does walking for 2 hours really burn 400-500ish cals???!!

2»

Replies

  • frankwbrown
    frankwbrown Posts: 13,198 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    frankwbrown wrote: »
    ...
    Zone 3 is a good zone for getting cardio benefit as well as fat burning.
    ...
    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.
    Also the fat being burned (unless they've been fasting for like 12 hours and on a calorie deficit) ISN'T stored body fat.
    ...

    I agree with you:
    1. Of course, you continue to burn fat (energy, at least) at higher levels of exertion (although see below).
    2. Burning body fat will only happen if you are dieting appropriately. This is true whether you are doing aerobic metabolism or anaerobic metabolism. Burning fat only happens when the body needs to produce glycogen.
    3. As you say, CICO: if you don't burn more calories than you consume (actively and thru BMR), then you will not lose weight.

    My point, which I failed to make, is that staying in aerobic metabolism during exercise will not only burn fat but is highly beneficial for your cardiovascular system (heart, lungs, capillaries, etc.).

    Also, it is my understanding that body fat is converted only during aerobic metabolism. Anaerobic metabolism utilizes glycogen, not fat, and any conversion of body fat will take place after exercise, during EPOC and via aerobic metabolism. Of course, the net result is that body fat will be converted after exercise, to replace the glycogen that anaerobic exercise has depleted. This all presumes that the person doesn't ingesting too much glucose before, during or after exercise, eliminating the need to convert body fat in the first place.

    So, while there is benefit to anaerobic exercise (especially HIIT), the aerobic HR zone is vital for cardio conditioning, and aerobic metabolism is vital for burning body fat. I would recommend beginners to start with cardio and slowly begin incorporating HIIT.

  • lgfrie
    lgfrie Posts: 1,449 Member
    It's better to go by mileage than time, when trying to estimate walking calories. However, the numbers do kinda add up - 6 miles in 2 hours, that's 3 mph and sounds about right for what you're doing.

    Roughly speaking, ballpark for your weight, you should be burning around 320 net calories. You're also burning another 150 or so BMR calories (the ones you get just for existing), but 470 would be double counting those last 150. 320 is probably quite close to the "real" number of additional calories you are burning via this exercise, and could eat back and so forth.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    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
    trulyhealy wrote: »
    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 more

    So you are doing 3 miles per hour?

    When you use the "Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace" entry from MFP, how many calories do you get for the two hours?
  • Dogmom1978
    Dogmom1978 Posts: 1,580 Member
    frankwbrown wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    frankwbrown wrote: »
    ...
    Zone 3 is a good zone for getting cardio benefit as well as fat burning.
    ...
    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.
    Also the fat being burned (unless they've been fasting for like 12 hours and on a calorie deficit) ISN'T stored body fat.
    ...

    I agree with you:
    1. Of course, you continue to burn fat (energy, at least) at higher levels of exertion (although see below).
    2. Burning body fat will only happen if you are dieting appropriately. This is true whether you are doing aerobic metabolism or anaerobic metabolism. Burning fat only happens when the body needs to produce glycogen.
    3. As you say, CICO: if you don't burn more calories than you consume (actively and thru BMR), then you will not lose weight.

    My point, which I failed to make, is that staying in aerobic metabolism during exercise will not only burn fat but is highly beneficial for your cardiovascular system (heart, lungs, capillaries, etc.).

    Also, it is my understanding that body fat is converted only during aerobic metabolism. Anaerobic metabolism utilizes glycogen, not fat, and any conversion of body fat will take place after exercise, during EPOC and via aerobic metabolism. Of course, the net result is that body fat will be converted after exercise, to replace the glycogen that anaerobic exercise has depleted. This all presumes that the person doesn't ingesting too much glucose before, during or after exercise, eliminating the need to convert body fat in the first place.

    So, while there is benefit to anaerobic exercise (especially HIIT), the aerobic HR zone is vital for cardio conditioning, and aerobic metabolism is vital for burning body fat. I would recommend beginners to start with cardio and slowly begin incorporating HIIT.

    Ummm....

    There is 0 need for anyone to do HIIT...

    CICO is all that matters for weight loss and yes, that includes fat. Plenty of people have hit goal weight while doing 0 cardio OR HIIT workouts. How can this be??? Well, your body needs energy. If you eat fewer calories than your body needs for that energy, it will get energy from fat reserves (and yes, also some muscle which is why weight training while in a deficit is useful to preserve muscle).

    That said, yes, aerobic exercise is useful to burn more fat, it just isn’t absolutely 100 % necessary as the post above makes it seem.

    Plus, exercise should be for HEALTH and not for weight loss. While some people find it helpful to exercise to remain in a deficit, to imply anywhere that it’s NECESSARY to lose fat is simply incorrect.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,622 Member
    All of this is waaaay more geek-itude than OP needs, but . . .
    frankwbrown wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    frankwbrown wrote: »
    ...
    Zone 3 is a good zone for getting cardio benefit as well as fat burning.
    ...
    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.
    Also the fat being burned (unless they've been fasting for like 12 hours and on a calorie deficit) ISN'T stored body fat.
    ...

    I agree with you:
    1. Of course, you continue to burn fat (energy, at least) at higher levels of exertion (although see below).
    2. Burning body fat will only happen if you are dieting appropriately. This is true whether you are doing aerobic metabolism or anaerobic metabolism. Burning fat only happens when the body needs to produce glycogen.
    Fat burn - even body fat burn - can potentially happen in the moment even if overall calorie intake doesn't result in net fat loss over time. Fueling is pretty dynamic, and the body's pretty good at balancing energy stores. It does that dynamically all day long, juggling recent-food sources and stored sources along the way.
    3. As you say, CICO: if you don't burn more calories than you consume (actively and thru BMR), then you will not lose weight.

    My point, which I failed to make, is that staying in aerobic metabolism during exercise will not only burn fat but is highly beneficial for your cardiovascular system (heart, lungs, capillaries, etc.).
    As is exercise at higher intensities, but the specific CV benefits (and other benefits) are somewhat different. Improved VO2 max is a CV benefit, for example. Higher intensity is the better tool for improving that dimension.
    Also, it is my understanding that body fat is converted only during aerobic metabolism. Anaerobic metabolism utilizes glycogen, not fat, and any conversion of body fat will take place after exercise, during EPOC and via aerobic metabolism. Of course, the net result is that body fat will be converted after exercise, to replace the glycogen that anaerobic exercise has depleted. This all presumes that the person doesn't ingesting too much glucose before, during or after exercise, eliminating the need to convert body fat in the first place.

    IMU, aerobic metabolism (an energy production process, loosely) and aerobic exercise (an intensity of human activity, loosely) are related, but not identical.

    In practice, use of energy sources (i.e., which energy production process is prioritized) during exercise is not an on-off switch. It's a variable contribution from carbohydrates or fats, with preferred source shifting gradually as intensity changes, and possibly even over the duration of steady-state exercise. That matters to fueling strategies more than it matters for weight management (or basic fitness improvement), though.

    It's not clear to me that which energy production system is most in play is *directly* related to CV benefits, however. Perhaps niner knows. Certainly O2 uptake rates are relevant to both, and some of the CV benefit could be thought of simply as making the heart muscle stronger by exercising it. (Presumably similar for lungs, blood vessels - dunno.)
    So, while there is benefit to anaerobic exercise (especially HIIT), the aerobic HR zone is vital for cardio conditioning, and aerobic metabolism is vital for burning body fat. I would recommend beginners to start with cardio and slowly begin incorporating HIIT.

    Agree that beginners should start with low/moderate steady state, for a variety of reasons. RPE (rate of perceived exertion**) is fine as a guide, especially for beginners. HR may mislead, especially if quite unfit. HR is more useful in a technical way IMO (i.e., performance tuning), though it's kind of fun. (And at that technical level, multiple HR zones are vital for conditioning.) But using HR for performance really does make it important to have a better estimate of HRmax than 220-age.

    But none of the technical detail really matters for OP's question, outside of possibly academic interest.

    **https://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/ty6410abc, for example. There are lots of sources, some with better explanations of the levels, some with better explanations of the rationale or how to use.
  • frankwbrown
    frankwbrown Posts: 13,198 Member
    Dogmom1978 wrote: »
    frankwbrown wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    frankwbrown wrote: »
    ...
    Zone 3 is a good zone for getting cardio benefit as well as fat burning.
    ...
    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.
    Also the fat being burned (unless they've been fasting for like 12 hours and on a calorie deficit) ISN'T stored body fat.
    ...

    I agree with you:
    1. Of course, you continue to burn fat (energy, at least) at higher levels of exertion (although see below).
    2. Burning body fat will only happen if you are dieting appropriately. This is true whether you are doing aerobic metabolism or anaerobic metabolism. Burning fat only happens when the body needs to produce glycogen.
    3. As you say, CICO: if you don't burn more calories than you consume (actively and thru BMR), then you will not lose weight.

    My point, which I failed to make, is that staying in aerobic metabolism during exercise will not only burn fat but is highly beneficial for your cardiovascular system (heart, lungs, capillaries, etc.).

    Also, it is my understanding that body fat is converted only during aerobic metabolism. Anaerobic metabolism utilizes glycogen, not fat, and any conversion of body fat will take place after exercise, during EPOC and via aerobic metabolism. Of course, the net result is that body fat will be converted after exercise, to replace the glycogen that anaerobic exercise has depleted. This all presumes that the person doesn't ingesting too much glucose before, during or after exercise, eliminating the need to convert body fat in the first place.

    So, while there is benefit to anaerobic exercise (especially HIIT), the aerobic HR zone is vital for cardio conditioning, and aerobic metabolism is vital for burning body fat. I would recommend beginners to start with cardio and slowly begin incorporating HIIT.

    Ummm....

    There is 0 need for anyone to do HIIT...

    CICO is all that matters for weight loss and yes, that includes fat. Plenty of people have hit goal weight while doing 0 cardio OR HIIT workouts. How can this be??? Well, your body needs energy. If you eat fewer calories than your body needs for that energy, it will get energy from fat reserves (and yes, also some muscle which is why weight training while in a deficit is useful to preserve muscle).

    That said, yes, aerobic exercise is useful to burn more fat, it just isn’t absolutely 100 % necessary as the post above makes it seem.

    Plus, exercise should be for HEALTH and not for weight loss. While some people find it helpful to exercise to remain in a deficit, to imply anywhere that it’s NECESSARY to lose fat is simply incorrect.

    I agree that exercise (of any kind) is not necessary in order to lose weight, as long as you are burning more calories than you are consuming. If I gave anyone that impression, I apologize. So to clarify, body fat is converted via aerobic metabolism (not aerobic "exercise"), and that can happen while you are sitting on the couch, provided there's not already plenty of glycogen in your blood.

    But HEALTH should be our primary concern, and that involves more than one's weight. In order to have healthy heart and lungs, you need to maintain a certain level of activity. That needn't be doing exercises per se. Some activities that people don't necessarily think of as exercise: gardening, taking walks or hikes for pleasure, etc.

    But in my specific case, I want to improve my cardio system and improve my muscle tone and flexibility. As a senior citizen, I am painfully aware of how one can lose flexibility and strength without realizing it. So for me, I intend to alter my lifestyle to include cardio exercise, strength training, and yoga. And eventually, I hope to return to doing tai chi which I did briefly four years ago or so. Yoga and tai chi are both good in that they are not just physical but mental as well. Peace of mind and a healthy body are my goals. Weight is just an indirect indicator of progress in the right direction.
  • frankwbrown
    frankwbrown Posts: 13,198 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    All of this is waaaay more geek-itude than OP needs, but . . .
    frankwbrown wrote: »
    ...
    My point, which I failed to make, is that staying in aerobic metabolism during exercise will not only burn fat but is highly beneficial for your cardiovascular system (heart, lungs, capillaries, etc.).
    As is exercise at higher intensities, but the specific CV benefits (and other benefits) are somewhat different. Improved VO2 max is a CV benefit, for example. Higher intensity is the better tool for improving that dimension.
    Also, it is my understanding that body fat is converted only during aerobic metabolism. Anaerobic metabolism utilizes glycogen, not fat, and any conversion of body fat will take place after exercise, during EPOC and via aerobic metabolism. Of course, the net result is that body fat will be converted after exercise, to replace the glycogen that anaerobic exercise has depleted. This all presumes that the person doesn't ingesting too much glucose before, during or after exercise, eliminating the need to convert body fat in the first place.

    IMU, aerobic metabolism (an energy production process, loosely) and aerobic exercise (an intensity of human activity, loosely) are related, but not identical.

    In practice, use of energy sources (i.e., which energy production process is prioritized) during exercise is not an on-off switch. It's a variable contribution from carbohydrates or fats, with preferred source shifting gradually as intensity changes, and possibly even over the duration of steady-state exercise. That matters to fueling strategies more than it matters for weight management (or basic fitness improvement), though.

    It's not clear to me that which energy production system is most in play is *directly* related to CV benefits, however. Perhaps niner knows. Certainly O2 uptake rates are relevant to both, and some of the CV benefit could be thought of simply as making the heart muscle stronger by exercising it. (Presumably similar for lungs, blood vessels - dunno.)
    So, while there is benefit to anaerobic exercise (especially HIIT), the aerobic HR zone is vital for cardio conditioning, and aerobic metabolism is vital for burning body fat. I would recommend beginners to start with cardio and slowly begin incorporating HIIT.

    Agree that beginners should start with low/moderate steady state, for a variety of reasons. RPE (rate of perceived exertion**) is fine as a guide, especially for beginners. HR may mislead, especially if quite unfit. HR is more useful in a technical way IMO (i.e., performance tuning), though it's kind of fun. (And at that technical level, multiple HR zones are vital for conditioning.) But using HR for performance really does make it important to have a better estimate of HRmax than 220-age.

    But none of the technical detail really matters for OP's question, outside of possibly academic interest.

    **https://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/ty6410abc, for example. There are lots of sources, some with better explanations of the levels, some with better explanations of the rationale or how to use.

    I agree with all you say.

    Yes, I hope to improve my own VO2 Max through cycling not only in the aerobic zone but in anaerobic zone as well. Garmin tells me, and I don't doubt it, that my VO2 Max is at the lower end for my age and gender. (obviously, theirs is only an estimate, not the result of a lab test, but I am aware of how I feel and don't disagree.

    As a person 71 years of age, I can't use the "HRmax = 220 - age" formula. That formula puts my heart rate max at 149. I have exceeded that during 45-minute swims. So, I use 160 as my HRmax (which might be conservative), and I use the Karvonen method to compute my HR zones, since I have a resting heart rate of 60.

    But as has been pointed out, the OP should focus on health. We all need to pursue physical and mental wellbeing. Don't obsess over losing or not losing weight.

  • RashadLavelle
    RashadLavelle Posts: 46 Member
    According to my Fitbit yesterday, I walked 1.67 miles for 46.19 mins, with an average pace at 27'39" and burned 296 Calories. It's been pretty accurate. The faster the pace, the more calories. There's other factors to take in consideration, but yes, 2hrs you can do some serious burn if you have a good steady pace and heart rate is up.
  • Redordeadhead
    Redordeadhead Posts: 1,188 Member
    RashadLavelle wrote: »
    According to my Fitbit yesterday, I walked 1.67 miles for 46.19 mins, with an average pace at 27'39" and burned 296 Calories. It's been pretty accurate. The faster the pace, the more calories. There's other factors to take in consideration, but yes, 2hrs you can do some serious burn if you have a good steady pace and heart rate is up.

    That's actually pretty slow, isn't it? I thought average walking speed was around 3-4mph.
  • lgfrie
    lgfrie Posts: 1,449 Member
    Redordeadhead wrote: »
    RashadLavelle wrote: »
    According to my Fitbit yesterday, I walked 1.67 miles for 46.19 mins, with an average pace at 27'39" and burned 296 Calories. It's been pretty accurate. The faster the pace, the more calories. There's other factors to take in consideration, but yes, 2hrs you can do some serious burn if you have a good steady pace and heart rate is up.

    That's actually pretty slow, isn't it? I thought average walking speed was around 3-4mph.

    I think it really depends on the person, stride, inseam length, etc. I find 3.1 mph my "natural" walking-for-health pace, about 2.8 mph when strolling around with friends, 3.4 mph is my cardio pace. I definitely wouldn't call 4 mph an "average walking speed", it's pretty brisk.
  • RashadLavelle
    RashadLavelle Posts: 46 Member
    Redordeadhead wrote: »
    RashadLavelle wrote: »
    According to my Fitbit yesterday, I walked 1.67 miles for 46.19 mins, with an average pace at 27'39" and burned 296 Calories. It's been pretty accurate. The faster the pace, the more calories. There's other factors to take in consideration, but yes, 2hrs you can do some serious burn if you have a good steady pace and heart rate is up.

    That's actually pretty slow, isn't it? I thought average walking speed was around 3-4mph.

    It didn't feel like it. If you try out 3-4 mph on a treadmill, then this is more like a race for speed walking. 2.18 MPH is a good average range I believe.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    RashadLavelle wrote: »
    Redordeadhead wrote: »
    RashadLavelle wrote: »
    According to my Fitbit yesterday, I walked 1.67 miles for 46.19 mins, with an average pace at 27'39" and burned 296 Calories. It's been pretty accurate. The faster the pace, the more calories. There's other factors to take in consideration, but yes, 2hrs you can do some serious burn if you have a good steady pace and heart rate is up.

    That's actually pretty slow, isn't it? I thought average walking speed was around 3-4mph.

    It didn't feel like it. If you try out 3-4 mph on a treadmill, then this is more like a race for speed walking. 2.18 MPH is a good average range I believe.

    2mph is slow!

    From compendium of physical activities:
    walking, 2.0 mph, level, slow pace, firm surface
    walking, 2.8 to 3.2 mph, level, moderate pace, firm surface
    walking, 3.5 mph, level, brisk, firm surface, walking for exercise
    6.5mph race walking
  • Ddsb11
    Ddsb11 Posts: 607 Member
    RashadLavelle wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    RashadLavelle wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    RashadLavelle wrote: »
    Redordeadhead wrote: »
    RashadLavelle wrote: »
    According to my Fitbit yesterday, I walked 1.67 miles for 46.19 mins, with an average pace at 27'39" and burned 296 Calories. It's been pretty accurate. The faster the pace, the more calories. There's other factors to take in consideration, but yes, 2hrs you can do some serious burn if you have a good steady pace and heart rate is up.

    That's actually pretty slow, isn't it? I thought average walking speed was around 3-4mph.

    It didn't feel like it. If you try out 3-4 mph on a treadmill, then this is more like a race for speed walking. 2.18 MPH is a good average range I believe.

    2mph is slow!

    From compendium of physical activities:
    walking, 2.0 mph, level, slow pace, firm surface
    walking, 2.8 to 3.2 mph, level, moderate pace, firm surface
    walking, 3.5 mph, level, brisk, firm surface, walking for exercise
    6.5mph race walking

    It could be, but nevertheless, my dogs enjoyed it, i'm still getting out moving daily, and still burning calories, and still losing weight! So yeah, I still say it's winning in my book. :smile:
    @RashadLavelle
    Totally agree with that sentiment but it does point towards your Fitbit estimate being extremely exaggerated. You aren't doing enough work (in the physics sense of moving mass over distance) to burn a lot of calories.
    There isn't a direct relationship between heartrate and calories and it is a poor method to estimate calories for walking.

    You (and your dogs!) would get more fitness benefit from that time period if you walked faster and further.

    Update: So I went to go walk, same pace and to duplicate the same walking route. The first time it tracked my pace wrong. My actual pace was 16'47". I went to the Pace Calculator and it shows I was walking 3.59 MPH. So before I used the fit app on my phone to track, which showed up slower, and this time I used my actual Fitbit watch, which seems to be more accurate. Thanks for bringing up this error. I'll start using my watch for walking from now on instead of the actual app on my phone.

    That’s awesome! Love when those Aha! moments happen.
  • Ddsb11
    Ddsb11 Posts: 607 Member
    OP- how’s the walking to/from work going? Are you loving it? Long walks are my jam!
  • frankwbrown
    frankwbrown Posts: 13,198 Member
    frankwbrown wrote: »
    You might figure about 3 calories/minute for walking at a good pace.
    ...

    My apologies to all for the above obviously erroneous estimate.

    I get different estimates from my sport watch, a treadmill and a recumbent bike. The treadmill and bike are old and offer no connectivity, so my sport watch can't interface with them. The recumbent bike tells me my power output, but it doesn't know my heart rate. My watch knows my heart rate, but doesn't know how far I've gone (unless riding my mountain bike) nor how much energy (power) I've expended. If I had money to burn, I'd buy a power meter for my bike.

    Anyway, I generally average around 5 to 10 calories per minute, depending on activity and effort. I get a higher heart rate while swimming than while biking, and yet I seem to average a lower calorie burn. I suppose the assumption is swimming provides less friction, but that doesn't make sense to me.
  • lgfrie
    lgfrie Posts: 1,449 Member
    frankwbrown wrote: »
    frankwbrown wrote: »
    You might figure about 3 calories/minute for walking at a good pace.
    ...

    My apologies to all for the above obviously erroneous estimate.

    I get different estimates from my sport watch, a treadmill and a recumbent bike. The treadmill and bike are old and offer no connectivity, so my sport watch can't interface with them. The recumbent bike tells me my power output, but it doesn't know my heart rate. My watch knows my heart rate, but doesn't know how far I've gone (unless riding my mountain bike) nor how much energy (power) I've expended. If I had money to burn, I'd buy a power meter for my bike.

    Anyway, I generally average around 5 to 10 calories per minute, depending on activity and effort. I get a higher heart rate while swimming than while biking, and yet I seem to average a lower calorie burn. I suppose the assumption is swimming provides less friction, but that doesn't make sense to me.

    You were right the first time, imho. 3, 3.5, maybe 4 calories per minute is a good generic, ballpark estimate for net walking calories, subject to variables such as one's weight, pace, etc.

    10 calories per minute is not realistic unless you're talking very high power output, more than most would sustain in a typical cardio or especially walking session. One would have to be working out HARD, or be seriously obese and doing weight-bearing exercise, to burn cals at that pace. 10 per minute is the kind of BS estimate exercise machines often display, using a brew of gross instead of net cals and magical thinking to help sell machines. Treadmills and bikes sell faster when they can be marketed as burning off 600/hr rather than the more honest 200-ish.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories