I'm working harder but burning fewer calories?
Options
Replies
-
cmriverside wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »You're overthinking this big time. All of this is just estimation and the variations you're talking about are pretty inconsequential. It may or may not be off by several calories, but not a whole lot. You're going to drown in that kind of minutia.
This, a thousand times this.
Pick a number and use it. I sometimes used treadmill numbers, I had a HRM for a while. I used averages of several online calculators....blah blah blah.
The numbers are smaller than I would like. If I use an electronic device it's not going to be accurate. Pick a number and use it.
All of this is estimation. Guess what else? You aren't calculating your calories eaten exactly either. It's not a perfect process and close enough is good enough.
Different strokes for different folks. Ive never really understood fitness math and because of that I've never been able to obtain the physique i desired. I am hoping to learn basics so i can start improving. Plus, it's motivating to see every time i go for a run I imrove. If I'm burning the same amount running as I am walking, what's the motivation to run? That's how I think, its not for everyone.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »You're overthinking this big time. All of this is just estimation and the variations you're talking about are pretty inconsequential. It may or may not be off by several calories, but not a whole lot. You're going to drown in that kind of minutia.
This, a thousand times this.
Pick a number and use it. I sometimes used treadmill numbers, I had a HRM for a while. I used averages of several online calculators....blah blah blah.
The numbers are smaller than I would like. If I use an electronic device it's not going to be accurate. Pick a number and use it.
All of this is estimation. Guess what else? You aren't calculating your calories eaten exactly either. It's not a perfect process and close enough is good enough.
Different strokes for different folks. Ive never really understood fitness math and because of that I've never been able to obtain the physique i desired. I am hoping to learn basics so i can start improving. Plus, it's motivating to see every time i go for a run I imrove. If I'm burning the same amount running as I am walking, what's the motivation to run? That's how I think, its not for everyone.
Stop exercising for the calorie burn.
Set fitness goals.
Calorie deficit to lose weight.
Lift to change your body composition6 -
cmriverside wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »You're overthinking this big time. All of this is just estimation and the variations you're talking about are pretty inconsequential. It may or may not be off by several calories, but not a whole lot. You're going to drown in that kind of minutia.
This, a thousand times this.
Pick a number and use it. I sometimes used treadmill numbers, I had a HRM for a while. I used averages of several online calculators....blah blah blah.
The numbers are smaller than I would like. If I use an electronic device it's not going to be accurate. Pick a number and use it.
All of this is estimation. Guess what else? You aren't calculating your calories eaten exactly either. It's not a perfect process and close enough is good enough.
Different strokes for different folks. Ive never really understood fitness math and because of that I've never been able to obtain the physique i desired. I am hoping to learn basics so i can start improving. Plus, it's motivating to see every time i go for a run I imrove. If I'm burning the same amount running as I am walking, what's the motivation to run? That's how I think, its not for everyone.
Like you said, everyone is different. The motivation could be burning the same amount of calories (going the same distance) in a shorter amount of time. Or, what it seems you are already doing, going a further distance in the same amount of time. Both show improvement.
And fitness math is complicated if you are referring to amount of calories burned. No one understands it to an exact science. It is all just estimations.1 -
cmriverside wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »You're overthinking this big time. All of this is just estimation and the variations you're talking about are pretty inconsequential. It may or may not be off by several calories, but not a whole lot. You're going to drown in that kind of minutia.
This, a thousand times this.
Pick a number and use it. I sometimes used treadmill numbers, I had a HRM for a while. I used averages of several online calculators....blah blah blah.
The numbers are smaller than I would like. If I use an electronic device it's not going to be accurate. Pick a number and use it.
All of this is estimation. Guess what else? You aren't calculating your calories eaten exactly either. It's not a perfect process and close enough is good enough.
Different strokes for different folks. Ive never really understood fitness math and because of that I've never been able to obtain the physique i desired. I am hoping to learn basics so i can start improving. Plus, it's motivating to see every time i go for a run I imrove. If I'm burning the same amount running as I am walking, what's the motivation to run? That's how I think, its not for everyone.
That's not what I was saying.
Yes, you burn more calories running for the same amount of time because you are moving a mass (your body) over a distance in a set number of minutes. So it's time, distance, and body weight.
And absolutely it gets easier as you become more adapted. You also burn fewer calories as you get smaller, so there's that.
What I was saying is, sure, it would be great to get exactitude, but it's not possible - so just use the numbers, log your food, weigh your body, adjust as results suggest. This is not an exact science and you'll make yourself nuts trying to make it an exact science. We all have to do the same experiment and since the body is a dynamic system, so is the moving target of weight.
1 -
cmriverside wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »You're overthinking this big time. All of this is just estimation and the variations you're talking about are pretty inconsequential. It may or may not be off by several calories, but not a whole lot. You're going to drown in that kind of minutia.
This, a thousand times this.
Pick a number and use it. I sometimes used treadmill numbers, I had a HRM for a while. I used averages of several online calculators....blah blah blah.
The numbers are smaller than I would like. If I use an electronic device it's not going to be accurate. Pick a number and use it.
All of this is estimation. Guess what else? You aren't calculating your calories eaten exactly either. It's not a perfect process and close enough is good enough.
Different strokes for different folks. Ive never really understood fitness math and because of that I've never been able to obtain the physique i desired. I am hoping to learn basics so i can start improving. Plus, it's motivating to see every time i go for a run I imrove. If I'm burning the same amount running as I am walking, what's the motivation to run? That's how I think, its not for everyone.
I think there is a fundamental disconnect somewhere... but I can't quite put my finger on where.
Exercising for physique is fine... but make sure you are doing appropriate exercise for your goals, and that that exercise/goal is supported by your diet.
And whether or not you're burning the same walking vs running depends on whether or not you are changing other variables in your workout. Walk a set distance vs run that same distance... calorie burns will be very similar. Walk a set time vs run the same time, calorie burns will be pretty different.
Lastly, "fitness math" is not difficult, at least not conceptually. Accuracy and exactness is an impossibility, though (at least with the tools most of us have available to us). So if you're trying to be accurate and exact, it's a losing battle. Be good enough, and in most cases, MFP is good enough to be good enough.0 -
Cassandraw3 wrote: »Estimation of calories burned from running/jogging/walking = body weight * .63 * distance in miles. (calculation to be used for no incline. Adding incline would increase calories burned, but is also a much more complicated formula) Amount of effort/speed does not impact calories burned, only amount of time required to burn those calories.
Using that calculation, you would only burn 65 calories in .6 miles if you weighed ~172 lbs.
Not taking into account speed doesn't make sense to me because then 30 minutes of walking vs 30 minutes of running would then burn the same amount of calories.
No, because you're going to cover a greater distance running for 30 minutes than you are walking 30 minutes...the calories you burn have more to do with mass moved over distance than the speed at which you move that mass.3 -
Running does burn more calories per mile than walking. .almost a factor of 2. (0.6_ vs 0.3_)x (wt in lbs)x (miles). Plus you cover about double the distance in the same amount of time (depending on your running speed).
But you'd probably enjoy it more if you concentrated on fitness-based goals versus the calorie burn numbers.4 -
Cassandraw3 wrote: »Cassandraw3 wrote: »Estimation of calories burned from running/jogging/walking = body weight * .63 * distance in miles. (calculation to be used for no incline. Adding incline would increase calories burned, but is also a much more complicated formula) Amount of effort/speed does not impact calories burned, only amount of time required to burn those calories.
Using that calculation, you would only burn 65 calories in .6 miles if you weighed ~172 lbs.
Not taking into account speed doesn't make sense to me because then 30 minutes of walking vs 30 minutes of running would then burn the same amount of calories.
It's accounted for in the distance you cover.
Walking for 30 minutes = 1.5 miles (for sake of conversation)
Running for 30 minutes = 3 miles (again, for sake of this conversation)
Speed is accounted for because you cover more distance.
Alternatively, if you cover 2 miles in 20 minutes vs that same 2 miles in 45 minutes... speed is accounted for by the change in duration/time.
^ This guy gets it. Again, these are all estimations to get you in the approximate range. Nothing will be exact.
Yes, that makes sense. What hasn't been making sense is if I know I travel further yet the treadmill says I havent. It must be the machine's inaccuracy.
In addition to Hr and poor calibration contributing to possible discrepancies, also factor in the number of times the motor sped up or slowed down (my TM is not very fast with this so longer periods at one speed or another vs frequent changes between the two will result in slightly different distances even though the amount of time spent at each speed is “the same”), and also consider if you really hit the buttons at exactly the same Time-if You were a few seconds early or late to speed up or slow down-again that will cause a difference.
Those differences are pretty minuscule-but More than enough to account for the kinds of differences you’re questioning.
1 -
Cassandraw3 wrote: »Estimation of calories burned from running/jogging/walking = body weight * .63 * distance in miles. (calculation to be used for no incline. Adding incline would increase calories burned, but is also a much more complicated formula) Amount of effort/speed does not impact calories burned, only amount of time required to burn those calories.
Using that calculation, you would only burn 65 calories in .6 miles if you weighed ~172 lbs.
Not taking into account speed doesn't make sense to me because then 30 minutes of walking vs 30 minutes of running would then burn the same amount of calories.
You will burn x number of calories moving your body 1 mile weather you walk or run. The difference is, if you run twice as fast as you walk, you can burn the same number of calories in half the time.
That is the difference.
plus running is more fun...
3 -
FYI- Here are the formulas:
2 -
FYI- Here are the formulas:
Given how often these formulas are quoted on these forums, I’m not quite sure how things have gotten so jumbled on this thread. Maybe because of all the time references?
You burn the same number of calories (per
mile) running a 12 minute mile or a 4 minute mile.
You will burn more calories (per minute) running a 4 minute mile than running a 12 minute mile. But if you stop at a mile-you’ll burn the same total number of calories for that mile.
You burn the same number of calories (per mile) walking a 30 minute mile or a 15 minute mile.
Again-you’ll burn more calories per minute at the faster pace, but it’ll be the same total number of calories at the end of a mile (just takes longer to get there at the slower pace).
You will not burn the same number of calories walking a mile as you will running a mile.
You burn roughly twice as many calories running a mile as you do walking a mile.
These formulas are quoted on the forums daily. Multiple times.
I’m thinking wires are getting crossed with all the calories per minute discussion? Idk.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 944 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions