I'm not surprised that a 109 lb person would burn substantially less than 100 calories per mile walked. And most online calculators take weight into account.
Fitness Minutes: (44,216)
10/31/12 8:47 P
Definitely a heart rate monitor is the best way to get a true reading but you can use this sight to help you out as well. I don't like that they don't take in to account whether you are male or female but it will still be more specific than just a generic number for an activity done:
Speed is good, in that it gets your heart rate higher, which creates additional health and fitness benefits. But yes, it is distance that is the major factor in calories burned.
Fitness Minutes: (38,780)
5,092 10/31/12 2:15 P
Heart rate monitor! That takes the guess work out of everything. I thought that a 2 mile walk burned 200 calories (from what I've read online), but that was way off for me. I burn roughly 200 calories if I run for 2 miles (at a 6mph pace). But if I walk 2 miles at 3.5-4mph, I burn 130-145 calories. Everybody's numbers are different so I highly, HIGHLY suggest a heart rate monitor. Mine was $60 on amazon.com, and I love it :)
Edited by: KRISTEN_SAYS at: 10/31/2012 (14:16)
Fitness Minutes: (17,714)
434 10/31/12 9:36 A
I also appreciate the comments made below, very helpful!! Thanks for taking the time to write that all out!! I too have found a lot of variation between estimates given, and agree with what I have read on here, that the calories burned for "everyday chores" is highly overdone. I really don't give a whole lot of weight to any numbers, but go more on how my body feels, it's my best scale.
Fitness Minutes: (0)
39 10/31/12 9:28 A
Thanks both! Didn't realise distance was more important than speed, so that's very handy to know :)
I agree with Mplane - distance covered is the major factor in calories burned, with body weight also being a factor. a VERY rough guide is that you burn about 100 calories per mile walked, regardless of speed (light people burn less, heavier people more).
100 calories for 1.75 miles sounds a bit low. 190 may or may not be right, but is sounds like it is in the right ballpark.
Fitness Minutes: (37,232)
10/31/12 5:54 A
For most cardio workouts such as walking and running, you work against your weight. So your weight is important. If you are running outside, you might be running slightly uphill, but that will make you burn more calories. Your speed is not going to matter much, only very slightly. The distance you run or walk will affect drastically the calories you burn.
Cardio machines like a treadmill usually exaggerate the calories burned. However, some late model treadmills, like the one I am using in the gym, is surprisingly good at estimating the calories burned after entering my weight and my age, without any heart rate information.
For elliptical or stationary cycling, the resistance of the machine is more important than your weight in the calories burned.
However, for cardio workouts, the best estimates are those of a heart rate monitor with a strap.
Edited by: MPLANE37 at: 10/31/2012 (05:57)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
39 10/31/12 5:23 A
Iíve been using a few apps on my phone to track diet/exercise etc. Iíve found that most websites are fairly similar in the calories they count for food, but that exercise is a lot more varied. For instance, I use My Fitness Pal as my primary app. 30 mins walking (at 3.5mph) creates a calorie deficit of 100. However, when measuring the same exercise on both Run Keeper and Endomondo, I was told Iíd burnt c. 190 calories. That seems like a pretty big difference to me!
Just wondering if there are any trustworthy standards, how other people count, and if the calories you burn in exercise are dependent on things such as your current height or weight, and thatís why Iím getting different results?
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.