me 85 calories burned. This is definitely a pace that could be sustained for an hour so I think a 3.5 mile walk done in one hour would burn 300 calories for you or me, according to their calculations.

  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,893 Member
    edited April 2016
    robininfl wrote: »
    I use mapmyrun, and just tell it I am walking, when I am walking instead of running. It even has "dog walk" as a category. It knows my weight (which is the same as yours) and for 1 mile walked at 17 minute pace (brisk but not pushing like race walk by a long shot) it gave me 85 calories burned. This is definitely a pace that could be sustained for an hour so I think a 3.5 mile walk done in one hour would burn 300 calories for you or me, according to their calculations.

    That does sound a bit high, depending on your weight. if I upload my data to mapmyrun for a slow 10 kilometer run that takes just below 80 minutes it gives me 1000kcal. In fact it's more like just above 500.

    Using my previous data, walking for one hour at that speed would probably burn about 130ish calories. My weight is 125lbs.
  • itsthehumidity
    itsthehumidity Posts: 351 Member
    For myself, I estimate about 50 calories per 1000 steps. At 2.5-3mph, a typical walking pace that's not particularly fast or slow, 1000 steps takes about 10 minutes, so it takes an hour for 6000 steps. That's 300 calories. You're different, as you're a woman and weigh less, so you might use 35-40, instead of 50, which gives a range of 210-240 calories burned in an hour at a regular pace, on flat terrain.
  • e_v_v
    e_v_v Posts: 131 Member
    I am exactly your weight. My fitbit HR tracked my 1-hour walk as approximately 400 calories. However, I was walking at a 4 mph pace (definitely not a "stroll"), so I walked nearly 4 miles (1 mile/15 minutes). Assume that you (we) burn about 100 calories per mile, so look at your distance and then go from there.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,893 Member
    edited April 2016
    ebrass73 wrote: »
    I am exactly your weight. My fitbit HR tracked my 1-hour walk as approximately 400 calories. However, I was walking at a 4 mph pace (definitely not a "stroll"), so I walked nearly 4 miles (1 mile/15 minutes). Assume that you (we) burn about 100 calories per mile, so look at your distance and then go from there.

    100 cal per mile is often quoted for running, which is still too high for smallish, lighter women. There's no way this is net calories for walking on flat terrain, sorry. I would really go with the weight in pounds times distance in miles time 0.3 equation.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    ebrass73 wrote: »
    I am exactly your weight. My fitbit HR tracked my 1-hour walk as approximately 400 calories. However, I was walking at a 4 mph pace (definitely not a "stroll"), so I walked nearly 4 miles (1 mile/15 minutes). Assume that you (we) burn about 100 calories per mile, so look at your distance and then go from there.

    100 cal per mile is often quoted for running, which is still too high for smallish, lighter women. There's no way this is net calories for walking on flat terrain, sorry. I would really go with the weight in pounds 8 distance in miles time 0.3 equation.

    Yeah 100 cal per mile for running maybe, not walking.
  • blues4miles
    blues4miles Posts: 1,481 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    fatfudgery wrote: »

    That's gross calories. This link here also gives net calories, which is what the TO should be looking at:
    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

    I find that the equation for running works quite well for me. I log it with 'walking very briskly at 8min/km' here and the numbers are pretty much the same, maybe 10kcal lower than the equation gives. I would think that logging walking here might work with the 11 or 12min/km entry.

    This is the equation I use as well.

    .3 x (weight in lbs) x miles = net calories.

    You can use www.mapmywalk.com to map out where you walked to figure out distance (or get in your car and drive it).

    It's a lot lower than MFP or other places will estimate, but I have found it to be accurate. When I started using the Runner's World #'s for my walking and running my weight loss actually started matching predicted values again.
  • robininfl
    robininfl Posts: 1,137 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    robininfl wrote: »
    I use mapmyrun, and just tell it I am walking, when I am walking instead of running. It even has "dog walk" as a category. It knows my weight (which is the same as yours) and for 1 mile walked at 17 minute pace (brisk but not pushing like race walk by a long shot) it gave me 85 calories burned. This is definitely a pace that could be sustained for an hour so I think a 3.5 mile walk done in one hour would burn 300 calories for you or me, according to their calculations.

    That does sound a bit high, depending on your weight. if I upload my data to mapmyrun for a slow 10 kilometer run that takes just below 80 minutes it gives me 1000kcal. In fact it's more like just above 500.

    Using my previous data, walking for one hour at that speed would probably burn about 130ish calories. My weight is 125lbs.

    Yeah, I take it with a grain of salt, but truthfully haven't gained any weight using the calorie burns given by the mapmyrun for jogging, and do usually eat it back, so I think of it as the sum of calories burned while doing exercise and metabolic effect on the rest of the day, it seems to work. IF I ever manage to jog for 80 minutes again as the weekly long run, I would certainly have to eat more.

    I jog a lot more often than I record walks but also I don't run a lot slower than I walk - can powerwalk a ten minute mile (9.5km/hr pace), and the fastest I have ever run a full mile, ever is just under 8 minutes (12km/hr). Usual slow jog pace is closer to 12 minutes per mile (8km/hr); the 17 minutes/mile pace (5km/hr) was not an intentional exercise walk. So an intentional brisk walk wouldn't burn a lot less than a slow jog if they cover the same distance, the speed is close.


    What I do think mapmyrun wildly overestimates calories on is my yoga classes. I put them in as shorter than they are to compensate.
  • scorpio516
    scorpio516 Posts: 955 Member
    oneallmama wrote: »
    I guess my next question would be how to find out how fast i'm walking lol...

    Speed = distance / time

    Easy way: some kind of stop watch and Google maps.

    But speed doesn't matter. Weight and distance do.
  • ASKyle
    ASKyle Posts: 1,475 Member
    It depends how fast. How fast are you walking? How many miles do you cover on your walk?

    But regardless, closer to 150. Running for an hour gets me about 400, and I'm just slightly lighter than you.
  • ASKyle
    ASKyle Posts: 1,475 Member
    scorpio516 wrote: »
    oneallmama wrote: »
    I guess my next question would be how to find out how fast i'm walking lol...

    Speed = distance / time

    Easy way: some kind of stop watch and Google maps.

    But speed doesn't matter. Weight and distance do.

    Speed does matter. It takes more to RUN a mile than to walk a mile (3.5 METS for walking vs 10 for running).
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    It depends.

    I walked 4 miles this morning in a little under an hour and got a NET burn of 296 from my Fitbit. I'm in the low 120's. Now my walk wasn't just flat terrain. There was a couple hills in the route as well.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,893 Member
    ASKyle wrote: »
    scorpio516 wrote: »
    oneallmama wrote: »
    I guess my next question would be how to find out how fast i'm walking lol...

    Speed = distance / time

    Easy way: some kind of stop watch and Google maps.

    But speed doesn't matter. Weight and distance do.

    Speed does matter. It takes more to RUN a mile than to walk a mile (3.5 METS for walking vs 10 for running).

    But running also uses more muscles and a 'jump' while when walking one foot always stays on the ground. That's the main reason for the difference in caliries.
  • blues4miles
    blues4miles Posts: 1,481 Member
    It depends.

    I walked 4 miles this morning in a little under an hour and got a NET burn of 296 from my Fitbit. I'm in the low 120's. Now my walk wasn't just flat terrain. There was a couple hills in the route as well.

    All these folks who can walk my jogging speed blow my mind :)
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    oneallmama wrote: »
    I'm scouring the internet trying to find a good answer... Some sites say 450, and some say 130. I have no idea. Has anyone tracked this on a heart rate monitor? Thanks in advance!

    It largely depends how far you walk. c40 to 45 cals per mile at your weight, possibly a bit less.

    I'll walk 4 to 5 miles in an hour, so at my weight, 160lbs, c 200 to 250 cals.

    If I run, I'll cover 6 to 7 miles, so call it 600 cals
  • pafmarwak
    pafmarwak Posts: 16 Member
    Another option is to link your watch or fitbit or other supported timing device to Map My Fitness and sync that to My Fitness Pal. Your stats are automatically transferred over to exercises. Map My Fitness is another UA app. It works well for me and is user friendly.
  • zdyb23456
    zdyb23456 Posts: 1,706 Member
    It depends.

    I walked 4 miles this morning in a little under an hour and got a NET burn of 296 from my Fitbit. I'm in the low 120's. Now my walk wasn't just flat terrain. There was a couple hills in the route as well.

    All these folks who can walk my jogging speed blow my mind :)

    Me too!

    I'm short and walking 4mph is pretty much my max speed!
  • SinomenJen
    SinomenJen Posts: 262 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    Heart rate monitor is not a good choice for estimating walking calories, your HR is probably out of the range where it can have reasonable accuracy.

    Can you explain why to me please?
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    annette_15 wrote: »
    Depends how fast you walk? I would guess somewhere between 150-250 if you are walking on flat terrain at your natural walking speed

    this.
    for me, it's abut 300. Based on my height, my age, my weight, my gender, and how fast I walk.
    I wear a fitbit, and have worn a HRM.
  • FitPhillygirl
    FitPhillygirl Posts: 7,124 Member
    I'm currently 5'7 and 134lbs. Walking at a 12min/mile pace for 1 hour burns about 380 calories according to my Apple Watch.
  • sarabushby
    sarabushby Posts: 784 Member
    There's a website called mapometer which you can use to measure out a route for walking / jogging. That'd give you your distance and you already know your time.

    http://gb.mapometer.com