Calories Burned By Walking

(D. Smith) said:

I have started to walk each day in hopes of losing some weight. How many calories will I burn if I
walk 30 minutes each day (7 days a week)?

Depends on your walking speed and weight. Here is a site that gives you some estimates. Note the
calculations are for 1 hour. So you would have to half those.

shelterpub.comOFC calories.htmlOpen ↗

Depends on how fast you walk, what kind of terrain, and how much you weigh. In general -- larger
person burns more, going faster burns more, going uphill burns more. bj

"D. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have started to walk each day in hopes of losing some weight. How many calories will I burn if I
walk 30 minutes each day (7 days a week)?

D. Smith said:

I have started to walk each day in hopes of losing some weight.

Excellent! So you've taken those elusive first steps.

Quoted message said:

How many calories will I burn if I walk 30 minutes each day (7 days a week)?

That depends on, inter alia: your body (how much you weigh, etc.), how fast you walk, *how* you
walk, and so forth. I could guess you'd burn approximately one hundred and fifty calories per walk,
but that speculation could well be off the mark. Take a peek at the page Rita suggested.

Don't get fixated on increasing your caloric burn. Just enjoy the walking; "Just do it!".

--
Jock

In article said:

I have started to walk each day in hopes of losing some weight. How many calories will I burn if I
walk 30 minutes each day (7 days a week)?

check out www.caloriesperhour.com. it depends on your weight and speed. Making some assumptions,
you may burn about 150 calories per day with your regimen. But it is a very worthwhile activity,
will help you lower your cholesterol etc. If you bumb it to 1.5 hours per day, you will see
dramatic results.

i

In article said:

In article said:

I have started to walk each day in hopes of losing some weight. How many calories will I burn if
I walk 30 minutes each day (7 days a week)?

check out www.caloriesperhour.com. it depends on your weight and speed. Making some assumptions,
you may burn about 150 calories per day with your regimen. But it is a very worthwhile activity,
will help you lower your cholesterol etc. If you bumb it to 1.5 hours per day, you will see
dramatic results.

i

.75 Kcal/kg body mass per mile walked on firm, level ground for net caloric cost

example: 80 kg 1 mile walked = 80 x 0.75= 60Kcal

D. Smith said:

I have started to walk each day in hopes of losing some weight. How many calories will I burn if I
walk 30 minutes each day (7 days a week)?

Here is another

nutribase.comexercala.htmOpen ↗

From what I understand, isn't your heart rate while you are wlaking more important than calcualting
speed & incline. Beleive me when I say I coudl be wrong, but I thought that to lose weight we wanted
to walk at a particuliar heart rate for a period of time and that was more important than the amount
of calories. Isn't the reason for this so because at optimal heart rates we burn more fat rather
than burnign both fat and muscle at the same time. I woudl love to have someone clarify this because
I personally have put a lot of muscle over the years but really need to trim up, and I would rather
not burn both fat & muscle (for the most part) is possible. Thanks.

"SPeacock" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

D. Smith said:

I have started to walk each day in hopes of losing some weight. How many calories will I burn if
I walk 30 minutes each day (7 days a week)?

Here is another

nutribase.comexercala.htmOpen ↗

In article JdHeb.10117$Rd4.6951@fed1read07 said:

From what I understand, isn't your heart rate while you are wlaking more important than
calcualting speed & incline.

Heart rate depends a lot on your physical conditioning. People who have been running and walking for
a long time would typically have lower resting heart rate as well as lower heart rate when walking.

My normal heart rate is about 58, for example. I have been running since I was 12, for the last 20
years, although I took 2 years off when I was too fat.

A sedentary person with a higher resting heart rate would no doubt have a higher rate walking than
me. But they would probably spend almost the same amount of calories at the same weight and speed.

Quoted message said:

Beleive me when I say I coudl be wrong, but I thought that to lose weight we wanted to walk at a
particuliar heart rate for a period of time and that was more important than the amount of
calories. Isn't the reason for this so because at optimal heart rates we burn more fat rather than
burnign both fat and muscle at the same time. I woudl love to have someone clarify this because I
personally have put a lot of muscle over the years but really need to trim up, and I would rather
not burn both fat & muscle (for the most part) is possible. Thanks.

Some muscle loss during weight loss is almost inevitable. Your goal is to minimize it.

Generally speaking, a normal person walking would not approach the area of "strenuous exercise" even
remotely, so all talk about muscle burn vs. fat burn vs. whatever is completely moot. You walk, you
spend a few calories, your body metabolizes food, if food is not enough, it would metabolize fat,
and if you do not do strength training, it would also metabolize some muscles.

I suggest that you pay no attention to suggestions that some forms of walking/running are more
beneficial than running. More often than not, such suggestions are simply an excuse for walking less
and being lazy.

Just walk at the speed that you like most, but for a while. There has been some evidence that
duration is more important than intensity. E.g. if you burn 500 calories while walking for 2 hours,
it is supposedly better than burning 600 calories while running for 45 minutes. But all in all
finding an exercise that you can do and enjoy doing for a serious amount of time every day is most
important.

i
223/177/180

Ignoramus8561:

Quoted message said:

In article JdHeb.10117$Rd4.6951@fed1read07 said:

From what I understand, isn't your heart rate while you are wlaking more important than
calcualting speed & incline.

Heart rate depends a lot on your physical conditioning.

Quoted message said:

Beleive me when I say I coudl be wrong, but I thought that to lose weight we wanted to walk at a
particuliar heart rate for a period of time and that was more important than the amount of
calories. Isn't the reason for this so because at optimal heart rates we burn more fat rather
than burnign both fat and muscle at the same time. I woudl love to have someone clarify this
because I personally have put a lot of muscle over the years but really need to trim up, and I
would rather not burn both fat & muscle (for the most part) is possible. Thanks.

Some muscle loss during weight loss is almost inevitable. Your goal is to minimize it.

...

What he said. Also, to answer your question, if you want to lose weight, you need to burn more
calories than you consume.

One article I found on the net is here: fatburn.comarticle show.aspOpen ↗

it seems to present good information on how aerobic exercise burns fat.

Diet is also very important. From my (admittedly naive) point of view, I like to think about the
thermic effect of food (tef). The basic idea behind TEF is that not all foods are created equal when
it comes to how the body treats them. Digestion is not a passive process -- you actually burn
calories when you digest food. Some foods are very easy to digest and can be quickly converted to
fat. Others require more calories to digest and it is harder for the body to convert them to fat. As
you might guess, a fatty foods are easier to digest. Protein, on the other hand, is the hardest to
digest (and requires more calories). Carbohydrates fall in the middle. This is basically the idea
behind high-protein diets -- because protein is harder to digest, it is harder for the body to
convert it to fat. Also, a diet high in protein minimizes muscle loss.

Check out caloriesperhour.comfaqs thermic.htmlOpen ↗,
primusweb.comcalsburned.htmOpen ↗ and
rowett.ac.ukenergy expenditure.pdfOpen ↗ probably contain more information
than you want to know on the subject.

--
Scott pink-triangle.orgscottOpen ↗ AOL IM: CorwinScot YahooIM: CycleMuscle

"Stand firm for what you believe in until or unless logic or experience prove you wrong.
Remember, when the emperor looks naked the emperor is naked. The truth and a lie are not sort of
the same thing. And there's no aspect, no facet, no moment of life that can't be improved with
pizza." -- Daria

Quoted message said:

Just walk at the speed that you like most, but for a while. There has been some evidence that
duration is more important than intensity. E.g. if you burn 500 calories while walking for 2
hours, it is supposedly better than burning 600 calories while running for 45 minutes. But all in
all finding an exercise that you can do and enjoy doing for a serious amount of time every day is
most important.

Thanks for the help, but I am not sure I got the answer I was looking for. What I am mainly
wondering is if keeping a certain heartrate will help your body burn more calories from fat rather
than fat & muscle.

For example, I recently ran a marathon and spent 6 months training for it and lost a bit of strength
in the gym. A trainer was telling me that if my goal was to tone up I was better of walking but
making sure to keep my heartrate in my target zone. My heartrate is always lower walking than
running and I always burn less calories so I asked, "how can this help me tone up better than
running?". Apparently, and this is what I am asking, when you are in your target heartrate, your
body is more likeley to burn calories from fat rather than from fat & muscle, so even though you may
burn less calories you are still improving your bodyfat percentages moreso then you would running or
doing any cardio at a high heartrate. This is what I am wondering, basically looking for 2nd & 3rd
opinions. Thanks again.

In article said:

Ignoramus8561:

Quoted message said:

In article JdHeb.10117$Rd4.6951@fed1read07 said:

From what I understand, isn't your heart rate while you are wlaking more important than
calcualting speed & incline.

Heart rate depends a lot on your physical conditioning.

Quoted message said:

Beleive me when I say I coudl be wrong, but I thought that to lose weight we wanted to walk at a
particuliar heart rate for a period of time and that was more important than the amount of
calories. Isn't the reason for this so because at optimal heart rates we burn more fat rather
than burnign both fat and muscle at the same time. I woudl love to have someone clarify this
because I personally have put a lot of muscle over the years but really need to trim up, and I
would rather not burn both fat & muscle (for the most part) is possible. Thanks.

Some muscle loss during weight loss is almost inevitable. Your goal is to minimize it.

...

What he said. Also, to answer your question, if you want to lose weight, you need to burn more
calories than you consume.

One article I found on the net is here: fatburn.comarticle show.aspOpen ↗

it seems to present good information on how aerobic exercise burns fat.

I would suppose however that even if you burn off the glucose only, some fat will later be used to
replenish glycogen. That's why I think that "burning fat" is really a non-issue and a distraction.

i

In article DhXeb.10655$Rd4.431@fed1read07 said:

Quoted message said:

Just walk at the speed that you like most, but for a while. There has been some evidence that
duration is more important than intensity. E.g. if you burn 500 calories while walking for 2
hours, it is supposedly better than burning 600 calories while running for 45 minutes. But all in
all finding an exercise that you can do and enjoy doing for a serious amount of time every day is
most important.

Thanks for the help, but I am not sure I got the answer I was looking for. What I am mainly
wondering is if keeping a certain heartrate will help your body burn more calories from fat rather
than fat & muscle.

For example, I recently ran a marathon and spent 6 months training for it and lost a bit of
strength in the gym. A trainer was telling me that if my goal was to tone up I was better of
walking but making sure to keep my heartrate in my target zone. My heartrate is always lower
walking than running and I always burn less calories so I asked, "how can this help me tone up
better than running?". Apparently, and this is what I am asking, when you are in your target
heartrate, your body is more likeley to burn calories from fat rather than from fat & muscle, so
even though you may burn less calories you are still improving your bodyfat percentages moreso
then you would running or doing any cardio at a high heartrate. This is what I am wondering,
basically looking for 2nd & 3rd opinions. Thanks again.

When you burn off your glucose, you start burning fat and muscle. To prevent muscle loss you need
strength training. If you do not strength train, you lose "strength in the gym". There is no magic
to it. If you run marathons, I would invest in expert opinion and not opinions of ignoramuses like
me in usenet newsgroups. I was supposing, incorrectly, that you are a regular person who si trying
to lose some weight.

i

Ignoramus8561:

Quoted message said:

I would suppose however that even if you burn off the glucose only, some fat will later be used to
replenish glycogen. That's why I think that "burning fat" is really a non-issue and a distraction.

Probably, but it is the way most people think about it.

--
Scott pink-triangle.orgscottOpen ↗ AOL IM: CorwinScot YahooIM: CycleMuscle

"Stand firm for what you believe in until or unless logic or experience prove you wrong.
Remember, when the emperor looks naked the emperor is naked. The truth and a lie are not sort of
the same thing. And there's no aspect, no facet, no moment of life that can't be improved with
pizza." -- Daria

Let me attempt to clear up some very common misconceptions, if I may.

First, in order to lose weight, you must burn more calories then you consume. As for exercising at a
particular heart rate, forget anything about "fat loss zones." The key is to exercise at the highest
heartrate you can maintain for an extended period of time. If you are going to exercise for 20
minutes, maintain a high heart rate. If you exercise for an hour or more, you will want to maintain
a lower heart rate. (I cover this in more detail on my webpage.)

Second, when losing weight you should also do some resistance training. This will help minimize the
muscle loss. (And for the women out there- don't worry about bulking up. It is nearly impossible
without extreme effort.)

If I can help answer any other questions, I can be reached through my webpage www.simplyfitpt.com

Ian Smith, Personal Trainer

"Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Let me attempt to clear up some very common misconceptions, if I may.

First, in order to lose weight, you must burn more calories then you consume. As for exercising at
a particular heart rate, forget anything about "fat loss zones." The key is to exercise at the

I suppose I should have been more specific in my question. I am far less concerned with weight loss
(in fact I really am not interested in losing weight at all) as my main goal is to decrease my
bodyfat percentage. I have put on a lot of muscle and if it was only about body weight I would diet
hardcore as well as excersise, but I would like to maintain as much muscle as possible while burning
bodyfat. I have converted from running to walking in the hopes (and from what I have been told) that
it is a better way to decrease bodyfat without depleting the muscles too much because of target
heartrate zones.

"Marcello" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wd8fb.11268$Rd4.6754@fed1read07...

Quoted message said:

I suppose I should have been more specific in my question. I am far less

concerned with weight loss (in fact I really am not interested in losing weight at all) as my main
goal is to decrease my bodyfat percentage.

Quoted message said:

Why? Why do you think you need to decrease the %?

Is your bodyfat % particularly high? Do you know what it is -- and if so, how was it measured? What
is your goal %, and why is it set at that? bj

In article wd8fb.11268$Rd4.6754@fed1read07 said:

"Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Let me attempt to clear up some very common misconceptions, if I may.

First, in order to lose weight, you must burn more calories then you consume. As for exercising
at a particular heart rate, forget anything about "fat loss zones." The key is to exercise at the

I suppose I should have been more specific in my question. I am far less concerned with weight
loss (in fact I really am not interested in losing weight at all) as my main goal is to decrease
my bodyfat percentage. I have put on a lot of muscle and if it was only about body weight I would
diet hardcore as well as excersise, but I would like to maintain as much muscle as possible while
burning bodyfat. I have converted from running to walking in the hopes (and from what I have been
told) that it is a better way to decrease bodyfat without depleting the muscles too much because
of target heartrate zones.

To reduce the bodyfat but keep muscle, you should eat less calories than you spend, eat enough meat
or other protein (do not go overboard), and strength train.

Gimmick exercises that are supposed to "burn fat" do not work. Something may burn more fat
than glucose, but in the end some muscle will be cannibalized anyway if you are not working on
your muscles.

i

"bj" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Why? Why do you think you need to decrease the %?

So I can look more fit.

Quoted message said:

Is your bodyfat % particularly high?

I suppose it is all relative, but I am about 20% right now. I used to be under 10 when I was in my
ealry 20's and I am making every effort to get back to that condition.

Quoted message said:

Do you know what it is -- and if so, how was it measured?

It is the amount of bodyfat on your body divided by the total mass. It is measured in many different
ways with just about al of them having some degree of error, but I get measured at my gym. It
consists of using a caliper (I think that is what it is callled) and the measure how much skin/fat
they can pinch off your pec, your abs, and your thighs. It is a little different for woman. Then,
those measurements and your body weight are plugged into some formula which I cnanot explain.

Quoted message said:

What is your goal %, and why is it set at that?

My goal is to get to less than 10% which is what I was at in my early 20s. It is set at that because
at that point I looked very fit and that is the percentage I need to get my abs to really show up.
It is all about vanity, but if it was not, I would not be at the gym at all.

Quoted message said:

bj

Marcello:

Quoted message said:

I suppose it is all relative, but I am about 20% right now. I used to be under 10 when I was in my
ealry 20's and I am making every effort to get back to that condition.

I got down to 6% this past summer by doing lots of aerobics (I bike (like 3 hours a day)) and eating
a high protein diet. very little muscle loss. Oh, and I'm 40 y/o.

As has been pointed out, it's both diet and exercise. It's also commitment and discipline. Things
like pedometers, food diaries, (and wearable computers) provide information to help achieve your
goals, but in the end, it's really up to you.

--
Scott pink-triangle.orgscottOpen ↗ AOL IM: CorwinScot YahooIM: CycleMuscle

"Stand firm for what you believe in until or unless logic or experience prove you wrong.
Remember, when the emperor looks naked the emperor is naked. The truth and a lie are not sort of
the same thing. And there's no aspect, no facet, no moment of life that can't be improved with
pizza." -- Daria