Walking Calories

BiggDaddy58
BiggDaddy58 Posts: 406 Member
edited December 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
It is difficult at best to log "accurate" calories.

I walked (rather briskly I must say) this morning. I am 57 yrs old 5' 10 1/2 " and weight 242.8# on my last weigh in. This morning, I walked 2.82 miles in 47 minutes.

I use MFP ..it says I burned 328 calories. I used Map My Walk 464 calories Fitness Walking Guide says 327 Sharp Sense says 411, Calories BurnedHQ says 390 Calculator Pro says 426..

I usually underestimate calories..but..under 350 seems pretty low to me?

Replies

  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    BiggDaddy58 wrote: »
    I usually underestimate calories..but..under 350 seems pretty low to me?

    I'd suggest it's a bit high.

    At 160lbs I'd normally assess about 50 cals per mile, so if you're doing 80/ mile that's still in the order of 240-260.
  • BiggDaddy58
    BiggDaddy58 Posts: 406 Member
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    BiggDaddy58 wrote: »
    I usually underestimate calories..but..under 350 seems pretty low to me?

    I'd suggest it's a bit high.

    At 160lbs I'd normally assess about 50 cals per mile, so if you're doing 80/ mile that's still in the order of 240-260.

    But where are you getting your info from?

    https://www.verywell.com/calories-burned-while-walking-3432716 This site shows a 160 person anywhere from 83-116 calories per mile? And this is just one site..I have found no site showing as little burned as you mention?
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    edited July 2016
    I agree with the above. Walking is one of our most efficient movements. I give myself 50 calories per mile at a brisk walk. You're heavier than I am but I wouldn't go above 80 calories per mile for you.
  • BiggDaddy58
    BiggDaddy58 Posts: 406 Member
    http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/weight-loss/in-depth/exercise/art-20050999?pg=2

    The Mayo Clinic shows for a 160 Lb. person walking one hour @ 2 MPH=204 calories and 3.5 MPH =314

    For a 240 Lb person 1 hour @ 2MPH=305 and one hour @ 3.5 Mph=469

    I did 47 minutes .78 of an hour That would be about 365.82 at 3.5 Mph (which is about right figuring 2.82 miles in 47 minutes)
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    Weight in lbs x distance in miles x 0.3
  • BiggDaddy58
    BiggDaddy58 Posts: 406 Member
    brower47 wrote: »
    I agree with the above. Walking is one of our most efficient movements. I give myself 50 calories per mile at a brisk walk. You're heavier than I am but I wouldn't go above 80 calories per mile for you.

    But WHERE are the two of you coming up with your figures?

  • Mapalicious
    Mapalicious Posts: 412 Member
    edited July 2016
    I reckon there may be a discrepancy between Total Calories Burned (TCB) and Net Calories Burned (NCB). TCB is the sum of the calories you would have burned just sitting around on your bum + the extra calories you burned doing your activity. NCB is ONLY the calories you burned doing your activity, so NCB will always be lower. If you're trying to calculate how many calories to eat back, I recommend going with the lower number. I only log and eat back about 50% of my calories (unless I've burned an extra 1000 calories, then I eat back a bit more).

    The truth is, it's not going to be exact on any guesstimation that doesn't have your heart rate. I use "map my run" for my runs up a nearby mountain, but it always underestimates by about half because it doesn't take into account that I am running up a 900 foot incline.

    The reason I know it underestimates is because I got myself my favorite toy: my heart rate monitor! I don't like the fitbit things that you wear all day, so I got myself a Polar A300. I only wear it when I'm working out. It's a more accurate measure of my own burn. If you're into it, you could try it out :)

    Congrats on getting out there!
  • neldabg
    neldabg Posts: 1,452 Member
    edited July 2016
    If it helps any, yesterday, my Fitbit Charge HR calculated a 106 calorie burn for a 21 minute walk of a 111 average heart rate, so about 5 calories a minute burned. I was carrying a semi-heavy bag.
    Your 328 calories in 47 minutes is about 7 calories a minute and 464 calories is almost 10 calories burned a minute.
    I'm 37 years younger than you, female, and 5'2" on a good day. With my Fitbit Charge HR, I maintain on a 108-114lb range, and I eat +/- 150 of the predicted burns.
    I think 328 sounds pretty reasonable.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Using the common formula....
    Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)

    242.8 x 0.30 x 2.82 = 205.4 cals.

    70'ish cals per mile.

    Wondering if your apps are using gross calories not net?

  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited July 2016
    Based on the Stanford research

    Calories = MET * weight (kg) * time (hrs)

    So for walking 3 miles at your weight

    330 = 4 * 110 * 0.75

    So I estimated a bit lower, although a MET of 4 is possibly a bit high for the pace.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Mapalicious wrote: »
    I reckon there may be a discrepancy between Total Calories Burned (TCB) and Net Calories Burned (NCB). TCB is the sum of the calories you would have burned just sitting around on your bum + the extra calories you burned doing your activity. NCB is ONLY the calories you burned doing your activity, so NCB will always be lower. If you're trying to calculate how many calories to eat back, I recommend going with the lower number. I only log and eat back about 50% of my calories (unless I've burned an extra 1000 calories, then I eat back a bit more).

    The truth is, it's not going to be exact on any guesstimation that doesn't have your heart rate. I use "map my run" for my runs up a nearby mountain, but it always underestimates by about half because it doesn't take into account that I am running up a 900 foot incline.

    The reason I know it underestimates is because I got myself my favorite toy: my heart rate monitor! I don't like the fitbit things that you wear all day, so I got myself a Polar A300. I only wear it when I'm working out. It's a more accurate measure of my own burn. If you're into it, you could try it out :)

    This^

    You are burning calories 24/7. You got calories for sedentary, already. If you also include those calories in your walks.....they are essentially counted twice.

    Go with the lower number for a while at least. Then see how your weekly weight loss stacks up. You can always bump it up if you are losing faster than expected.
  • BiggDaddy58
    BiggDaddy58 Posts: 406 Member
    Mapalicious wrote: »
    I reckon there may be a discrepancy between Total Calories Burned (TCB) and Net Calories Burned (NCB). TCB is the sum of the calories you would have burned just sitting around on your bum + the extra calories you burned doing your activity. NCB is ONLY the calories you burned doing your activity, so NCB will always be lower. If you're trying to calculate how many calories to eat back, I recommend going with the lower number. I only log and eat back about 50% of my calories (unless I've burned an extra 1000 calories, then I eat back a bit more).

    The truth is, it's not going to be exact on any guesstimation that doesn't have your heart rate. I use "map my run" for my runs up a nearby mountain, but it always underestimates by about half because it doesn't take into account that I am running up a 900 foot incline.

    The reason I know it underestimates is because I got myself my favorite toy: my heart rate monitor! I don't like the fitbit things that you wear all day, so I got myself a Polar A300. I only wear it when I'm working out. It's a more accurate measure of my own burn. If you're into it, you could try it out :)

    Congrats on getting out there!

    Thanks!...I decided it was time to get outside and not just use the stationary bike..I usually try and underestimate calories burned and overestimate calories eaten..I am under enough for the day..I should lose no matter what.

    I am usually between 1600-2000 now..calories in..which should allow some room for error. I am trying to get up to a minimum of 1800 per day (hard to do as lower calories has helped me drop from my starting weight of 308)

    I believe my TDEE is about 2500 so..whatever I add in exercise..should keep me on a decent weight loss.

  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    BiggDaddy58 wrote: »
    brower47 wrote: »
    I agree with the above. Walking is one of our most efficient movements. I give myself 50 calories per mile at a brisk walk. You're heavier than I am but I wouldn't go above 80 calories per mile for you.

    But WHERE are the two of you coming up with your figures?
    BiggDaddy58 wrote: »
    brower47 wrote: »
    I agree with the above. Walking is one of our most efficient movements. I give myself 50 calories per mile at a brisk walk. You're heavier than I am but I wouldn't go above 80 calories per mile for you.

    But WHERE are the two of you coming up with your figures?

    Personal experience. If I gave myself the numbers from activity trackers, my weight loss would stall. My food intake remained the same so I knew I was overestimating my walking calories.

    That's one way to find out what the calories burns are for individuals since the others are just estimates for the general population.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories