40MINS WALKING OR 20MINS hiit?

I think you mihgt

djaxon1 wrote: »

DO THE WALKING! - I can't edit my earlier reply.
I never realised how close the numbers likely are - and nearly impossible to know for hiit.
It was hard to accept that busting a gut doesn't really win out against such a "low-intensity" activity as walking in 40/20 ratio.
The major point I now see is how "easy" or do-able walking is, compared to the torture of working at/near max and how it affects rest of day.
I walk on 18% inclined treadmilland push hard to reach or better previous for eg 32 mins. HR 96% max ave 84.
Yesterday I kept HR down , 88%max ave 82% -max only brief, my error , did 60mins easy!
The difference was night and day -much more than the no's suggest - I wasn't even looking at timer to hit stop !
746 vs 418 cals on monitor .

How do you get 746 or 418 calories from walking? How was it measured, and what kind of input data was used (weight? gender?) This seems very, very unlikely for an hour of walking unless you're morbidly obese, very young and male.

djaxon1 wrote: »

DO THE WALKING! - I can't edit my earlier reply.
I never realised how close the numbers likely are - and nearly impossible to know for hiit.
It was hard to accept that busting a gut doesn't really win out against such a "low-intensity" activity as walking in 40/20 ratio.
The major point I now see is how "easy" or do-able walking is, compared to the torture of working at/near max and how it affects rest of day.
I walk on 18% inclined treadmilland push hard to reach or better previous for eg 32 mins. HR 96% max ave 84.
Yesterday I kept HR down , 88%max ave 82% -max only brief, my error , did 60mins easy!
The difference was night and day -much more than the no's suggest - I wasn't even looking at timer to hit stop !
746 vs 418 cals on monitor .

Like @yirara, I'd question the 748 calories (lots of variables involved there, including bodyweight).

But I think that misses the big picture: Yes, what you wrote, that's the point. High intensity is exhausting, so (1) extra self-limiting as to duration, and (2) much harder to fit into an overall day, and still stay energetic afterward for a busy, calorie-burning daily life.

That's exactly what most of us were trying to say about moderate exercise and calorie burn, especially for relative exercise beginners. Coincidentally, it's also better for fitness to start by building a good aerobic base and some endurance, before adding intensity . . . even then, in doses more like a spice or condiment, than like a main meal.

As an aside, I think your HRM is probably also misleading you in some way(s).

For one, if you're relatively less fit, a HRM is extremely likely to overestimate your exercise calories, if that's where you're getting estimates. It's the movement that burns calories, not how difficult the movement feels. An ultra-fit person your size would have a lower heart rate doing the exact same exercise at the exact same objective intensity (like incline + pace). It's likely that the HRM would estimate commensurately lower calorie burn for that person. Which calorie estimate is right? No way to tell, without learning what assumptions are in the proprietary algorithms the HRM uses to make calorie estimates. It's possible that both are wrong, in different directions.

Fundamentally (oversimplifying), HRMs estimate calories by assuming oxygen consumption correlates with calorie burn, and heart rate correlates with oxygen demand. As you get fitter, your body gets better at delivering oxygen. It takes fewer/less-frequent heartbeats to deliver the same amount of oxygen. For any given exercise, your heart rate is therefore going to be lower with better fitness (in normal humans ).

For two, it's fairly unlikely that you averaged 84% of your true HRmax for an hour, as someone who's admitted to being not extremely fit yet. Most devices, unless you tell them a tested HRmax (a piece of data most people don't have), will use an age estimate, such as 220-age. Those age-based formulas are inaccurate for a good-sized percentage of people. (It's mainly genetics.) You may be one of them. (I am. Age-estimated by 220-age would be 156. Actual tested HRmax is about 180. If I let my device estimate calories based on 156, it would be crazy-inaccurate.) There's no great way to know what your actual HRmax is. After base fitness is in place, there are sub-maximal self-tests that can be done, or you can go to a sports lab for testing. Neither is a super good thing to do before having base fitness and endurance. And a medical stress test isn't equivalent: They tend to stop the test when they get the data they need, well short of true max.

But I'm glad to hear that you were open-minded enough to give an alternative a try, and let us know that you're understanding what we were trying to say. :drinker:

Been walking 6mths ~2 a wk - now at 18% incline and 3.8mph with a 10kg vest for 30-32mins - it's hard.
Using Polar f11 with chest strap ,refered to in the Azdak post because can input vo2 numbers- but I have not included the 10kg vest in my watch weight. Watch does fitness test for vo2 based on resting 5 mins.
Think my vo2 is in 40's using - 4mph 15% 36mins

My treadmill has polar hr, no weight or age input and I've jacked it up so 12% is now 18% -gives lowest cals
I doubt it uses HR. to calc. cals.
Polar f11 173 max HR (seen 173). Male age 61 47-49 RHR not incl. 10kg vest Polar gives middle figures
Online eg https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs get higher readings incl.the 10kg -two sites vary 10% ??
HR steady on TM and 2 hrms
I got ~500 on treadmill , 746 on polar f11 for 60min - not used online because of variations
Previous got 340 / 420 / 500 -550 online
I'm trying to get fit and lose a little weight off my middle - bmi 27
2 years ago 82kg now 79-80 varies even more . Good job I'm not counting/tracking calories !

I did 10 mins 3.8mph @18% before slowing down in 0.1's later I dropped incline in 0.5% 's ended at 3.4 and 6%
I'm usually too wiped out to take more notes and am waiting for a bluetooth chest sensor to use with an app.
I've got over 14 cals min. figures on treadmill yet a hard 10 min with kettlebells only 9cal/min from polar hrm
I know earlier I did argue calories but that was the relative calories - to know actual exact numbers is very hard.
I don't know if polar use any sort of fat zone difference to cals burned ,don't care
The incline transforms it - a small mph change is big,big diference- never been over 4.3mph
If I put 3hr @5km/hr on that online calc get 850cals . . 4mph gives 956 !