Does walking 10000 steps on the treadmill regardless of speed burn 500 calories
Options
sultank101
Posts: 87 Member
Hey guys. I weigh 99.6 kg and am 175 cm . I walk on the treadmill daily at 3.3 speed with no incline. I always hit 10000 steps. does it burn 500 calories regardless of speed on treadmill
0
Replies
-
If you want to calculate calorie burn for walking, I suggest this calculator (choose 'net' energy, not 'gross'):
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs1 -
The correct answer is "it depends on your fitness level, various calculators only give estimates" and so on, but that's not helpful to you.
My anecdotal experience says yes - my walk to work for example is roughly 3500 steps each way and looking at my Fitbit data, it seems I burn the same number of calories whether I take 40 minutes to walk the distance, or if I'm running late and cover the distance in 30 minutes, with a much higher average heart rate. Same goes for cycling - distance seems to be a better indicator for energy expenditure than any other metric.
BUT if you do the same exercise over and over again, your body becomes more efficient at it - your heart rate slows down and it feels like less effort - so you will burn fewer calories doing it over time. If you are trying to be more fit, you'll eventually need to increase the effort - more steps, short bursts of slow jogging or an increase in incline if you want to get the same benefits from it.1 -
The correct answer is "it depends on your fitness level, various calculators only give estimates" and so on, but that's not helpful to you.
My anecdotal experience says yes - my walk to work for example is roughly 3500 steps each way and looking at my Fitbit data, it seems I burn the same number of calories whether I take 40 minutes to walk the distance, or if I'm running late and cover the distance in 30 minutes, with a much higher average heart rate. Same goes for cycling - distance seems to be a better indicator for energy expenditure than any other metric.
BUT if you do the same exercise over and over again, your body becomes more efficient at it - your heart rate slows down and it feels like less effort - so you will burn fewer calories doing it over time. If you are trying to be more fit, you'll eventually need to increase the effort - more steps, short bursts of slow jogging or an increase in incline if you want to get the same benefits from it.
That is simply untrue. A HR monitor will perhaps think you burn less calories, but it's still simple physics of moving mass over a certain distance. Heart rate does not equal calorie burn, it's just a proxy used by fitness trackers to estimate calorie burns.
As for walking burning the same amount of calories for the same distance, no matter speed: not quite true apparently, according to this:
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp
Walking efficiency varies according to speed.3 -
The correct answer is "it depends on your fitness level, various calculators only give estimates" and so on, but that's not helpful to you.
My anecdotal experience says yes - my walk to work for example is roughly 3500 steps each way and looking at my Fitbit data, it seems I burn the same number of calories whether I take 40 minutes to walk the distance, or if I'm running late and cover the distance in 30 minutes, with a much higher average heart rate. Same goes for cycling - distance seems to be a better indicator for energy expenditure than any other metric.
BUT if you do the same exercise over and over again, your body becomes more efficient at it - your heart rate slows down and it feels like less effort - so you will burn fewer calories doing it over time. If you are trying to be more fit, you'll eventually need to increase the effort - more steps, short bursts of slow jogging or an increase in incline if you want to get the same benefits from it.
That is simply untrue. A HR monitor will perhaps think you burn less calories, but it's still simple physics of moving mass over a certain distance. Heart rate does not equal calorie burn, it's just a proxy used by fitness trackers to estimate calorie burns.
As for walking burning the same amount of calories for the same distance, no matter speed: not quite true apparently, according to this:
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp
Walking efficiency varies according to speed.
oh damn. guess I gotta increase the speed. I guess I'll use this calorie calculator. it seems accurate. it shows me I burn 383 with a speed of 3.2 km for 75 min1 -
sultank101 wrote: »The correct answer is "it depends on your fitness level, various calculators only give estimates" and so on, but that's not helpful to you.
My anecdotal experience says yes - my walk to work for example is roughly 3500 steps each way and looking at my Fitbit data, it seems I burn the same number of calories whether I take 40 minutes to walk the distance, or if I'm running late and cover the distance in 30 minutes, with a much higher average heart rate. Same goes for cycling - distance seems to be a better indicator for energy expenditure than any other metric.
BUT if you do the same exercise over and over again, your body becomes more efficient at it - your heart rate slows down and it feels like less effort - so you will burn fewer calories doing it over time. If you are trying to be more fit, you'll eventually need to increase the effort - more steps, short bursts of slow jogging or an increase in incline if you want to get the same benefits from it.
That is simply untrue. A HR monitor will perhaps think you burn less calories, but it's still simple physics of moving mass over a certain distance. Heart rate does not equal calorie burn, it's just a proxy used by fitness trackers to estimate calorie burns.
As for walking burning the same amount of calories for the same distance, no matter speed: not quite true apparently, according to this:
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp
Walking efficiency varies according to speed.
oh damn. guess I gotta increase the speed. I guess I'll use this calorie calculator. it seems accurate. it shows me I burn 383 with a speed of 3.2 km for 75 min
Well, increase the speed OR slow it down
When walking quickly, the bonus is saving time time, though!
The difference isn't huge though, don't let that be the only factor in choosing your speed
Increasing speed and incline are also great for improving your fitness level, to continue to provide enough stimulus for improvement. 2 -
sultank101 wrote: »The correct answer is "it depends on your fitness level, various calculators only give estimates" and so on, but that's not helpful to you.
My anecdotal experience says yes - my walk to work for example is roughly 3500 steps each way and looking at my Fitbit data, it seems I burn the same number of calories whether I take 40 minutes to walk the distance, or if I'm running late and cover the distance in 30 minutes, with a much higher average heart rate. Same goes for cycling - distance seems to be a better indicator for energy expenditure than any other metric.
BUT if you do the same exercise over and over again, your body becomes more efficient at it - your heart rate slows down and it feels like less effort - so you will burn fewer calories doing it over time. If you are trying to be more fit, you'll eventually need to increase the effort - more steps, short bursts of slow jogging or an increase in incline if you want to get the same benefits from it.
That is simply untrue. A HR monitor will perhaps think you burn less calories, but it's still simple physics of moving mass over a certain distance. Heart rate does not equal calorie burn, it's just a proxy used by fitness trackers to estimate calorie burns.
As for walking burning the same amount of calories for the same distance, no matter speed: not quite true apparently, according to this:
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp
Walking efficiency varies according to speed.
oh damn. guess I gotta increase the speed. I guess I'll use this calorie calculator. it seems accurate. it shows me I burn 383 with a speed of 3.2 km for 75 min
Well, increase the speed OR slow it down When walking quickly, the bonus is saving time time, though!
The difference isn't huge though, don't let that be the only factor in choosing your speed Increasing speed and incline are also great for improving your fitness level, to continue to provide enough stimulus for improvement.
Thanks alot!! I just have a last question.i was wondering if it's possible if I just stick to cardio for the remainder of my weight loss journey. I only do cardio to burn 500 calories. and another question is can I aim to burn 1000 instead of 5000 -
sultank101 wrote: »sultank101 wrote: »The correct answer is "it depends on your fitness level, various calculators only give estimates" and so on, but that's not helpful to you.
My anecdotal experience says yes - my walk to work for example is roughly 3500 steps each way and looking at my Fitbit data, it seems I burn the same number of calories whether I take 40 minutes to walk the distance, or if I'm running late and cover the distance in 30 minutes, with a much higher average heart rate. Same goes for cycling - distance seems to be a better indicator for energy expenditure than any other metric.
BUT if you do the same exercise over and over again, your body becomes more efficient at it - your heart rate slows down and it feels like less effort - so you will burn fewer calories doing it over time. If you are trying to be more fit, you'll eventually need to increase the effort - more steps, short bursts of slow jogging or an increase in incline if you want to get the same benefits from it.
That is simply untrue. A HR monitor will perhaps think you burn less calories, but it's still simple physics of moving mass over a certain distance. Heart rate does not equal calorie burn, it's just a proxy used by fitness trackers to estimate calorie burns.
As for walking burning the same amount of calories for the same distance, no matter speed: not quite true apparently, according to this:
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp
Walking efficiency varies according to speed.
oh damn. guess I gotta increase the speed. I guess I'll use this calorie calculator. it seems accurate. it shows me I burn 383 with a speed of 3.2 km for 75 min
Well, increase the speed OR slow it down When walking quickly, the bonus is saving time time, though!
The difference isn't huge though, don't let that be the only factor in choosing your speed Increasing speed and incline are also great for improving your fitness level, to continue to provide enough stimulus for improvement.
Thanks alot!! I just have a last question.i was wondering if it's possible if I just stick to cardio for the remainder of my weight loss journey. I only do cardio to burn 500 calories. and another question is can I aim to burn 1000 instead of 500
You do understand that your calorie target is already your deficit right? Making it bigger is rarely a good idea. Depending on your rate of loss selected, you likely already have a 500-1000 calorie deficit built into your calorie target without any exercise whatsoever.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »sultank101 wrote: »sultank101 wrote: »The correct answer is "it depends on your fitness level, various calculators only give estimates" and so on, but that's not helpful to you.
My anecdotal experience says yes - my walk to work for example is roughly 3500 steps each way and looking at my Fitbit data, it seems I burn the same number of calories whether I take 40 minutes to walk the distance, or if I'm running late and cover the distance in 30 minutes, with a much higher average heart rate. Same goes for cycling - distance seems to be a better indicator for energy expenditure than any other metric.
BUT if you do the same exercise over and over again, your body becomes more efficient at it - your heart rate slows down and it feels like less effort - so you will burn fewer calories doing it over time. If you are trying to be more fit, you'll eventually need to increase the effort - more steps, short bursts of slow jogging or an increase in incline if you want to get the same benefits from it.
That is simply untrue. A HR monitor will perhaps think you burn less calories, but it's still simple physics of moving mass over a certain distance. Heart rate does not equal calorie burn, it's just a proxy used by fitness trackers to estimate calorie burns.
As for walking burning the same amount of calories for the same distance, no matter speed: not quite true apparently, according to this:
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp
Walking efficiency varies according to speed.
oh damn. guess I gotta increase the speed. I guess I'll use this calorie calculator. it seems accurate. it shows me I burn 383 with a speed of 3.2 km for 75 min
Well, increase the speed OR slow it down When walking quickly, the bonus is saving time time, though!
The difference isn't huge though, don't let that be the only factor in choosing your speed Increasing speed and incline are also great for improving your fitness level, to continue to provide enough stimulus for improvement.
Thanks alot!! I just have a last question.i was wondering if it's possible if I just stick to cardio for the remainder of my weight loss journey. I only do cardio to burn 500 calories. and another question is can I aim to burn 1000 instead of 500
You do understand that your calorie target is already your deficit right? Making it bigger is rarely a good idea. Depending on your rate of loss selected, you likely already have a 500-1000 calorie deficit built into your calorie target without any exercise whatsoever.
oh okay. that makes sense. is it fine if I just stick to cardio like walking and swimming for the entire weight loss journey? I hate weights. or will I lose muscle if I stick to only cardio..0 -
sultank101 wrote: »Hey guys. I weigh 99.6 kg and am 175 cm . I walk on the treadmill daily at 3.3 speed with no incline. I always hit 10000 steps. does it burn 500 calories regardless of speed on treadmill
How long are you walking? I'd guess about 2hrs? (gosh, isn't that mind-numbingly dull?) So if about two hours then the calorie burn according to the calculator mentioned above would be around 329, assuming the speed is km/h and not m/h0 -
it's still simple physics of moving mass over a certain distance.
Not arguing physics here. It takes a set number of joules to move 1 kg of mass over 1 meter. But exercise efficiency varies same way as someone baking a cake or welding a pipe the first time does not move their limbs same way as someone who's been doing it for years - the article I cited mentions exercise efficiency of less than 20% (though this is a study about people over 60) - so there's room to improve between physics and biology.sultank101 wrote: »Thanks alot!! I just have a last question.i was wondering if it's possible if I just stick to cardio for the remainder of my weight loss journey. I only do cardio to burn 500 calories. and another question is can I aim to burn 1000 instead of 500
The best exercise is whatever you enjoy best and can stick to, so yes. As long as you burn more calories than you eat, you'll lose weight and it really does not matter if that's 500 calories or 481 per 10 000 steps (this pedantic argument I'm having here is me burning calories with my fingers). If you increase your exercise to 1000 calories, make sure you eat more as well to maintain a healthy deficit.
0 -
sultank101 wrote: »sultank101 wrote: »The correct answer is "it depends on your fitness level, various calculators only give estimates" and so on, but that's not helpful to you.
My anecdotal experience says yes - my walk to work for example is roughly 3500 steps each way and looking at my Fitbit data, it seems I burn the same number of calories whether I take 40 minutes to walk the distance, or if I'm running late and cover the distance in 30 minutes, with a much higher average heart rate. Same goes for cycling - distance seems to be a better indicator for energy expenditure than any other metric.
BUT if you do the same exercise over and over again, your body becomes more efficient at it - your heart rate slows down and it feels like less effort - so you will burn fewer calories doing it over time. If you are trying to be more fit, you'll eventually need to increase the effort - more steps, short bursts of slow jogging or an increase in incline if you want to get the same benefits from it.
That is simply untrue. A HR monitor will perhaps think you burn less calories, but it's still simple physics of moving mass over a certain distance. Heart rate does not equal calorie burn, it's just a proxy used by fitness trackers to estimate calorie burns.
As for walking burning the same amount of calories for the same distance, no matter speed: not quite true apparently, according to this:
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp
Walking efficiency varies according to speed.
oh damn. guess I gotta increase the speed. I guess I'll use this calorie calculator. it seems accurate. it shows me I burn 383 with a speed of 3.2 km for 75 min
Well, increase the speed OR slow it down When walking quickly, the bonus is saving time time, though!
The difference isn't huge though, don't let that be the only factor in choosing your speed Increasing speed and incline are also great for improving your fitness level, to continue to provide enough stimulus for improvement.
Thanks alot!! I just have a last question.i was wondering if it's possible if I just stick to cardio for the remainder of my weight loss journey. I only do cardio to burn 500 calories. and another question is can I aim to burn 1000 instead of 500
As said above, you need to be mindful of your calorie deficit on the whole, too steep is not a good thing. How much of that deficit is from exercising isn't really relevant in itself.
As for only doing cardio for burning calories: I can understand wanting to be more active so you can eat more while losing weight. But it's unfortunate that is the only reason you see for exercising. It implies that you will stop exercising once you have lost weight. Exercise is great for health, stress management,...
Aside from that, I would also recommend doing strength training on top of cardio, it helps prevent muscle loss while losing weight and is also great for health.0 -
sultank101 wrote: »sultank101 wrote: »The correct answer is "it depends on your fitness level, various calculators only give estimates" and so on, but that's not helpful to you.
My anecdotal experience says yes - my walk to work for example is roughly 3500 steps each way and looking at my Fitbit data, it seems I burn the same number of calories whether I take 40 minutes to walk the distance, or if I'm running late and cover the distance in 30 minutes, with a much higher average heart rate. Same goes for cycling - distance seems to be a better indicator for energy expenditure than any other metric.
BUT if you do the same exercise over and over again, your body becomes more efficient at it - your heart rate slows down and it feels like less effort - so you will burn fewer calories doing it over time. If you are trying to be more fit, you'll eventually need to increase the effort - more steps, short bursts of slow jogging or an increase in incline if you want to get the same benefits from it.
That is simply untrue. A HR monitor will perhaps think you burn less calories, but it's still simple physics of moving mass over a certain distance. Heart rate does not equal calorie burn, it's just a proxy used by fitness trackers to estimate calorie burns.
As for walking burning the same amount of calories for the same distance, no matter speed: not quite true apparently, according to this:
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp
Walking efficiency varies according to speed.
oh damn. guess I gotta increase the speed. I guess I'll use this calorie calculator. it seems accurate. it shows me I burn 383 with a speed of 3.2 km for 75 min
Well, increase the speed OR slow it down When walking quickly, the bonus is saving time time, though!
The difference isn't huge though, don't let that be the only factor in choosing your speed Increasing speed and incline are also great for improving your fitness level, to continue to provide enough stimulus for improvement.
Thanks alot!! I just have a last question.i was wondering if it's possible if I just stick to cardio for the remainder of my weight loss journey. I only do cardio to burn 500 calories. and another question is can I aim to burn 1000 instead of 500
As said above, you need to be mindful of your calorie deficit on the whole, too steep is not a good thing. How much of that deficit is from exercising isn't really relevant in itself.
As for only doing cardio for burning calories: I can understand wanting to be more active so you can eat more while losing weight. But it's unfortunate that is the only reason you see for exercising. It implies that you will stop exercising once you have lost weight. Exercise is great for health, stress management,...
Aside from that, I would also recommend doing strength training on top of cardio, it helps prevent muscle loss while losing weight and is also great for health.
I try my best but it's a really strict routine to follow. If I lose weight I'll stick with cardio and then maybe get a personal trainer for weights. But I just hope that ..I won't lose muscle if I'm doing only cardio. I'm having a good amount of protein too0 -
sultank101 wrote: »sultank101 wrote: »sultank101 wrote: »The correct answer is "it depends on your fitness level, various calculators only give estimates" and so on, but that's not helpful to you.
My anecdotal experience says yes - my walk to work for example is roughly 3500 steps each way and looking at my Fitbit data, it seems I burn the same number of calories whether I take 40 minutes to walk the distance, or if I'm running late and cover the distance in 30 minutes, with a much higher average heart rate. Same goes for cycling - distance seems to be a better indicator for energy expenditure than any other metric.
BUT if you do the same exercise over and over again, your body becomes more efficient at it - your heart rate slows down and it feels like less effort - so you will burn fewer calories doing it over time. If you are trying to be more fit, you'll eventually need to increase the effort - more steps, short bursts of slow jogging or an increase in incline if you want to get the same benefits from it.
That is simply untrue. A HR monitor will perhaps think you burn less calories, but it's still simple physics of moving mass over a certain distance. Heart rate does not equal calorie burn, it's just a proxy used by fitness trackers to estimate calorie burns.
As for walking burning the same amount of calories for the same distance, no matter speed: not quite true apparently, according to this:
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp
Walking efficiency varies according to speed.
oh damn. guess I gotta increase the speed. I guess I'll use this calorie calculator. it seems accurate. it shows me I burn 383 with a speed of 3.2 km for 75 min
Well, increase the speed OR slow it down When walking quickly, the bonus is saving time time, though!
The difference isn't huge though, don't let that be the only factor in choosing your speed Increasing speed and incline are also great for improving your fitness level, to continue to provide enough stimulus for improvement.
Thanks alot!! I just have a last question.i was wondering if it's possible if I just stick to cardio for the remainder of my weight loss journey. I only do cardio to burn 500 calories. and another question is can I aim to burn 1000 instead of 500
As said above, you need to be mindful of your calorie deficit on the whole, too steep is not a good thing. How much of that deficit is from exercising isn't really relevant in itself.
As for only doing cardio for burning calories: I can understand wanting to be more active so you can eat more while losing weight. But it's unfortunate that is the only reason you see for exercising. It implies that you will stop exercising once you have lost weight. Exercise is great for health, stress management,...
Aside from that, I would also recommend doing strength training on top of cardio, it helps prevent muscle loss while losing weight and is also great for health.
I try my best but it's a really strict routine to follow. If I lose weight I'll stick with cardio and then maybe get a personal trainer for weights. But I just hope that ..I won't lose muscle if I'm doing only cardio. I'm having a good amount of protein too
Pretty much every health body recommends 150 minutes of light cardiovascular exercise or 75 minutes of moderate to strenuous cardiovascular exercise per week and 2x per week of some form of resistance training. The resistance training is recommended to preserve muscle mass which we start to lose as we age. When dieting, resistance training mitigates loss of muscle...remember when dieting you are in a catabolic state and will lose both fat and muscle in the process. In the absence of resistance training you will lose more muscle than you otherwise would performing resistance training. In general, muscle is a use it or lose it thing and is an expensive "commodity" for the body to maintain. Resistance training or other load bearing exercise also helps to preserve bone density which is particularly important for women.
Resistance training comes in numerous forms. Lifting weights is only one of them. You just want something that is load bearing that works all of the muscles in your body. Weight training is common because it's a very efficient way of going about this. I'm not a gym rat by any means and the weight room is far from my favorite place to be, but I go 2-3x per week to do my full body workout because I know that it's very important to my overall health and fitness. Aesthetics are also a plus. My workout only takes me about 35-40 minutes. You don't have to lift like a bodybuilder or power lifter or anything like that. My program is pretty much basic fitness and functionality. I want to continue to be able to get myself up off the toilette as I age...kind of a joke, but the reality is that I want to remain functionally strong as I age. I'm 47 and I'm already seeing friends in pretty bad shape in regards to really basic functionality.1 -
sultank101 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »sultank101 wrote: »sultank101 wrote: »The correct answer is "it depends on your fitness level, various calculators only give estimates" and so on, but that's not helpful to you.
My anecdotal experience says yes - my walk to work for example is roughly 3500 steps each way and looking at my Fitbit data, it seems I burn the same number of calories whether I take 40 minutes to walk the distance, or if I'm running late and cover the distance in 30 minutes, with a much higher average heart rate. Same goes for cycling - distance seems to be a better indicator for energy expenditure than any other metric.
BUT if you do the same exercise over and over again, your body becomes more efficient at it - your heart rate slows down and it feels like less effort - so you will burn fewer calories doing it over time. If you are trying to be more fit, you'll eventually need to increase the effort - more steps, short bursts of slow jogging or an increase in incline if you want to get the same benefits from it.
That is simply untrue. A HR monitor will perhaps think you burn less calories, but it's still simple physics of moving mass over a certain distance. Heart rate does not equal calorie burn, it's just a proxy used by fitness trackers to estimate calorie burns.
As for walking burning the same amount of calories for the same distance, no matter speed: not quite true apparently, according to this:
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp
Walking efficiency varies according to speed.
oh damn. guess I gotta increase the speed. I guess I'll use this calorie calculator. it seems accurate. it shows me I burn 383 with a speed of 3.2 km for 75 min
Well, increase the speed OR slow it down When walking quickly, the bonus is saving time time, though!
The difference isn't huge though, don't let that be the only factor in choosing your speed Increasing speed and incline are also great for improving your fitness level, to continue to provide enough stimulus for improvement.
Thanks alot!! I just have a last question.i was wondering if it's possible if I just stick to cardio for the remainder of my weight loss journey. I only do cardio to burn 500 calories. and another question is can I aim to burn 1000 instead of 500
You do understand that your calorie target is already your deficit right? Making it bigger is rarely a good idea. Depending on your rate of loss selected, you likely already have a 500-1000 calorie deficit built into your calorie target without any exercise whatsoever.
oh okay. that makes sense. is it fine if I just stick to cardio like walking and swimming for the entire weight loss journey? I hate weights. or will I lose muscle if I stick to only cardio..
Cardio vs. strength training is a continuum, not just two polar opposites. Some forms of cardio are "strength-y-er" than others. If you're challenging your current level of strength, that will remind your body that you want to keep your existing muscles. If swimming is a muscular challenge, it can help do that.
Actual weight lifting or bodyweight exercises are more time-efficient ways to accomplish this goal, but not the only way.
Also, it's not binary outcome, i.e., the choice isn't between "lose no muscle" and "lose lots of muscle". Find balance. As an aside, if you lose weight very rapidly, your odds of muscle loss go up, whether you're doing XYZ exercise or not. It doesn't matter lots whether that fast loss is generated by eating less or exercising more. So, if you don't want to lift, it may be useful to consider losing a little more slowly, doing a moderate amount of some strength-challenging exercise. Balance!
I empathize: I don't enjoy weight lifting. I do a little bit in my off-season, but not much. Nonetheless, I'm not totally devoid of muscle, and don't think I lost much if any while losing weight (based on athletic performance before and after). My cardio modalities include some muscle challenge, and in one case it's slightly progressive. (I row, on water when I can, machine when I must; and cycle.)
Burning 1000 calories via exercise sounds unrealistic to me, for most people. That's especially true if someone has limited recent athletic/fitness history. You either need a really big time investment, or extremely high intensity.
This is a prejudice on my part, but I think it's tough to stick with a weight loss routine long enough to lose a meaningful amount of weight, if that routine doesn't allow for good overall life balance, i.e., enough time and energy left for job, family, home chores, social life, and any other factors important to the person for happiness. Most people aren't going to achieve that with 2+ hours of daily exercise, y'know? Some? Sure. But I think it's unusual.
If a person goes the high intensity route, then the pitfall is fatigue bleeding calorie expenditure out of the rest of life: High intensity exercise is disproportionately tiring, so we tend to rest more, put off complicated/high effort home chores, drop energy-requiring other hobbies, maybe even have things like lowered core body temperature, hair thinning, immune system depression or worse.
For fitness development, for relative novices to exercise, starting with high intensity exercise is counter-productive. Intensity is useful, but better after there's base fitness in place. Elite athletes don't do high intensity exercise every day (i.e., high intensity for them). Why would us regular duffers think we can get the best fitness results from doing so?
It seems like the subtext of your posts is how to lose weight fast without penalties. Maybe think about how to lose weight easily and permanently with few penalties? IMO, that's a better route to long term success.6 -
sultank101 wrote: »sultank101 wrote: »The correct answer is "it depends on your fitness level, various calculators only give estimates" and so on, but that's not helpful to you.
My anecdotal experience says yes - my walk to work for example is roughly 3500 steps each way and looking at my Fitbit data, it seems I burn the same number of calories whether I take 40 minutes to walk the distance, or if I'm running late and cover the distance in 30 minutes, with a much higher average heart rate. Same goes for cycling - distance seems to be a better indicator for energy expenditure than any other metric.
BUT if you do the same exercise over and over again, your body becomes more efficient at it - your heart rate slows down and it feels like less effort - so you will burn fewer calories doing it over time. If you are trying to be more fit, you'll eventually need to increase the effort - more steps, short bursts of slow jogging or an increase in incline if you want to get the same benefits from it.
That is simply untrue. A HR monitor will perhaps think you burn less calories, but it's still simple physics of moving mass over a certain distance. Heart rate does not equal calorie burn, it's just a proxy used by fitness trackers to estimate calorie burns.
As for walking burning the same amount of calories for the same distance, no matter speed: not quite true apparently, according to this:
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp
Walking efficiency varies according to speed.
oh damn. guess I gotta increase the speed. I guess I'll use this calorie calculator. it seems accurate. it shows me I burn 383 with a speed of 3.2 km for 75 min
Well, increase the speed OR slow it down When walking quickly, the bonus is saving time time, though!
The difference isn't huge though, don't let that be the only factor in choosing your speed Increasing speed and incline are also great for improving your fitness level, to continue to provide enough stimulus for improvement.
Thanks alot!! I just have a last question.i was wondering if it's possible if I just stick to cardio for the remainder of my weight loss journey. I only do cardio to burn 500 calories. and another question is can I aim to burn 1000 instead of 500
I neglected to comment on the actual calorie burns here. Specifically for walking, for me to burn 500 calories walking I would have to walk 8 miles every single day...that would be around 2.5 hrs of walking. To burn 1000 calories per day I would have to walk around 15 miles every single day which would take me around 5 hours at a steady 3 mph. Your rate would vary depending on your weight, but for most people this wouldn't be remotely sustainable.
For one thing, that's a lot of time...every single day. Not too many people have that kind of time and really if they do they'll actually at a level of fitness where walking 15 miles daily is possible then they are well beyond the point of diminishing returns for time spent and should use that time to engage in more vigorous exercise along with resistance training. For another, even though it's walking, walking 8-15 miles every single day is going to require a decent level of base fitness.
My primary cardiovascular exercise is road cycling and mountain biking. I don't pay a whole lot of attention to my calorie burn from riding, but I do know that to burn 1,000 calories on my road bike I would need to traverse about 30 miles or so at what would be considered to be a moderately vigorous effort generically speaking (I won't get into watts). I have a fairly high level of physical fitness, and I couldn't nor would I want to do that day in and day out.
As previously mentioned, your calorie target is your deficit...you don't need to use exercise to create your deficit. Try to separate the idea of exercise for weight loss and embrace regular exercise as a part of healthy living. Regular exercise has numerous health benefits that go way beyond burning some calories. In reality, for most people calories from exercise make up a very small piece of their overall calorie requirements. You burn way more calories merely existing.2 -
Same goes for cycling - distance seems to be a better indicator for energy expenditure than any other metric.
BUT if you do the same exercise over and over again, your body becomes more efficient at it - your heart rate slows down and it feels like less effort - so you will burn fewer calories doing it over time.
@15822
For cycling the best metric is power, you get a very accurate net calorie estimate from using a power meter.
Distance isn't that great by itself as it doesn't take into account wind, elevation and aero.
Heart rate slowing down for the same exercise is just a sign of your heart getting more efficient - not your whole body. It's simply pumping blood better and needs less beats to push the same volume of blood. It is not an indication of smaller calorie burns.
e.g. I'm burning 20% more calories at the same HR compared to a few years ago because my fitness has improved. My resting HR has dropped 20% which means absolutely nothing in terms of my calorie needs or expenditure.1 -
it's still simple physics of moving mass over a certain distance.
Not arguing physics here. It takes a set number of joules to move 1 kg of mass over 1 meter. But exercise efficiency varies same way as someone baking a cake or welding a pipe the first time does not move their limbs same way as someone who's been doing it for years - the article I cited mentions exercise efficiency of less than 20% (though this is a study about people over 60) - so there's room to improve between physics and biology.
(snip)
I think these are two different things: Mechanical efficiency, i.e. "getting good at an exercise" in the form of moving limbs differently vs. physiological efficiency (the kind of mitochondrial efficiency energy-production stuff in the article you linked). Further, I think the practical results don't typically end up where you're suggesting. Finally, even if there were a 20% difference in calorie burn, it doesn't matter much in the big picture for most people.
Mitochondrial efficiency vs. mechanical (limb movement) efficiency: I don't know, but my bet would be that if I'm a trained athlete with "high mitochondrial efficiency", I'll carry that efficiency into many new exercise modalities, even ones I'm untrained in and poor at moving my limbs to do with mechanical efficiency.
In practical terms, it's not a clear argument for the Beachbody-style "body confusion" idea that you have to change up exercise periodically because it burns meaningfully fewer calories after a while. It has to do with energy production/utilization efficiency, not mechanical efficiency. The article you linked, as you say, is about people my age. If I have poor mitochondrial efficiency through degradation of mitochondrial efficiency because of aging, I take that into anything I do. (That's what the researchers are concerned about, even - that we old people carry the inefficiency into activities of daily life, to our detriment.)
Even if a trained person does burn 20% fewer calories doing the same activity - if that's where you're taking the argument - that's not going to make a huge arithmetic difference for the typical person. 500 realistic/actual calories of exercise is a pretty serious exercise block for most average people. Twenty percent of that is 100 calories. Honestly, even as a li'l ol' lady (so not a monster TDEE), being off 100 calories a day in my exercise estimate isn't make or break, in a context where a lot of people are shooting for a 500 calorie daily deficit, and relying on statistical estimates for their BMR/RMR, activity level, etc., and food-label calories that themselves can be 20% off (in the US, as I understand it). Numerically, 100 calories doesn't much matter, especially in a context where a person adjusts intake based on results. It's lost in the noise of overall estimating error.The correct answer is "it depends on your fitness level, various calculators only give estimates" and so on, but that's not helpful to you.
My anecdotal experience says yes - my walk to work for example is roughly 3500 steps each way and looking at my Fitbit data, it seems I burn the same number of calories whether I take 40 minutes to walk the distance, or if I'm running late and cover the distance in 30 minutes, with a much higher average heart rate. Same goes for cycling - distance seems to be a better indicator for energy expenditure than any other metric.
BUT if you do the same exercise over and over again, your body becomes more efficient at it - your heart rate slows down and it feels like less effort - so you will burn fewer calories doing it over time. If you are trying to be more fit, you'll eventually need to increase the effort - more steps, short bursts of slow jogging or an increase in incline if you want to get the same benefits from it.
The bolded is true, but that's about fitness adaptation, not calorie burn. To keep progressing in fitness, you have to keep increasing the challenge (somehow). But, as others said, the heart rate thing is fitness progression, too, not meaningfully lower calorie burn in itself. That your HR monitor may translate that to lower calorie burn is a flaw in the HR monitor's estimating methodology, not A Truth Revealed By Technology.2 -
The correct answer is "it depends on your fitness level, various calculators only give estimates" and so on, but that's not helpful to you.
My anecdotal experience says yes - my walk to work for example is roughly 3500 steps each way and looking at my Fitbit data, it seems I burn the same number of calories whether I take 40 minutes to walk the distance, or if I'm running late and cover the distance in 30 minutes, with a much higher average heart rate. Same goes for cycling - distance seems to be a better indicator for energy expenditure than any other metric.
BUT if you do the same exercise over and over again, your body becomes more efficient at it - your heart rate slows down and it feels like less effort - so you will burn fewer calories doing it over time. If you are trying to be more fit, you'll eventually need to increase the effort - more steps, short bursts of slow jogging or an increase in incline if you want to get the same benefits from it.
That is simply untrue. A HR monitor will perhaps think you burn less calories, but it's still simple physics of moving mass over a certain distance. Heart rate does not equal calorie burn, it's just a proxy used by fitness trackers to estimate calorie burns.
As for walking burning the same amount of calories for the same distance, no matter speed: not quite true apparently, according to this:
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp
Walking efficiency varies according to speed.
Totally agree with this. Just want to add caveat that if you speed up the treadmill to the point that you have to run, you will burn somewhat more calories over the same distance, as you're doing more vertical lifting of the weight than you would walking.4 -
sultank101 wrote: »Hey guys. I weigh 99.6 kg and am 175 cm . I walk on the treadmill daily at 3.3 speed with no incline. I always hit 10000 steps. does it burn 500 calories regardless of speed on treadmill
It will change depending on your size. 70 kilos takes less energy to move than 100 kilos, so will burn fewer calories.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 389 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 920 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions