FORUM: Fitness and Exercise
TOPIC:

Walking Speed and Diminishing Returns?

 Search the Message Boards:

CINDYM1963
SparkPoints: (8,097)
Fitness Minutes: (6,468)
Posts: 94
7/5/13 3:44 P

Thanks for the reply - I believe the difference was about 30 calories, and you're right - it's really neither here nor there. I was really just asking out of curiosity.

Today I used the tool again and it didn't do it, so my guess is you're right that there's some algorithmic irregularity that I just chanced upon.

Mystery solved as far as I'm concerned. :)

 Pounds lost: 0.0

 0 19.55 39.1 58.65
78.2

MOTIVATED@LAST
Posts: 13,641
7/4/13 7:45 P

Actually, speed makes very little difference to the calories burned. It is the total distance covered that is the major factor. Of course, going faster gets your heart rate higher and creates additional health and fitness benefits.

It is a standard convention in calorie calculations to include your underlying metabolism calories in the calculation. So if your walk takes 5 minutes longer, then there is 5 minutes more metabolism calories included (probably about 5-7 calories). But these 5 minutes will exist in your day regardless, so you are not actually burning more calories.

At higher speeds (4-4.5 mph), walking starts to become a little inefficient
(ie. burns more calories).

Also, how big a difference in calorie burn are we talking? Nearly all calorie calculations are just estimates, and slight inaccuracies in the underlying algorithm means there is an inherent margin of error in calorie estimates - don't read too much into minor variations.

M@L

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

 current weight: 178.0

 220 203.5 187 170.5
154

CINDYM1963
SparkPoints: (8,097)
Fitness Minutes: (6,468)
Posts: 94
7/4/13 3:47 P

Thanks, that is a great idea. I was thinking there might be a scientific explanation for this that everyone knew but me. :)

 Pounds lost: 0.0

 0 19.55 39.1 58.65
78.2

KJEANNE
SparkPoints: (37,931)
Fitness Minutes: (30,322)
Posts: 2,070
7/4/13 12:53 P

Doesn't make sense to me so the folks to ask are at Map my Ride. Seems there is something wrong with their software.

Do not look where you fell, but where you slipped.
African proverb

 current weight: 191.0

 220 203.75 187.5 171.25
155

CINDYM1963
SparkPoints: (8,097)
Fitness Minutes: (6,468)
Posts: 94
7/4/13 12:37 P

Thanks Beckie - yes the MPH changes automatically when you enter a new time. I'm just not sure why when the MPH goes down it's showing burning more calories.

I am in the range of 2.8 - 3.3 MPH depending on the day and how long the route is (and number / intensity of hills).

 Pounds lost: 0.0

 0 19.55 39.1 58.65
78.2

CUDA440
SparkPoints: (61,124)
Fitness Minutes: (51,567)
Posts: 7,089
7/4/13 12:32 P

did you change your MPH then as well? Not quite sure.

Beckie

SW July 2005 - 177
Thanksgiving 2005 - found out pregnant 159
July 2006 - 9 months pregnant - 197
3/19/09 - 177. AGAIN!!!
11/23/09 - 170.6

 current weight: 161.4

 177 169.75 162.5 155.25
148

CINDYM1963
SparkPoints: (8,097)
Fitness Minutes: (6,468)
Posts: 94
7/4/13 12:26 P

The other day I wasn't quite sure exactly how long I'd taken to walk a specified distance, so I entered three different times (5-minute increments) with the same distance into the Map My Route tool. I found that if I walked the route five minutes faster than I thought I did I would have burned more calories - no brainer right? But I also found if I had walked the route five minutes slower than I thought I did I would have burned more calories.

Hmmm - can someone explain this to me? Did the same thing today with the same results - althought this time I know how long it took, which unfortunately rendered the least benefit calorie-wise. I'm perplexed.

Thanks!

 Pounds lost: 0.0

 0 19.55 39.1 58.65
78.2

 Page: 1 of (1)