Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by tekla | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

tekla

Running a 5k 3x a week is more or less a minimum standard and is roughly 1k calories for a average person.

View on HN

Walking the same amount isn't too far off either. And easier to do for most people, IMO.

Running or walking a set distance burn about the same amount of calories, it's just a matter of how much time it takes.

According to this article walking burns about 30% less, but still closer than I would have expected!

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/qa-can-you-burn-the-same-...

I'd probably wager that with walking you can go up way steeper inclines than you can otherwise comfortably jog. That might change things considerably. According to one study you burn over 30% more calories walking up a 10% incline (about 17% calories much for a 5% incline).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00219...

This is supposedly not true. Walking the same distance expends more calories (on account of using your energy-inefficient machinery for longer to achieve the same external work).

Equally, walking the same amount of time as a run expends less calories because of the greater effort involved in running to generate more external work.

is that true? I feel fine after walking 5k but can barely run 5k without wanting to pass out or sweat up a storm

is that true?

What an odd question. Moving on...

I feel fine running a 5K in 30 minutes. If I cut that down to about 18 minutes, yeah, I sweat up a storm, too. I don't know why it would be unexpected that the faster you go over a set distance, the harder it's going to be.

>> Does walking and running consume the same amount of calories?

> What an odd question.

Normal people would question this assertion, rightly so. Running takes more, unless you're walking at a running speed. Basic thermodynamics.

I know the Apple Watch can be very inaccurate in measuring energy expenditure, but I weigh about 175-180lb and my ~6k runs almost always register at 450-600kcal.

I have a simple gps watch that uses my weight to estimate calories and doesn't measure heart rate. It gives me the same as you, just under 100kcal/km for the same weight. But I'm convinced this is a dramatic overestimation, I run a lot and have for years, and I'd be eating way more if I really burned that much. I think with regular exercise we become extremely efficient and the calorie burn goes way down. I don't know if heart rate accounts for that or not, but overall I'm sceptical about calorie counts.

It definitely depends a lot on metabolic adaption which already varies significantly person to person but I think for beginners just moving from a sedentary lifestyle it's a good estimate for a while (six months to a year is the number I've heard, depending on training intensity).

The last few months I've gone from a sedentary lifestyle to calorie counting and using an Apple Watch to track exercise with an intense 7-10 mile walk/run/hike 5-7x a week. With the weightloss I've experienced it seems relatively accurate (within 20%) but that's with 2-3 hours of exercise (not including weight lifting) per session.

When playing beat saber, I always assumed the Apple Watch over-estimates calorie burn if only because the watch is on the part of your body that's the most mobile (your wrist). So, getting 300kcal for a 30 minute session felt like cheating.

But, there's at least "more legit than an Apple Watch" evidence that the calorie burn is that high; 6-8kcal per minute on Expert difficult [1], and some of the Expert+ tracks could easily burn more than that (and, I weigh much more than their Standard Reference Person).

I'm not the most fit person, but I've seen surprisingly little hard evidence that the Apple Watch grossly under or over-estimates calories burned. I imagine it starts getting worse at the extremes, and nothing is perfect, and everyone is different; its an area where more research would have unbelievably high leverage (Apple has sold, hundreds, of millions, of watches) (in fact: I'm sure they've done some of this research themselves).

[1] http://vrhealth.institute/portfolio/beat-saber/

Not sure where you're getting that number, from but 3 miles for me usually only burns ~500 calories (according to apple watch/strava)

EDIT: I weigh ~215 pounds

It's 1kcal per week and running 3x a week. So your 500 calories is 1.5kcal for the week if you run 3 times.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com