It is a lot but it's worth it. If you walk past the 30-minute mark is when it shows its value. In the past, you had to walk all the time so it was easier to burn off what you ate.
~~~MMSex's Comprehensive Guide to Cutting for Beginners/Overweight/Obese~~~
- Thread starter MMS
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cutting diet health overweight
I walk 3-4 hours a day. Despite all of that I rarely burn more than 3000 calories a day. These fitbits grossly overestimate caloric burn from walking. I walked 3 hours today and the thing said I burned 1400 calories....everyone knows 3 hours of walking at my weight and height burns roughly 900.
Diet is still the way to go if you’re on a cut. The walking just allows your calorie consumption floor to be a little higher.
As more information comes out it would appear that fat wasn't so bad after all
One thing that may not be clear from some of my posts is what to do for cardio etc
In truth for fatloss, you do not need HIIT to attain it. If anything HIIT just makes recovering from weight training even worse with a marginal effect on fat loss.
On the other hand, LISS (Low-Intensity Steady State) works hand in hand with fasted weight training. I got the idea originally from @Spliff but LONG WALKS BURN FAT.
If you give yourself a solid 2-3 hour walk every day you'd be surprised how it starts leaning you out in conjunction with diet and weight training.
HIIT for 30 minutes will burn maybe 250 calories max. 300-350 if you’re a large person. Walking 2-3 hours and you’re looking at 600-1000+ calories burned. This is why the fat loss is much easier.
HIIT is great for training your VO2 Max for specific sports and athletic performance. definitely not an efficient fat loss method unless you’re doing it for several hours (sheer madness)
900 hundred from walking? Unpossible
If that were remotely close then dieting would incredibly easy. The math on that doesn’t even make sense.
Last edited:
Walking 3 hours at 3 mph at 180 pounds will burn roughly 900 calories. Again, not talking net burn here. You’re already burning 80-100 calories per hour from resting or doing nothing. The net burn is around 200. And 3 mph is not exactly nothing if you have a shorter stride length. 3.5 mph is universally considered brisk walking.
I don’t doubt the benefits and work rate but 900 cals per walk isn’t a real number. Let’s be reality
Last edited:
walking is no joke when done with weight training but 900 calories is high, probably closer to 300-500 even at 3 hours.
Pace makes a difference but IMO the benefit is getting good calorie burns without tearing up your body after weight lifting. The main thing is when it all becomes habitual and youll be well on your way.
Pace makes a difference but IMO the benefit is getting good calorie burns without tearing up your body after weight lifting. The main thing is when it all becomes habitual and youll be well on your way.
Are you illiterate? I just said it’s not 900 net calories.
You didn’t say that until you were called on it. Your originally post said 900.
So much stupidity to call out here.
When discussing any activity, the only useful metric is how many total calories are burned for the duration of that activity, this is generally understood. Unfortunately for our short bus members this had to be further specified as “net burn over doing nothing” (aka simpletons such as yourself)
“Your original” not “you originally”. You need to work on your reading, spelling, grammar, context awareness, and quantitative abilities.
No need to get aggy man it clearly read as if you meant 900 solely based on walking. I’ve never seen anyone claim an exercise or movement used X amount of cals that include standard burning for living as part of the metric.
All the short bus stuff and talking about grammar is whatever. It’s a message board and I’m on a phone not worried about being a copywriter but carry on if that make you feel better. That’s the easy deflection to play.
Sounds like you’re playing dumb to get sympathy. If you did nothing for 3 hours you would burn 250-300 calories in the same timeframe. I’m sorry math is so difficult for you.
Not at all and again if the insults are your only parry it’s telling. It was discussed even the OP was in agreement with how it was clarified. We can have the discussion without the little insults about intelligence especially when your intelligence wasn’t questioned. If we don’t agree on how those metrics are usually presented so be it but this need to push insults about my intelligence is weak.
Last edited: