Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ok - in the run vs walk vein, I have a question. I like to do both / either depending on the weather, my mood, how my body's feeling, what workout I did the day before, etc.
So on Tuesday I did a 4.7 mi HIIT run (44 min / 9:21 avg pace including walking cool down at the end). Fitbit said 6,880 steps and 430 calories. 138 avg bpm
Today I did a 4.4 mi brisk walk (1:07 min / 15:30 avg pace). Fitbit said 8,012 steps and 495 calories. 115 avg bpm
What? I have always assumed that Fitbit's calorie burn calculation is some combo of steps taken and heartrate right? Yet my shorter distance (longer time) walk burned 15% more calories?
What am I missing?
You are missing the fact that devices that calculate calorie burn through exercise are HIGHLY inaccurate.
You should never rely on then to figure out energy balance. That is "my fit bit said I burned 600 calories during my run guess I can eat an extra 600 calories"
Oh totally. I learned that lesson early on. But after 3+ years of workouts with my Fitbit (and really really consistent 6-7 day a week exercise over the last year), I have a good feel for comparisons between types of workouts and intensity and what Fitbit will say. This one just seemed noticeably odd.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ok - in the run vs walk vein, I have a question. I like to do both / either depending on the weather, my mood, how my body's feeling, what workout I did the day before, etc.
So on Tuesday I did a 4.7 mi HIIT run (44 min / 9:21 avg pace including walking cool down at the end). Fitbit said 6,880 steps and 430 calories. 138 avg bpm
Today I did a 4.4 mi brisk walk (1:07 min / 15:30 avg pace). Fitbit said 8,012 steps and 495 calories. 115 avg bpm
What? I have always assumed that Fitbit's calorie burn calculation is some combo of steps taken and heartrate right? Yet my shorter distance (longer time) walk burned 15% more calories?
What am I missing?
You are missing the fact that devices that calculate calorie burn through exercise are HIGHLY inaccurate.
You should never rely on then to figure out energy balance. That is "my fit bit said I burned 600 calories during my run guess I can eat an extra 600 calories"
Anonymous wrote:Ok - in the run vs walk vein, I have a question. I like to do both / either depending on the weather, my mood, how my body's feeling, what workout I did the day before, etc.
So on Tuesday I did a 4.7 mi HIIT run (44 min / 9:21 avg pace including walking cool down at the end). Fitbit said 6,880 steps and 430 calories. 138 avg bpm
Today I did a 4.4 mi brisk walk (1:07 min / 15:30 avg pace). Fitbit said 8,012 steps and 495 calories. 115 avg bpm
What? I have always assumed that Fitbit's calorie burn calculation is some combo of steps taken and heartrate right? Yet my shorter distance (longer time) walk burned 15% more calories?
What am I missing?
Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the thread. Looking to get back into running.
Live the run/sprint tip to music!! Please share song ideas for that trick?
Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the thread. Looking to get back into running.
Live the run/sprint tip to music!! Please share song ideas for that trick?
Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the thread. Looking to get back into running.
Live the run/sprint tip to music!! Please share song ideas for that trick?
Anonymous wrote:running is great, I love it for the health benefits, but weight is easier to control with the diet.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly, the cals burned running vs walking just doesn't justify running for me.
The main thing is that running can raise cortisol levels. Cortisol directly affects fat storage and weight gain. It might throw off your appetite too.
I prefer to walk briskly.
Yeah, running totally makes you store fat. I see so many overweight runners in the trails storing their fat![]()
You actually do see a lot of tubby runners. Not as many as the bikers, but more than a few. Cardio makes anyone more hungry and you really have to watch calories.
Am I the only one for whom running makes me less hungry? I never feel like eating anything for several hours after a run. My body’s just like “nah, I’m good”.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly, the cals burned running vs walking just doesn't justify running for me.
The main thing is that running can raise cortisol levels. Cortisol directly affects fat storage and weight gain. It might throw off your appetite too.
I prefer to walk briskly.
Yeah, running totally makes you store fat. I see so many overweight runners in the trails storing their fat![]()
You actually do see a lot of tubby runners. Not as many as the bikers, but more than a few. Cardio makes anyone more hungry and you really have to watch calories.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly, the cals burned running vs walking just doesn't justify running for me.
The main thing is that running can raise cortisol levels. Cortisol directly affects fat storage and weight gain. It might throw off your appetite too.
I prefer to walk briskly.
Running burns nearly double the amount of calories. I still haven’t found another exercise that elevate my heart rate as running does.
I'm not big. I burn 80 vs 60 cals per mile. The wear on my joints is just really not worth that 20-calorie difference. It was an injury that made me realize I could still stay fit without running.
I know plenty of people with joint problems--& people with ample fat storage--who were never runners or exercisers. Injuries can certainly happen, but I don't think that's a good reason for people to give up an exercise that's generally associated with good joint health, weight maintenance, & overall physical wellbeing. Honestly, you're more probably more likely to get injured if you don't make intensive physical exercise part of your regular regimen.
Where did PP say they were giving up on exercise you dolt? A regimen of strength training combined with walking would bury simply running for both someone's health and looks so badly it's not even funny. But keeping loping along if you want to.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly, the cals burned running vs walking just doesn't justify running for me.
The main thing is that running can raise cortisol levels. Cortisol directly affects fat storage and weight gain. It might throw off your appetite too.
I prefer to walk briskly.
Running burns nearly double the amount of calories. I still haven’t found another exercise that elevate my heart rate as running does.
I'm not big. I burn 80 vs 60 cals per mile. The wear on my joints is just really not worth that 20-calorie difference. It was an injury that made me realize I could still stay fit without running.
I know plenty of people with joint problems--& people with ample fat storage--who were never runners or exercisers. Injuries can certainly happen, but I don't think that's a good reason for people to give up an exercise that's generally associated with good joint health, weight maintenance, & overall physical wellbeing. Honestly, you're more probably more likely to get injured if you don't make intensive physical exercise part of your regular regimen.