Calories burned walking...just so I can bury it for myself

jarablue
jarablue Posts: 127 Member
edited September 2016 in Fitness and Exercise
I am 6'1 215 pounds. Is it safe to say that PER MILE walked at 3.5 or 4 MPH, I would burn 100 calories PER MILE?

I walk 12 miles per day at 3.5 to 4 MPH, actually 3.9 MPH. I am very accurate in the distance and time myself.

Would that be 1200 calories? For that rate of speed and distance? I am just tired of hearing how everything is over or underestimated. So for a 12 miles @ 3.5 MPH, is that 100 calories burned or near 1200? It's gotten to the point of reading posts here that we are gaining weight by exercising!

I kid but just want the truth and facts. There is a very odd, undercurrent here on the MFP forums, almost as if members downplay hard work and effort. I don't know if that is a self reflection thing, but I've noticed it throughout the years I've been here. I have been walking 12+ miles per day and was talking to someone the other day and he started replying to me with a "Yeah but", without knowing who I am or the energy I have in me and determination. Don't box me up inside your understanding. Just be open minded right?

If someone is working their *kitten* off to lose weight, don't post negative attitude *kitten*. Work hard, be objective and truthful and appreciate others success. I want everyone to succeed and be happy and enjoy life. Again, just be honest.

Thanks! :)
«1

Replies

  • jarablue
    jarablue Posts: 127 Member
    edited September 2016
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Bodyweight in lbs x 0.3 x distance

    Ok, is that pretty much semi accurate? At that calculation I am burning 777 calories for 12 miles. Does that take into account my rate of speed 3.5 to 4mph? MFP is telling me I am losing way more than that. Almost 500 calories more. 4.2 mile walk @ 3.5mph nets me 272 burned (with your calc). Also there are places online that give higher calories burned than that calculation, for my distance, ROS, body weight.. Just want to know where you got this from and if its accurate. I just want accuracy.

    Checking online from multiple sources, it is stating that a 216lb 6'1 person, 64 minute walk at 3.5(3.9) mph, total distance of 4.2 miles burns a bit more calories than what your calculation says.

    Where did you get that from? And thanks! :)
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Bodyweight in lbs x 0.3 x distance

    This. Pace isn't a factor.
  • jarablue
    jarablue Posts: 127 Member
    edited September 2016
    Where is that from? The calculation? Other sites have me burning a minimum of 100 calories per mile. For a 180 pound person, I'm 216. MFP really needs to update their calories burned calculator, if that is true then wtf. Misleading as hell!

    Thanks again for the help.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Can't recall the author's right now but you'll find it referenced on runners world website.

    Personally I do 50 cals per mile walking, 100 running.

    That calculation is pretty consistent with my Garmin.
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,488 Member
    I can't put my hands on it either.. but through google I found something that might help you..

    https://foxnomad.com/2011/09/20/how-to-accurately-calculate-how-many-calories-you-just-burned-sightseeing/
  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,483 Member
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Bodyweight in lbs x 0.3 x distance

    I have always wondered if this is miles or kilometres.

    It works perfectly for me in km.

    Cheers, h.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Bodyweight in lbs x 0.3 x distance

    I have always wondered if this is miles or kilometres.

    It works perfectly for me in km.

    Cheers, h.

    Miles
  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,483 Member
    Miles. Hmmm interesting. h
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Bodyweight in lbs x 0.3 x distance

    I have always wondered if this is miles or kilometres.

    It works perfectly for me in km.

    Cheers, h.

    If it was in kilometers it would be kilograms instead of pounds. They wouldn't mix and match units of measure
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    For the OP, It really doesn't matter that much as long as you start consistent and adjust intake based on your scale results
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    DavPul wrote: »
    For the OP, It really doesn't matter that much as long as you start consistent and adjust intake based on your scale results

    Good point
  • Fursian
    Fursian Posts: 522 Member
    This site has that formula (scroll down to the bottom of the article): http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

    Another site for walking/running: http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,483 Member
    edited September 2016
    Ha! Never thought of that. In my British/Canadian life everything gets mixed and matched. Imperial and metric get switched back and forth all the time.
    (Not going to start playing with my estimates now; they have worked well for 6y :) )

    Cheers, h.
  • Spliner1969
    Spliner1969 Posts: 3,233 Member
    If you want something that's semi accurate you'll need to wear a HR strap and use a good app of some sort paired with it. Everyone is different, nobody is going to fit into a standard formula. If you're in better cardiovascular shape than the next guy, you'll burn less. If you're in not as good shape as the next guy you may burn more exerting yourself at the same pace. For this reason I use a HR strap, base my calculations on heart rate over time (Endomondo and other apps will do this). Even then I figure it's a little bit over-inflated. But if you update your stats in the app (height, weight, age) as well as use a good quality heart rate strap you can be pretty accurate with your burns.

    For instance, when I weighed 260 lbs, I used to walk a 5k every day. I'd burn around 700 calories and my heart rate would be pretty darn high (lots of hills where I walk, and I would attempt to stay around 4mph). I was in horrible shape so it worked me much harder. As time went on, and I lost weight, my burns started going down. Now, I burn around 500-600 in a 5k distance walking an average of 4.5 mph (I jog part of it, usually up hills, and stop every half mile for push ups then continue). If I didn't do the extra cardio during my walk I'd probably only burn around 400 calories or a tad more.

    Everyone is different, find the app/device combo you think will work for you and over time you'll be able to get an accurate read. Endomondo and my Polar H7 strap are about 90% accurate for me now at my current physical ability and current weight range. So over-estimation is much less. How do I know this? Because I eat back 90% of those calories and don't gain weight (I've been at maintenance for a while now).
  • fitoverfortymom
    fitoverfortymom Posts: 3,452 Member
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Bodyweight in lbs x 0.3 x distance

    So for my morning walks, I am 240 right now and I walk .75 mile every morning so that's 54 calories?
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Spliner1969 wrote: »
    If you want something that's semi accurate you'll need to wear a HR strap and use a good app of some sort paired with it.

    For walking HR shouldn't be in the aerobic range. What's meaningful is distance and bodymass. Elevation has a significant bearing though, so again the GPS is having more of a contribution to the Endomondo estimation than your HR.

    What I'd observe is that Endomondo also includes BMR.


  • The_Enginerd
    The_Enginerd Posts: 3,982 Member
    Spliner1969 wrote: »
    If you want something that's semi accurate you'll need to wear a HR strap and use a good app of some sort paired with it. Everyone is different, nobody is going to fit into a standard formula. If you're in better cardiovascular shape than the next guy, you'll burn less. If you're in not as good shape as the next guy you may burn more exerting yourself at the same pace. For this reason I use a HR strap, base my calculations on heart rate over time (Endomondo and other apps will do this). Even then I figure it's a little bit over-inflated. But if you update your stats in the app (height, weight, age) as well as use a good quality heart rate strap you can be pretty accurate with your burns.

    For instance, when I weighed 260 lbs, I used to walk a 5k every day. I'd burn around 700 calories and my heart rate would be pretty darn high (lots of hills where I walk, and I would attempt to stay around 4mph). I was in horrible shape so it worked me much harder. As time went on, and I lost weight, my burns started going down. Now, I burn around 500-600 in a 5k distance walking an average of 4.5 mph (I jog part of it, usually up hills, and stop every half mile for push ups then continue). If I didn't do the extra cardio during my walk I'd probably only burn around 400 calories or a tad more.

    Everyone is different, find the app/device combo you think will work for you and over time you'll be able to get an accurate read. Endomondo and my Polar H7 strap are about 90% accurate for me now at my current physical ability and current weight range. So over-estimation is much less. How do I know this? Because I eat back 90% of those calories and don't gain weight (I've been at maintenance for a while now).

    A HRM is basically useless for calorie counts for walking. HRMs calorie counts are only meant for steady state cardiovascular exercises within a certain range, and even then there are many factors which will throw off their algorithms (recovery, weather). The lower HR you get as you get fitter has to do with being able to the same amount of work at a lower percentage of your maximum cardiovascular output. A good HRM will allow you to input this (known as VO2MAX) to increase the accuracy of the calorie counts it generates. You do tend to burn fewer calories as you do an exercise more, but this has to do with better muscle coordination to become more efficient with your movements, and it's a relatively minor effect in comparison.
  • The_Enginerd
    The_Enginerd Posts: 3,982 Member
    jarablue wrote: »
    Where is that from? The calculation? Other sites have me burning a minimum of 100 calories per mile. For a 180 pound person, I'm 216. MFP really needs to update their calories burned calculator, if that is true then wtf. Misleading as hell!

    Thanks again for the help.

    The 0.30 x weight x (distance in miles) = Calories is based on well done studies. Many calculators seem to inflate these numbers or calculate gross calories, which would be double counting since those base calories just existing are already included in your basic calorie allotment for the day on MFP. Googling calculators will find you the most popular ones... not necessarily the most accurate ones. And ones which give inflated values and tell us what we want to hear, not what is necessarily true, are probably more popular than they should be.
  • tuffytuffy1
    tuffytuffy1 Posts: 920 Member
    It takes me 30 minutes to walk 2 miles on an incline. Based on the calculation above (weight x .3 x distance) I am only burning 103.8 calories in 30 minutes? Yikes. I always thought I was burning double that, 100 calories per mile.

Categories