does walking for 2 hours really burn 400-500ish cals???!!
Replies
-
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.2
-
But heartrate does not really correlate to calorie burn. Yes, the correlation is better in steady state exercise like walking, but if you are not so fit you still get a higher heartrate, while not burning more calories than someone who is fit.
If you look at some verified calorie burn data for various walking and running speeds you also see that speed does not have such a big influence on calorie burn. For one study that I once saw for running the result was that calorie burn is lowest in a comfortable mid speed, and higher when running faster or slower. But the difference to the middle was very low. Walking and running is just basic physics: mass * distance and an efficiency multiplier.5 -
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.4 -
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.4 -
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.0 -
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
3 -
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.
8 -
@RashadLavelleRashadLavelle 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.
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.7 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »katiemcm1125 wrote: »I am worried about you. I have an eating disorder and I’m seeing a lot of the signs. Are you able to speak to a therapist?
Omg I cannot tell you how many times myself and many others have suggested a therapist to the OP. Sadly, as far as I know, she has never taken that advice.
everyone who is on the mental illness bandwagon...if you actually read thru this persons other posts instead of just jumping to conclusions with out all the information.... they have explained that they are autistic and that is the reason they obsess over specific details. lay off.5 -
peggy_polenta wrote: »Dogmom1978 wrote: »katiemcm1125 wrote: »I am worried about you. I have an eating disorder and I’m seeing a lot of the signs. Are you able to speak to a therapist?
Omg I cannot tell you how many times myself and many others have suggested a therapist to the OP. Sadly, as far as I know, she has never taken that advice.
everyone who is on the mental illness bandwagon...if you actually read thru this persons other posts instead of just jumping to conclusions with out all the information.... they have explained that they are autistic and that is the reason they obsess over specific details. lay off.
She admitted to body dysmorphia already in one of her other posts. Maybe before you jump all over people trying to help the OP, you should realize that some of us DO know she’s autistic. It doesn’t mean she doesn’t need a therapist for her diet issues though...10 -
@RashadLavelleRashadLavelle 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.
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.7 -
RashadLavelle wrote: »
@RashadLavelleRashadLavelle 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.
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.2 -
OP- how’s the walking to/from work going? Are you loving it? Long walks are my jam!1
-
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.
0 -
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.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 896 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions