Calories burned walking

Just Google "Calories burned walking calculators" there are hundreds of online calculators. Maybe drop into walmart even the dollar stores carry pedometers. They don't measure effort but can give you a ball-park calorie count. I bought a really nice one at "the source" (Canada) for $6.

Have a look here as well.
https://captaincalculator.com/health/calorie/calories-burned-walking-calculator/

calorielab.com

Hi sbeane96! I think you can get "close enough for government work" with a little math. You can use MFP calculator to give you the brisk (3.5mph) uphill calories for your weight like you've been doing. Then use the same calculator to give you calories burned flat walking at 3.5mph. Divide the brisk-uphill calories burned by the brisk-flat calories burned to give you the extra bang you get for going uphill. For me, that's 369 calories for an hour of walking briskly uphill vs 234 for an hour of walking briskly on the flat. The ratio is 369/234 =1.57. (Going uphill burns about 1.5X the calories of walking flat at 3.5mph). I think you can probably assume that ratio holds pretty well at different walking speeds. So....find your calories burned at whatever you consider a moderate pace, again using MFP calculator (which has a lot of different walking paces), and then multiply it by your "going uphill extra bang for your buck" number.
Hope that helps!

OldAssDude wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

Pace doesn't make any real difference with walking.

Ever hear of power walking?

The OP specifically said "moderate pace" which rules out race walking.

OP in general you burn an additional 30 cal/mile walking for ever 100 lbs of body weight. Depending on the incline I've seen some estimates suggesting that you may burn up to 50% more per mile (none of these sites cite how they came to that number so I'd take it with a proverbial pinch of salt).

Given that there's a downhill for every uphill you'd need to try to factor that in too. I know from first hand experience (we were walking the Cliffs of Moher & Giant's Causeway last week) that hilly terrain definitely gets the heart rate up (which has no discernible impact on calories but provides more cardiovacsular benefit)

With varied terrain, it can be tricky to estimate a sustained effort. We tend to overestimate the uphills and forget about the downhills ;-)

There is no question than adding incline to any walking speed can substantially increase calorie burn. For example, at 3.0 mph, a 2% incline, net calorie burn increases by 35% compared to level ground. At 4%, it’s 74% higher, and at 6%, you burn more than twice at many calories than at rest.

However, in the real world, I think that finding a sustained incline of even 4% is probably harder than you think. And then, of course, there is usually a downhill.

So while walking in hilly terrain is almost certainly better from a fitness standpoint, I would be careful about adding in too many calories.

sbeane96 wrote: »

I have a question. I walk up hill at a moderate pace. The only estimate for calories burned I can find on line or in fitness pal is for walking up hill at a brisk pace. Anyone know where I could find calories burned for a moderate pace up hill?

Use the MFP entry for walking: moderate pace and don't factor in the incline. The MFP database tends to overestimate calories burned so any extra calories burned on the incline but not accounted for in your logging will offset the overestimation.

I do what earlnabby suggested. I live in a hilly area, so most of my runs and walks include some hills. However, I don't log hills specifically, just distance. I may burn extra calories by doing hills, but that just helps make up for any errors in my logging. I'd rather be burning extra than over-estimating my burn. It has worked for me, both in losing weight and in maintaining it for the past few years.

NorthCascades wrote: »

Azdak wrote: »

With varied terrain, it can be tricky to estimate a sustained effort. We tend to overestimate the uphills and forget about the downhills ;-)

There is no question than adding incline to any walking speed can substantially increase calorie burn. For example, at 3.0 mph, a 2% incline, net calorie burn increases by 35% compared to level ground. At 4%, it’s 74% higher, and at 6%, you burn more than twice at many calories than at rest.

However, in the real world, I think that finding a sustained incline of even 4% is probably harder than you think. And then, of course, there is usually a downhill.

So while walking in hilly terrain is almost certainly better from a fitness standpoint, I would be careful about adding in too many calories.

Out here in the Cascades, we have some undulating hiking trails, but most just go up until you get where you're going, then down the whole way. One of the prerequisites for Washington Alpine Club is to do a hike with 3,000' of elevation gain over 4 miles, with a 30 pound pack, in under 2 hours.

I figured that most people would not have regular access to that type of terrain for exercise workouts so I decided to leave that out. But yes.

NorthCascades wrote: »

@Azdak

You're probably right. I had to object because my legs are still sore.

I’m always envious of your pictures.

You are welcome, I am glad it helps. 😊