Calculating Calories burned?

FatPandaBandit
FatPandaBandit Posts: 33
edited October 4 in Fitness and Exercise
Anyone know a formula for burning calories? I recently walked 4.9 miles going about 3.2 mph and I can't seem to find those two numbers together at all on anything online.. It's really frustrating me. I don't want to go with 3mph because I did more, but I dont want to go with 3.5mph because that would be cheating myself.

Replies

  • engineman312
    engineman312 Posts: 3,450 Member
    did you check what MFP gives you? other then that, you need a heart rate monitor.
  • ladybug1620
    ladybug1620 Posts: 1,136 Member
    Calculate for 3.0 and 3.5, then take the average of the two :)
  • geco22
    geco22 Posts: 29 Member
    Honestly, I tend to just go with less because without a good heart rate monitor it's almost impossible to get exactly right. Maybe do the slower pace with a little added time to make up the difference. Ultimately, over time you'll get better at knowing how hard your workout was and feeling like you burned more or fewer calories than what MFP comes up with.
  • moushtie
    moushtie Posts: 371 Member
    So 4.9 mile at 3.2 mph is about 90 mins. I'd go with the 3mph entry to underestimate, but that's me.
  • Distance, not speed has the biggest effect on calories burned.
  • H_Factor
    H_Factor Posts: 1,722 Member
    you need a HRM if you want the accurate answer. if you rely on MFP estimates, I would always round down on the options given because MFP numbers are exaggerated for most folks.
  • agthorn
    agthorn Posts: 1,844 Member
    Distance, not speed has the biggest effect on calories burned.

    Yep - general rule of thumb is 100 calories per mile on foot, so 4.9 miles would get you about 490 calories. Easy peasy.
  • did you check what MFP gives you? other then that, you need a heart rate monitor.

    MFP only has 3.0 and 3.5. I realize I need one of those, but I don't have money for a good one yet.
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    Distance, not speed has the biggest effect on calories burned.

    This, as long as it's the same activity. Walking 5 miles 3mph or 3.5 mph would be about the same burn. Running the same distance would burn more, since the activity itself is different, but it wouldn't matter much if you were running 5mph or 6mph.

    You can use a site like Mapmyrun.com or runkeeper.com to calculate the calories.
  • Distance, not speed has the biggest effect on calories burned.

    This, as long as it's the same activity. Walking 5 miles 3mph or 3.5 mph would be about the same burn. Running the same distance would burn more, since the activity itself is different, but it wouldn't matter much if you were running 5mph or 6mph.

    You can use a site like Mapmyrun.com or runkeeper.com to calculate the calories.

    I shall use those next time!! I just used google maps to get the distance. Thanks for the knowledge everyone! :)
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Multiply speed (3.2 mph) x 26.8 to get meters per min (85.76)

    Multiply 85.76 * 0.1 (8.58);

    Divide 8.58 by 3.5 (2.45)

    Multiply 2.5 times your body wt in KG--that equals NET calories per hour.

    Multiply NET calories per hour times what part of an hour you worked (in this case about 1.53)

    That gives you NET calories for your workout.

    In this case, multiply your body wt in KG times 1.53 and that will give you as accurate a figure as your can get outside of a lab.
  • Do not get so caught up in calories burned. Go with the averages on this web site. You can average between the intensities but as long as you burn more calories then you intake, you are fine. I like this site as I can monitor my intake for the opposite reasons. I am a ultra runner and have been concerned if I was taking enough in. I was not so this is a good tool for me. I wish you luck in your goals. Remember to set small goals first. Reach the goal and set another. SMALL STEPS. Why get discouraged when you do not reach the big goals.
This discussion has been closed.