Opinions - does burning 800 calories on a walk seem right?

Kallure
Kallure Posts: 3
in Fitness and Exercise
Last night, my HRM monitor says I burned 823 calories while walking. Was wondering if anyone could weigh-in on if this seems right because while I love that it was such an awesome number, something about it seems off.

Stats are as follows:

I'm about 5'6" and 217 pounds. I was sedentary and grossly out of shape up until the beginning of the year. I started working out in January and since then have been good about getting an hour or so of activity each day, whether it be walking or using the Kinect games or this little mini elliptical thing I bought. I try to push myself each day to maximize what I can but am no where near where I want to be with intensity at this point. Slow and steady wins the race, right?

Anyway, I walked 3.6 miles in about 77 minutes. By my estimations, this is a pace of about 3.3 miles per hour. On here, if I select 3.5 mph brisk pace, it only puts me at about 480 calories burned.

However, my HRM monitor says I burned 823 calories. I have a Mio Drive Petite watch which seems to have worked brilliantly so far. I checked my HR periodically through the walk and I was usually sitting around 68-70%, somewhere around the 135-145 BPM range.

In the past, I've used the same HRM to calculate that I burn a little over 500 calories in about 45 minutes on my little elliptical trainer (it's a portable Stamina InMotion that is just the pedals, no handles - MAJOR leg workout!) - the difference is that I FEEL like I burned them then because I am covered in sweat and just generally worked up. The walk yesterday definitely felt like I got something done and worked up a sweat but I just didn't feel as intensely affected as I do when using the little elliptical.

Perhaps the difference was I extended the length of activity and kept a more steady pace while walking whereas on the elliptical I tend to do short fast bursts interspersed with the slower steady walking (and probably use less of my arms than I did on my walk yesterday).

Just wanted to put this out to the peanut gallery. It's not a HUGE deal but it seems off so it's been bothering me a bit. The lightbulb finally went off for me in making the connection that this healthy lifestyle things is so much easier when I think about it as a numbers game - unfortunately, when the numbers seem "off" it throws my whole brain into a tizzy.

Replies

  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    What kind of HRM do you have? Some are better than others.

    That seems high to me for only 3.6 miles, but weight is a factor. Since I never weighed that much, it's tough for me to compare. At 155 pounds, I would burn around 400 or 500 calories in that distance and time (and 500 is probably a bit high).
  • grinch031
    grinch031 Posts: 1,679
    According to this HRM you burn 228 calories/mile at that pace. That looks about double what you should expect based on this chart:

    http://walking.about.com/cs/howtoloseweight/a/howcalburn.htm
  • Javajunkie67
    Javajunkie67 Posts: 167 Member
    Trust it. MFP has no idea where you're walking or how hard you're working, the HRM does. I hit a wall tring to lose those last 10 and didnt realize how much I was burning. I've only had mine a little over a month, but I'm losing again.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    Ah! I didn't read carefully enough.

    If you have a watch-only HRM, it's useless. You need one with a chest strap.
  • grinch031
    grinch031 Posts: 1,679
    Trust it. MFP has no idea where you're walking or how hard you're working, the HRM does. I hit a wall tring to lose those last 10 and didnt realize how much I was burning. I've only had mine a little over a month, but I'm losing again.

    I read a couple reviews on this device that said it is grossly inaccurate.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Last night, my HRM monitor says I burned 823 calories while walking. Was wondering if anyone could weigh-in on if this seems right because while I love that it was such an awesome number, something about it seems off.

    Stats are as follows:

    I'm about 5'6" and 217 pounds. I was sedentary and grossly out of shape up until the beginning of the year. I started working out in January and since then have been good about getting an hour or so of activity each day, whether it be walking or using the Kinect games or this little mini elliptical thing I bought. I try to push myself each day to maximize what I can but am no where near where I want to be with intensity at this point. Slow and steady wins the race, right?

    Anyway, I walked 3.6 miles in about 77 minutes. By my estimations, this is a pace of about 3.3 miles per hour. On here, if I select 3.5 mph brisk pace, it only puts me at about 480 calories burned.

    However, my HRM monitor says I burned 823 calories. I have a Mio Drive Petite watch which seems to have worked brilliantly so far. I checked my HR periodically through the walk and I was usually sitting around 68-70%, somewhere around the 135-145 BPM range.

    In the past, I've used the same HRM to calculate that I burn a little over 500 calories in about 45 minutes on my little elliptical trainer (it's a portable Stamina InMotion that is just the pedals, no handles - MAJOR leg workout!) - the difference is that I FEEL like I burned them then because I am covered in sweat and just generally worked up. The walk yesterday definitely felt like I got something done and worked up a sweat but I just didn't feel as intensely affected as I do when using the little elliptical.

    Perhaps the difference was I extended the length of activity and kept a more steady pace while walking whereas on the elliptical I tend to do short fast bursts interspersed with the slower steady walking (and probably use less of my arms than I did on my walk yesterday).

    Just wanted to put this out to the peanut gallery. It's not a HUGE deal but it seems off so it's been bothering me a bit. The lightbulb finally went off for me in making the connection that this healthy lifestyle things is so much easier when I think about it as a numbers game - unfortunately, when the numbers seem "off" it throws my whole brain into a tizzy.

    An avg of 3.3 mph is not very intense, so a calorie number of 450-475 for your entire walk is about right. The upside of walking is that it is easy for almost anyone to do, regardless of fitness level. The down side is that the rate of calories burned is relatively low. However, walking is something that can be tolerated well, so you can walk 60+ minutes a day.

    It's all about doing what you can, what you body is capable of right now. Then, as weight decreases and fitness improves, you move forward and can do more things.
  • marckilgore
    marckilgore Posts: 36
    MFP has to make some guesses about your rate rate when you are working out and it can be wildly inaccurate because of that. Using your age, height, weight, and resting heart rate, maximum heart rate, VO2max, is going to give you a more accurate look at how many calories are being burned, but I've never seen an HRM that allowed you to input all of that data. I know some 60year olds that have amazing maximum heart rates that completely blow these general calculations from MFP out of the water. It's a fact that trained people over 50 are very likely to have much higher MHR than that which is average for the age (that's what is calculated). My general rule of thumb is that when I get conflicting calculations for calories burned, I always use the lower number. At least then I know I'm not overestimating my workouts.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    MFP has to make some guesses about your rate rate when you are working out and it can be wildly inaccurate because of that. Using your age, height, weight, and resting heart rate, maximum heart rate, VO2max, is going to give you a more accurate look at how many calories are being burned, but I've never seen an HRM that allowed you to input all of that data. I know some 60year olds that have amazing maximum heart rates that completely blow these general calculations from MFP out of the water. It's a fact that trained people over 50 are very likely to have much higher MHR than that which is average for the age (that's what is calculated). My general rule of thumb is that when I get conflicting calculations for calories burned, I always use the lower number. At least then I know I'm not overestimating my workouts.

    If the actual workload is known, then heart rate is irrelevant. HRMs have to know heart rate, because they don't actually measure workload --they have to guess at what you are doing based on your heart rate response.

    The energy cost of walking at particular speeds/inclines is easy to calculate and is pretty much the same for everyone--differences in calorie burn will depend on weight. If you are walking on treadmill and do not hold on to the handrails, it is not necessary to know heart rate to accurately estimate calories. Only weight.
  • Ruthaw1961
    Ruthaw1961 Posts: 42 Member
    MFP has to make some guesses about your rate rate when you are working out and it can be wildly inaccurate because of that. Using your age, height, weight, and resting heart rate, maximum heart rate, VO2max, is going to give you a more accurate look at how many calories are being burned, but I've never seen an HRM that allowed you to input all of that data.

    I have a Polar HRM that you can enter all of that information...It is a discontinued F-11 but the current models you can probably enter as well.
  • mnwalkingqueen
    mnwalkingqueen Posts: 1,299 Member
    Yes depending on the length of the walk and the pace you are walking. I my pedometer tracks my steps along with transfers that to miles and calories burned. In 11000 step walk (4.25 miles) I burn over 800 calories.
  • WalkingGirl1985
    WalkingGirl1985 Posts: 2,046 Member
    I have a polar FT4..and I'm 5" 6 172. Sometimes i walk somewhere 3.0-3.5mph and burn about 300-400 calories in that span of time and distance.
  • rrrbecca11
    rrrbecca11 Posts: 477
    Seems high to me. I am an avid walker and routinely walk 4-5 miles and have never had that much of a burn. Even at 4.5 miles at a 3.8 pace my burns would be in the 400-450 range.
  • AlsDonkBoxSquat
    AlsDonkBoxSquat Posts: 6,128 Member
    Ah! I didn't read carefully enough.

    If you have a watch-only HRM, it's useless. You need one with a chest strap.

    pretty much this. Seems a bit high to me, but I have no personal experience with your stats.
  • acfkaren
    acfkaren Posts: 60 Member
    I would take an estimate as halfway between the 2 readings. Also i am guessing not every part was flat! I can burn a huge amount hill walking yet generally put in 2.5mph on walking in MFP. When hill walking I dont make a note of the ups parts and down parts I usually am trying not to fall in a bog, on my bum and towards the end if I'll still have all my toenails!
  • dawnagetsfit
    dawnagetsfit Posts: 81
    I wouldn't trust those numbers unless you were using a chest-strap HRM that was fitted properly.
  • HeidiMightyRawr
    HeidiMightyRawr Posts: 3,343 Member
    I think for your weight, 800 calories for a 77 minute brisk walk sounds about right.

    If I had a workout now, a good workout for me would be about 500 calories an hour, and I'm 145lbs. The heavier and less fit you are, the more calories you will burn in that time frame, so for someone 200lbs they would burn maybe 800+ an hour for the same intensity.

    Maybe if you're still unsure you could log it as 650 or something similar, so that it's in the middle of MFP and the other burn you got.

    Edit: As others have said, if it doesn't have a chest strap, it won't be that useful.
  • litatura
    litatura Posts: 569 Member
    It also depends on the incline as well (if you're on a treadmill). I walk at 3.3mph for 68 minutes at an incline of 8% and according to the monitor, I burn 700 calories.
  • amyy902
    amyy902 Posts: 290 Member
    a few factors: if it was uphills down hills - uneven ground. how you felt during it( the intensity) how much you weigh. from what you provided it seems about what is expected, however you cant easily determain the amount of calories purely through hr. however it gives a ball park figure. as a PT i often tell people not to rely on the calories burned option - so do all the other trainers i have worked with and do work with, because as long as youre being active you dont need to get hung up on it. move more eat less is the best option, its very hard to estimate without being in a physiology lab. but yess it would probably be around 500 - 800 given what i have studied during my degree course.
  • cheyniemama
    cheyniemama Posts: 63
    I am your same height and within a few pounds of you. When I do a similar walk on the treadmill, it says I burn about 650-.

    (and the treadmill knows my weight, but not height)
  • Barbara98
    Barbara98 Posts: 60 Member
    According to my treadmill, since i have short legs with me being 5ft i walk at 3mph for 60 minutes at an incline and with my incline at 50 minutes to 55 minutes ending at a 5 incline. At the beginning of my work out i start at a 2.5 and only a 1 incline. Doing all this my treadmill calculates that i've burned 300 to 306 calories. Thats with the last 5 minutes starting my cool down completing my 60 minute workout.
  • TammyW18
    TammyW18 Posts: 244 Member
    My HRM registers for 60 minutes of walking on a treadmill with variouse inclines at 3.6 speed 700
  • Javajunkie67
    Javajunkie67 Posts: 167 Member
    Ah! I didn't read carefully enough.

    If you have a watch-only HRM, it's useless. You need one with a chest strap.

    I didn't realize there was no chest strap. You really need a HRM with a strap for an accurate count.
  • Kallure
    Kallure Posts: 3
    Thanks for all the advice so far! It helps me feel a bit better. I did log that amount of calories burned but I didn't add them back into my calories consumed for the day. I wasn't hungry anyway and had pretty balanced meals so I figured whatever I burned on that walk created a decent enough deficit to count for at least something, whether it was the full 800 calories or lower than that.

    Just to add a few more details: the specific HRM I have is this one (http://www.amazon.com/Mio-Special-Petite-Womens-Monitor/dp/B0031YIQX0/ref=pd_bxgy_sg_text_b) which I picked up because it got decent reviews and because I wasn't ready to spend a ton of money on one until I knew I was sticking with the fitness program, since I have had a tendency to start and stop in the past.

    This one allowed me to enter my height and weight, which I'm almost positive I entered (I'll have to go check - my mind is blanking right now). I'm pretty sure it asked my gender at least and possibly my age. It ALSO had me set check my resting HR, which was about 75. It started me with 70 and I did notice that I didn't burn as easily at that setting and it seemed to get easier when I actually set the correct HR, which would make sense.

    At the very least, I figure that at this point, getting out and doing SOMETHING is better than what I used to do, which is NOTHING. But it is really nice to see the numbers and have the correlate with how you feel. I felt really good when I was done with the walk, which is something to be said for me. It certainly didn't compare to people who have been working out regularly forever but it felt awesome for me. And I guess that what's really matters! :-)

Categories