is this right (cals burned / walking)

Options
LovingLisa2012
LovingLisa2012 Posts: 802 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
i just walked 3.8 miles -110 mins :bigsmile: (to and from store, not counting inside store)

it says walking 2.5 mph for 110 mins burns 746 :noway:

i am 299/300 pounds but that just doesn't seem right ..

does that seem right ? ( im not a regular exerciser) :blushing:

*** edit ***
i changed it to each of the 50 mins i walked and now it says 678 cals total .. .( i so need a hrm)

any advice is welcomed

Replies

  • Bankman1989
    Bankman1989 Posts: 1,116 Member
    Options
    That sounds right. Focus on being consistent and not the burn that you did one day. If you do this 3-4 days a week you will improve and burn more calories because you will walk father in the same amount of time.
  • AmyLRed
    AmyLRed Posts: 894 Member
    Options
    if you can, look into purchasing a HRM with a chest strap, it should give you a more accurate calorie burn. For me, MFP was giving me way higher estimates than my HRM gives!

    Until then, i would eat 1/2 to 3/4 of your exercise cals to be on the safe side.
  • Paulbp4
    Paulbp4 Posts: 59 Member
    Options
    For your weight it seems right. Nearly 2 hours is a pretty long time to be constantly moving! Great job!
  • mslindsay
    mslindsay Posts: 93 Member
    Options
    I am the same weight.

    I find that MFP always reads higher for me (guessing on the fact when I eat 1/2 to 2/3 calories back I am on the lose two week average). I usually will take the average of a few calories burned websites and use that. I just ordered a HRM so I will test to see how accurate MFP is on there log.
  • polz7
    polz7 Posts: 48 Member
    Options
    3.8 miles in 110min = 2mph not 2.5mph -recalculate your calories burned.
  • Allic1971
    Allic1971 Posts: 145 Member
    Options
    I would get a HRM I have the Polar FT7 and it is fab! I walk the dog and the MFP site doesn't take in to account the slight hills ect, so yesterday I did a 20 minute walk at 167 cals burned :)
  • LethaSue
    LethaSue Posts: 285 Member
    Options
    I am close to that weight, 282 and if I walk on the tread mill at 2.2 mph and go by the info off my hrm (polar with chest strap) and the info off the treadmill itself, I but somewhere around 160 calories in about 40 minutes.
  • wolfchild59
    wolfchild59 Posts: 2,608 Member
    Options
    3.8 miles in 110 minutes is only 2mph. Maybe try entering that speed and time and see what you get?
  • McKayMachina
    McKayMachina Posts: 2,670 Member
    Options
    Extremely accurate:

    http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

    Just manually take your HR a few times in 15-second intervals and average it.
  • nwg74
    nwg74 Posts: 360 Member
    Options
    I use this site.

    http://walking.about.com/library/cal/uccalc1.htm

    At 350 pounds last year, I was burning 458 calories walking 2.4 miles at 2.5 mph.

    At 222 pounds, I have upped to 4.8 miles to keep burning 565 calories at and now walking at 3 mph.
  • TourThePast
    TourThePast Posts: 1,753 Member
    Options
    It does sound a lot but yes that is about right for someone your weight.

    Think of it this way, when you are at your target weight, if you then loaded a backpack with bricks weighing the weight you have lost, and went for a hike you would find it very hard work. That work uses a LOAD of calories! :)

    I use a heart rate monitor, because I'm only 4' 10" so most of the tools don't work for me. One good online one which will give you an idea of amounts burned for different exercises is this one:

    http://www.self.com/calculatorsprograms/calculators/

    It would take me about twice as long to burn that much, enjoy it while you can! :bigsmile:
  • LovingLisa2012
    LovingLisa2012 Posts: 802 Member
    Options
    i will get an hrm

    and i was est the exact mins plus i didn't count the mins walking around the store

    i wont eat all the calories ..

    i plan to start walking more :bigsmile:

    gotta start some where

Categories