20 miles a day walking? i need some numbers please help if you really know the math.

[CarlosEverest]

hey guys i need some very accurate answers, ok i am 5.8 weight 196, my muscle mass is good but not great i am guessing that my fat % is at 19-22, if i get down to 170-175 i would be perfect for my height-muscle ratio, so this is the deal i am planing to walk 20 miles a day, at a brisk pace, not slow but not super fast like those people who march the marathons at the Olympics,(forgot the name) , how many calories will i lose per mile? its on a flat terrain, i will drink plenty of water and yes even a meal/meals cause that will probably take me several hours to complete?

extra info: i normally work out 4-5 times a week but i am doing this cause i need to burn many calories with out killing my self and because i have alot of free time.

ty!!

 

[biggestloser105]

hey guys i need some very accurate answers, ok i am 5.8 weight 196, my muscle mass is good but not great i am guessing that my fat % is at 19-22, if i get down to 170-175 i would be perfect for my height-muscle ratio, so this is the deal i am planing to walk 20 miles a day, at a brisk pace, not slow but not super fast like those people who march the marathons at the Olympics,(forgot the name) , how many calories will i lose per mile? its on a flat terrain, i will drink plenty of water and yes even a meal/meals cause that will probably take me several hours to complete?

extra info: i normally work out 4-5 times a week but i am doing this cause i need to burn many calories with out killing my self and because i have alot of free time.

ty!!

According to that you'd burn 2851 calories per 20 miles, (at 5 miles per hour speed, which is fast). 4 hours walking.

And 1782 calories per 20 miles walking at an average speed of 3 miles per hour. About 7 hours walking.


I'll warn you though, if you walk that long you risk injuring yourself. I started walking for 2 hours a day at 220 pounds and I hurt the arch of my foot which has been hurting for a month now.

 

[summer123]

Your seriously going to spend 7 hours a day walking? and then doing extra exercise?

If this is soley to lose weight, please don't waste your time, exercise helps, but only to a degree, you cannot off-set eating with exercise, your body only responds to a finate amount, its food that makes all the difference. Eat properly, don't go too long without food and drink plenty of water will help you to lose weight way more then exercise does.

 

[NedoCTB]

Seems a bit extensive. It's easier to lose weight by cutting out calories, lol.

 

[melmelvin]

Eat less. Shoot for an hour a day of walking and do some body weight exercises.(push-ups and sit-ups, etc.) Good luck!

 

[sharoo]

According to that you'd burn 2851 calories per 20 miles, (at 5 miles per hour speed, which is fast). 4 hours walking.

And 1782 calories per 20 miles walking at an average speed of 3 miles per hour. About 7 hours walking.

There is something wrong with that calculator. It takes the same number of calories to walk a mile no matter what speed you walk at.

 

[Jynus]

There is something wrong with that calculator. It takes the same number of calories to walk a mile no matter what speed you walk at.

false... the higher energy systems of the body used during higher intensity exercise will overall burn more calories per distance traveled..

 

[EagleRiverDee]

Back in the day, when I was actually in shape, I did a 21 mile hike. My feet hurt for days. I can't imagine trying to do that daily.

My doc used to tell me, "You lose weight with diet, not with exercise." My recent experience is that this is true. Diet makes a much greater impact on my weight than does my exercise level.

My suggestion is to adjust your diet and then augment that with exercise.

 

[biggestloser105]

There is something wrong with that calculator. It takes the same number of calories to walk a mile no matter what speed you walk at.

We're not perfectly efficient. Even cars get different mileage depending on how fast you go. Using more calories just means that we're less efficient at using energy when we walk faster.

 

[sharoo]

We're not perfectly efficient. Even cars get different mileage depending on how fast you go. Using more calories just means that we're less efficient at using energy when we walk faster.

I did some googling after I made that comment, and found some interesting articles. According to the best information I could find:

1) Running a mile uses noticeably more calories than walking a mile because runners are actually leaping from foot to foot, adding an altitude component to the amount of work it takes to simply move a load from point A to point B.

2) Walking very very fast (5 mph or more) uses more calories because it's not exactly walking any more at that speed - it's race-walking or some other hybrid form of locomotion. One source said the extra calories are used swinging the arms vigorously, another attributed it to the inefficiency of forcing the limbs to move faster than they were really designed to move while walking (more or less what you said). Probably that hip-twisting motion that racewalkers use.

3) Walking super slow (2 mph or less) also burns slightly more calories per mile because of the inefficient use of muscles - it's kind of like stopping and starting repeatedly.

4) However, the only article i found that gave measurable data found that walking speeds in the range that most people actually walk (3-4.5 mph) are pretty much equivalent. Now that I know the principle, I'll bet it varies a little from person to person. But within the range of normal comfortable walking speeds, walking a mile is pretty much walking a mile. I still think that there's something wrong with a calculator that shows a significant difference between walking at 3.0 and 4.0 mph. I wonder if they're basing their calculations on a set of data from a very small number of participants, so the numbers end up biased towards the most comfortable walking speed for the particular people they tested.

None of which has anything to do with the original poster's question, but it's kind of interesting.

 

[biggestloser105]

I still think that there's something wrong with a calculator that shows a significant difference between walking at 3.0 and 4.0 mph. I wonder if they're basing their calculations on a set of data from a very small number of participants, so the numbers end up biased towards the most comfortable walking speed for the particular people they tested.

It was the difference between 3 and 5 mph. 5mph is already jogging speed. I tried walking at different speeds, and if I am walking a leisurely stroll I don't sweat or overheat and feel relaxed. If I am walking at my maximum speed I am breathing heavily and have sweat pouring off me. Just the energy needed to make the sweat and cool the body down would make a difference, including the energy lost to heat.

 

[ForRealThisTime]

20 miles a day is totally unrealistic in my opinion. I do 5 miles most nights and hike at weekends and would consider myself reasonably fit. When walking in the evening I usually do 4mph. I could probably sustain this for 2 or 3 hours but after that I doubt I would be at the same pace.

It has taken me about 6 months of walking and hiking to develop the hard skin my feet need to endure long walks repeatedly. I can pretty much say for sure if you try do 2 X 20 mile sessions back to back without building up to it your feet will be in shreds.

Walking is dependent on some many variables that it is impossible to say with any accuracy how many calories you will burn so I just take 110 per mile as a very rough guide.

Maybe you are an experienced hiker or long distance walker/runner but if you are not I would reassess your plan and start off with 5 to 10 miles and see how you feel after a few days of that.

 

[Virtus1]

hey guys i need some very accurate answers, ok i am 5.8 weight 196, my muscle mass is good but not great i am guessing that my fat % is at 19-22, if i get down to 170-175 i would be perfect for my height-muscle ratio, so this is the deal i am planing to walk 20 miles a day, at a brisk pace, not slow but not super fast like those people who march the marathons at the Olympics,(forgot the name) , how many calories will i lose per mile? its on a flat terrain, i will drink plenty of water and yes even a meal/meals cause that will probably take me several hours to complete?

extra info: i normally work out 4-5 times a week but i am doing this cause i need to burn many calories with out killing my self and because i have alot of free time.

ty!!

So? You need to lose 20lbs, have tons of free time, and the best you can come up with is "walk 20 miles a day"?

Really?

Go for a freakin run then do some volunteer work or something.

 

[ChefChiTown]

20 miles a day is totally unrealistic in my opinion.

Yeah dude, extreeeeemely unrealistic.

For anybody to think that they can walk 20 miles every day (or even 3-5 times a week) is absolutely fantastical. I get on the treadmill at least 4-5 times a week and walk at a speed of 3.2 MPH (on an incline). And, that's not a slow walk for me - I'm short, so it's a decent pace. If I were to walk 20 miles every day, I'd have to walk for nearly 7 HOURS...EVERY DAY. That's literally a work day. Nobody...NOBODY has that kind of time (realistically).

 

[summer123]

Yeah dude, extreeeeemely unrealistic.

For anybody to think that they can walk 20 miles every day (or even 3-5 times a week) is absolutely fantastical. I get on the treadmill at least 4-5 times a week and walk at a speed of 3.2 MPH (on an incline). And, that's not a slow walk for me - I'm short, so it's a decent pace. If I were to walk 20 miles every day, I'd have to walk for nearly 7 HOURS...EVERY DAY. That's literally a work day. Nobody...NOBODY has that kind of time (realistically).

I don't know...wasn't Forest Gump based on a true story?

 

[sharoo]

Yeah dude, extreeeeemely unrealistic.

For anybody to think that they can walk 20 miles every day (or even 3-5 times a week) is absolutely fantastical. I get on the treadmill at least 4-5 times a week and walk at a speed of 3.2 MPH (on an incline). And, that's not a slow walk for me - I'm short, so it's a decent pace. If I were to walk 20 miles every day, I'd have to walk for nearly 7 HOURS...EVERY DAY. That's literally a work day. Nobody...NOBODY has that kind of time (realistically).

What about that fat guy (400+ pounds) who was trying to walk across the U.S. to lose weight? What ever happened with him, anyway? Last I heard he continued for a few weeks then had some injuries and had to stop - don't know if he got back to it or not. He probably would have done better if he'd started on the east coast instead of the west. Starting out a months-long hike with the Rocky Mountains and Death Valley is really tempting fate. I was impressed that he actually made it across some of the worst terrain before he ran into difficulties. I weigh a lot less than 400 pounds, but I know I wouldn't have lasted that long.

Not that I think any of these plans are particularly "realistic" - but they are not necessarily impossible.

 

[ChefChiTown]

What about that fat guy (400+ pounds) who was trying to walk across the U.S. to lose weight? What ever happened with him, anyway? Last I heard he continued for a few weeks then had some injuries and had to stop - don't know if he got back to it or not. He probably would have done better if he'd started on the east coast instead of the west. Starting out a months-long hike with the Rocky Mountains and Death Valley is really tempting fate. I was impressed that he actually made it across some of the worst terrain before he ran into difficulties. I weigh a lot less than 400 pounds, but I know I wouldn't have lasted that long.

Not that I think any of these plans are particularly "realistic" - but they are not necessarily impossible.

It's not impossible, no. But, it's definitely unrealistic. I mean, it's not impossible for me to get myself to the moon, but it's definitely unrealistic to expect such a thing, you know?