A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is,
please give it to me in terms I can understand. g

I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a
*quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is
automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add
(miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a
difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill,
which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says
that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at
roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15
miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone
explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two
activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated
speed?

I am sooooooooooo confused! g

Joyce

Well, I'm not sure - do I understand that in both cases, the speed is
4mph?

I do recall reading years ago that walking supposedly burned more
calories than jogging. Walking was considered "less" efficient.

Or in other words, I have no idea!

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:11:15 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is,
please give it to me in terms I can understand. g

I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a
*quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is
automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add
(miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a
difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill,
which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says
that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at
roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15
miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone
explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two
activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated
speed?

I am sooooooooooo confused! g

Joyce

Yup, same speed. The only difference that I have on the treadmill is that I walk
at a steady incline - but that doesn't appear to be factored into their
calculations. Yet regular walking on hills, is ... and it computes to dang near
what the *error* in the program says I have earned on the treadmill. THAT I can
somewhat understand as I would think that constantly walking uphill would burn
more calories than flat walking.

I also remember hearing that walking supposedly burns more calories than running
.... hmmm, will have to check that out. One more reason for me NOT to run. G

Joyce

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:39:17 -0800, Fred wrote:

Well, I'm not sure - do I understand that in both cases, the speed is
4mph?

I do recall reading years ago that walking supposedly burned more
calories than jogging. Walking was considered "less" efficient.

Or in other words, I have no idea!

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:11:15 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is,
please give it to me in terms I can understand. g

I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a
*quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is
automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add
(miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a
difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill,
which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says
that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at
roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15
miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone
explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two
activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated
speed?

I am sooooooooooo confused! g

Joyce

Sorry Joyce, but I can't be of ANY help to you, since I don't even
understand the QUESTION. This reads like the kind word problem in math
that would make my eyes glaze over--if a train heading East from
Chicago travels at a speed of 200 mph and a train heading South from
Minneapolis travels at a speed of 100 mph, which one will arrive in
Seattle last?

Sure hope someone can give you the answer.
Linda P

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:11:15 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is,
please give it to me in terms I can understand. g

I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a
*quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is
automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add
(miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a
difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill,
which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says
that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at
roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15
miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone
explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two
activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated
speed?

I am sooooooooooo confused! g

Joyce

LOL - the train from Rhode Island would arrive in Seattle last. G yup, one of
those questions that probably doesn't have a logical explanation ... other than
Lesanne did discover that it was a program error. Oh well, so I over exagerated
my exercise. G I FEEL like I worked that hard, my legs tell me that I have -
darn incline walking is not easy.

Joyce

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:07:32 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote:

Sorry Joyce, but I can't be of ANY help to you, since I don't even
understand the QUESTION. This reads like the kind word problem in math
that would make my eyes glaze over--if a train heading East from
Chicago travels at a speed of 200 mph and a train heading South from
Minneapolis travels at a speed of 100 mph, which one will arrive in
Seattle last?

Sure hope someone can give you the answer.
Linda P

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:11:15 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is,
please give it to me in terms I can understand. g

I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a
*quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is
automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add
(miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a
difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill,
which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says
that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at
roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15
miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone
explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two
activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated
speed?

I am sooooooooooo confused! g

Joyce

The train from Rhode Island? Gee, no wonder I had such a hard time
with math. I didn't even see that one coming!

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 03:15:55 -0600, Joyce wrote:

LOL - the train from Rhode Island would arrive in Seattle last. G yup, one of
those questions that probably doesn't have a logical explanation ... other than
Lesanne did discover that it was a program error. Oh well, so I over exagerated
my exercise. G I FEEL like I worked that hard, my legs tell me that I have -
darn incline walking is not easy.

Joyce

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:07:32 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote:

Sorry Joyce, but I can't be of ANY help to you, since I don't even
understand the QUESTION. This reads like the kind word problem in math
that would make my eyes glaze over--if a train heading East from
Chicago travels at a speed of 200 mph and a train heading South from
Minneapolis travels at a speed of 100 mph, which one will arrive in
Seattle last?

Sure hope someone can give you the answer.
Linda P

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:11:15 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is,
please give it to me in terms I can understand. g

I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a
*quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is
automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add
(miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a
difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill,
which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says
that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at
roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15
miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone
explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two
activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated
speed?

I am sooooooooooo confused! g

Joyce

Linda P
232/158/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003

One track mind? (gd&r)

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:10:22 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

The train from Rhode Island? Gee, no wonder I had such a hard time
with math. I didn't even see that one coming!

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 03:15:55 -0600, Joyce wrote:

LOL - the train from Rhode Island would arrive in Seattle last. G yup, one of
those questions that probably doesn't have a logical explanation ... other than
Lesanne did discover that it was a program error. Oh well, so I over exagerated
my exercise. G I FEEL like I worked that hard, my legs tell me that I have -
darn incline walking is not easy.

Joyce

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:07:32 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote:

Sorry Joyce, but I can't be of ANY help to you, since I don't even
understand the QUESTION. This reads like the kind word problem in math
that would make my eyes glaze over--if a train heading East from
Chicago travels at a speed of 200 mph and a train heading South from
Minneapolis travels at a speed of 100 mph, which one will arrive in
Seattle last?

Sure hope someone can give you the answer.
Linda P

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:11:15 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is,
please give it to me in terms I can understand. g

I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a
*quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is
automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add
(miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a
difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill,
which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says
that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at
roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15
miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone
explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two
activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated
speed?

I am sooooooooooo confused! g

Joyce

Linda P
232/158/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003

No need to duck or run. My mind's running on three tracks these days:
weight loss, home renovation, and biking. Enough to keep most
personalities occupied with something other than naysaying me.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:29:21 -0800, Fred
wrote:

One track mind? (gd&r)

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:10:22 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

The train from Rhode Island? Gee, no wonder I had such a hard time
with math. I didn't even see that one coming!

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 03:15:55 -0600, Joyce wrote:

LOL - the train from Rhode Island would arrive in Seattle last. G yup, one of
those questions that probably doesn't have a logical explanation ... other than
Lesanne did discover that it was a program error. Oh well, so I over exagerated
my exercise. G I FEEL like I worked that hard, my legs tell me that I have -
darn incline walking is not easy.

Joyce

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:07:32 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote:

Sorry Joyce, but I can't be of ANY help to you, since I don't even
understand the QUESTION. This reads like the kind word problem in math
that would make my eyes glaze over--if a train heading East from
Chicago travels at a speed of 200 mph and a train heading South from
Minneapolis travels at a speed of 100 mph, which one will arrive in
Seattle last?

Sure hope someone can give you the answer.
Linda P

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:11:15 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is,
please give it to me in terms I can understand. g

I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a
*quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is
automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add
(miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a
difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill,
which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says
that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at
roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15
miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone
explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two
activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated
speed?

I am sooooooooooo confused! g

Joyce

Linda P
232/158/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003

Linda P
232/158/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003

what Linda said, Lee
Prairie Roots wrote in message
...
Sorry Joyce, but I can't be of ANY help to you, since I don't even
understand the QUESTION. This reads like the kind word problem in math
that would make my eyes glaze over--if a train heading East from
Chicago travels at a speed of 200 mph and a train heading South from
Minneapolis travels at a speed of 100 mph, which one will arrive in
Seattle last?

Sure hope someone can give you the answer.
Linda P

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:11:15 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there
is,
please give it to me in terms I can understand. g

I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I
think is a
*quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since
this is
automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the
info I add
(miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a
difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the
treadmill,
which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This
program says
that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if
walking at
roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at
4MPH (15
miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can
anyone
explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the
two
activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant,
automated
speed?

I am sooooooooooo confused! g

Joyce

Joyce wrote So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill,
which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program
says
that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if
walking at
roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH
(15
miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can
anyone
explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two
activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant,
automated
speed?

Hi Joyce,
I think it is because the treadmill is a constant speed. Since with a brisk
walk you speed may vary over the distance covered, you might not know your
speed on a walk is increasing or decreasing. What program are you using?
Kristine