[TornadoSiren]

I have a mostly academic question to pose, and would like to hear your thoughts on it.

I am VERY short. At 4'10, I wont hit a "normal" bmi until I reach 119 pounds. Allow me to glare briefly at you ladies with normal BMIs in the 140s and 150s. Jealousy is an ugly monster! Anyway, walking is my normal form of exercise. I love walking, and am currently up to 6.5 miles per day. I intend to add in jogging after another 10 or 15 pound loss. Currently, it is still a bit too rough on me. At my height, needless to say, my legs are very short, and consequently, my strides are also very short. All my life I have compensated for my short stride by taking fast steps. When I watch people walking near me, I can see that I take at least 30 percent more steps than those around me. Now, bear in mind, I am losing my weight nicely, feeling healthier, and its not REALLY important, but it has become something I would like at least a sort of definitive answer on. All the charts, all of the "how many calories burned " pages, use distance walked and MPH to determine the burn rate.

Here is my question..if one of you tall ladies, with a weight equal to my own, was walking with me, both of us keeping the same pace, and me taking 3 steps to each 2 of yours, am I burning more calories than you, because I have to expend more energy, stepwise, than you do? If I were say 5'2 or 5'3" I think the difference would be pretty negligible, but I am not just "normal" short, ya know? For me to walk 4mph requires WAY more steps than your "average" sized person. The average mile is 2000 steps, but if I go 2000 steps, I have not even close to one mile. So if I am walking at 3.5 miles per hour, am I really burning the calories of , say, a 4MPH walk? This was really rambling and maybe confusing, but I hope I explained well enough that the question is clear.

On a secondary note..any of you other short ladies have a recommendation on a recumbent bike that I can fit comfortably on? I am afraid to buy one not knowing if it will adjust to my shortness.

[bargoo]

Well., compared to you at a height of 5 feet I am tall ! Yes, I do find your post rambling and confusing. I see no point in it, you walk the best way you can, taking any length stride that is comfortable to you and don't worry about what those long legged girls are doing.

[greenfishgirl]

I don't think you were confusing at all - its a great question!

I would say you are definately burning more calories per mile than a taller person. All of the calorie calculators/charts/etc. are very generalized. You have to incorporate figures like heart rate, resting heart rate, body weight, fat percentage, and bmi.

[TornadoSiren]

Well, as I said, it is more of an academic question at this point than a practical one. I suppose it comes down to one thing. Which is really the determining factor: distance walked, or number of steps taken?

[bargoo]

I would vote for distance walked. I have seen articles that state it isn't how fast you walk but how far you walk that is important.

[newleaf123]

Your question makes total sense. I would think that if you and I were walking side by side, you would of course be burning more calories than me just to keep up! It sounds like, to keep up, you would be getting a better cardio workout than me. Yay, you!

[caryesings]

It would seem to me that because you're taking more steps that you'd be using more energy, but...

I've seen articles indicating you burn more calories the faster you walk and when I walk faster I have a longer stride so I take less steps at the faster rate.

Personally I track my walking by time rather than distance.