does walking for 2 hours really burn 400-500ish cals???!!
Options
trulyhealy
Posts: 240 Member
i don’t have a watch to track it but i just googled how many calories does someone my weight would roughly burn for walking for 2 hours and it seems like overestimate. what do you think? i don’t want to overestimate and then eat a portion of the calories back
also should i consider it exercise?? bc i just walk to work now and i go to the gym too. just doesn’t seem as much effort as the gym sorry if this makes no sense
also should i consider it exercise?? bc i just walk to work now and i go to the gym too. just doesn’t seem as much effort as the gym sorry if this makes no sense
0
Replies
-
basically i’m just asking if the calories that google is telling me seems too much1
-
No, it doesn’t seem like a lot. But I don’t know your height, weight, speed of walking, etc. so I can’t say if it’s even close to accurate.
Walking burns a lot of calories for perceived exertion for a lot of people. Just one of the reasons it’s a very good form of exercise.5 -
How many miles?
How much do you weigh?
PS - Time itself isn't a great indicator.
PS2 - "Google" is probably giving you a gross calorie estimate and not the net calorie estimate you really want when using MyFitnessPal. That's a big difference for 2hrs - you would be double counting two hours worth of the calories you burn just living and going about your day.
PS3 - You don't need a "watch" to track it but one of many GPS apps on your phone will give you an accurate distance.6 -
about 3 miles one way so 6 miles a day 3 times a week and i’m 142lbs and i wouldn’t say u speed walk kind of casual depending if i’m in a rush but i might start walking quicker to burn more0
-
What they said ^^^^.
Also, you write:trulyhealy wrote: »i don’t have a watch to track it but i just googled how many calories does someone my weight would roughly burn for walking for 2 hours and it seems like overestimate. what do you think? i don’t want to overestimate and then eat a portion of the calories back
also should i consider it exercise?? bc i just walk to work now and i go to the gym too. just doesn’t seem as much effort as the gym sorry if this makes no sense
To the bolded:
In the gym, often we go really hard at an exercise, really focus our mind on that. That's "exercise intensity", and more intense exercise is usually more fatiguing - potentially *much* more fatiguing - minute for minute compared to moderate or mild intensity exercise. That throws off our intuition about how much total work we're doing, and it's work (in the physics sense of the word) that's that main determinant of calorie burn.
There are at least 3 dimensions of exercise that go into our rate of calorie burn for any given type of work: Intensity (how hard we're working at it), duration (how long we do it), and frequency (how often we do it).
It's not necessarily true that doing very intense exercise burns more total calories than doing something mild/moderate for a longer time period or more often . . . but the fatigue factor can make it feel that way. (The intense exercise does burn more calories per minute, typically.)
Walking is mild to moderate exercise (depending on speed), but many of us (like you) can do it for a long time period, and repeat it frequently, without getting too exhausted. That's helpful! When we walk, we're moving our whole body weight through space, and that's really quite a bit of work (in the physics sense) . . . but it feels easy-ish because we're quite used to doing it and well-adapted.8 -
Two options for you:
For normal speed walking on pretty flat ground your weight in pounds X efficiency ratio of 0.3 X miles
e.g. 142 X 0.3 X 6 = 256 net cals
(Advantage of this method is you can do it by mental maths, working out your typical cals per mile makes things easy.)
Or alternatively this is a good calculator - choose the net cal option.
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
Gives you 311 net cals cals for 2hrs @ 3mph on flat ground.
To burn more, walk further rather than faster. But that eats up a lot of time.6 -
You don't *need* either walking, or exercise, for weight control. In *many* (but not all) cases, a strategic amount of activity and/or exercise can make weight control easier. In general, some studies do show that people who increase their activity and exercise long term tend to be more successful at maintaining a previous weight loss.
But in your particular case, I would urge you to focus less on burning calories for exercise (and how many) and more on the joy of being active. @trulyhealy the collection of your posts. seen as a whole. is not screaming healthy headspace. Whether a weight loss project is actually a healthy choice for you right now... is a question.10 -
I walk briskly on a treadmill at a slight incline around 4 mph, burn almost 400 in the hour. If I were sitting on the couch, I would burn 55 roughly in an hour. So my gain is about 325 to 345. If I walked slower I'd burn a little less.
I am female, 46, 130ish.1 -
You might figure about 3 calories/minute for walking at a good pace. But there are a number of benefits of exercise. Losing weight is only one of them. Another important benefit is aerobic effect which improves your cardiovascular system. One key to gauging the value of exercise is monitoring your heart rate. A common method of categorizing exercise by heart rate uses heart rate zones. You can figure out your zones by estimating your maximum heart rate using the fomula: HRMax = 220 - age (reasonably good estimate for younger people).
Then you can compute 5 zones:
zone 1: 50% - 60% of HRMax
zone 2: 60% - 70% of HRMax
zone 3: 70% - 80% of HRMax
zone 4: 80% - 90% of HRMax
zone 5: 90% - 100% of HRMax
Zone 3 is a good zone for getting cardio benefit as well as fat burning.
It's a complex topic, and it's worth noting that for each person, YMMV (your mileage may vary).1 -
You don't *need* either walking, or exercise, for weight control. In *many* (but not all) cases, a strategic amount of activity and/or exercise can make weight control easier. In general, some studies do show that people who increase their activity and exercise long term tend to be more successful at maintaining a previous weight loss.
But in your particular case, I would urge you to focus less on burning calories for exercise (and how many) and more on the joy of being active. @trulyhealy the collection of your posts. seen as a whole. is not screaming healthy headspace. Whether a weight loss project is actually a healthy choice for you right now... is a question.
^^^
THIS! @trulyhealy werent you going to your GP a couple of weeks ago to discuss your body dysmorphia??
You need to focus on your mental well being and take a break from trying to lose weight. Please!9 -
Yes that’s why we do it on purpose! Lol it gets you in great shape1
-
angelexperiment wrote: »Yes that’s why we do it on purpose! Lol it gets you in great shape
@angelexperiment no, it isn’t burning upwards of 400 calories and if you’re familiar with this OP, weight loss and burning calories is the LAST thing she should be concerned with.8 -
Once again OP I am worried about you. You have many posts here obsessing over small details, and you appear to be escalating.
Again, Have you had professional help for your body issues?9 -
nanastaci2020 wrote: »I walk briskly on a treadmill at a slight incline around 4 mph, burn almost 400 in the hour. If I were sitting on the couch, I would burn 55 roughly in an hour. So my gain is about 325 to 345. If I walked slower I'd burn a little less.
I am female, 46, 130ish.
This seems unlikely to be honest. See the equation that Sijomial posted above. Don't trust numbers on machines.4 -
Doesn't sound unreasonable. I burn about 200 per half hour or so of walking at a good pace.3
-
scarlett_k wrote: »Doesn't sound unreasonable. I burn about 200 per half hour or so of walking at a good pace.
How do you get this number? And is your weight the same?
3 -
scarlett_k wrote: »Doesn't sound unreasonable. I burn about 200 per half hour or so of walking at a good pace.
How do you get this number? And is your weight the same?
I'm a few kilos heavier. I lose weight as expected (or maintain when I'm having a break) so assume it must be about right. Garmin and MFP both approximate about 200 (give or take) for the pace/distance I go.0 -
Also to note I think I have just tweaked what works for me. I include my daily walking in my activity level rather than logging it separately, as I walk at least an hour at a reasonable pace every single day. Anything greatly over an hour gets logged as additional exercise though. Works for me although I appreciate garmin and MFP estimates can be quite wild.0
-
Losing weight on schedule doesn't validate specific exercise estimates - it just means all the inaccuracies in estimation of someone's BMR, activity multiplier, food and exercise logging either cancel each other out or they have adjusted based on results (or just got lucky!).
In retrospect I know my exercise estimates at the time of my major weight loss were inflated, but I still lost weight on schedule as I adjusted my base calorie goal to achieve the results I wanted. Sharing what I now know weren't great methods wouldn't actually be helpful to someone asking if their estimates are likely to be realistic.
"My elliptical told me I burned a 1,000 cals in an hour and it must be accurate because I lost a pound a week."
Except of course I didn't burn that much, not even close.4 -
While the percentage of fat burned is higher at lower intensities, you STILL burn more fat if the intensity was higher over the same period of time. I hate the "fat burning" zone analogy from the fitness industry. It's misleading to many. Go to just about any gym in the USA and you'll find 10 people doing the same "fat burning" cardio routine day in day out. And they NEVER CHANGE in physical appearance especially if they are overweight. It still comes down to CICO.frankwbrown wrote: »You might figure about 3 calories/minute for walking at a good pace. But there are a number of benefits of exercise. Losing weight is only one of them. Another important benefit is aerobic effect which improves your cardiovascular system. One key to gauging the value of exercise is monitoring your heart rate. A common method of categorizing exercise by heart rate uses heart rate zones. You can figure out your zones by estimating your maximum heart rate using the fomula: HRMax = 220 - age (reasonably good estimate for younger people).
Then you can compute 5 zones:
zone 1: 50% - 60% of HRMax
zone 2: 60% - 70% of HRMax
zone 3: 70% - 80% of HRMax
zone 4: 80% - 90% of HRMax
zone 5: 90% - 100% of HRMax
Zone 3 is a good zone for getting cardio benefit as well as fat burning.
It's a complex topic, and it's worth noting that for each person, YMMV (your mileage may vary).
Also the fat being burned (unless they've been fasting for like 12 hours and on a calorie deficit) ISN'T stored body fat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions