What should I log for a 45 minute walk?
Replies
-
christinev297 wrote: »
The reason I ask is... so far this morning I've walked 4,508 steps for which mfp has given me 121 calories burned.
If I look on my fitbit device it says I've burned 822 calories which is obviously wrong! Which is why I've been believing what mfp has been giving me.
sorry about the mumbled mess^^^ This whole thing has got my head swimming....
Fitbit is telling you the TOTAL number of calories burned up to that point in the day, not just exercise calories (remember, Fitbit bases its info on TDEE). What it tells MFP is only your exercise calories, assuming you have exercised more than what they figure for your activity level.
Did that make sense?
Do you have MFP set to sedentary? I have mine set to lightly active and I get no extra calories until I have walked well over 5k steps.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »
The reason I ask is... so far this morning I've walked 4,508 steps for which mfp has given me 121 calories burned.
If I look on my fitbit device it says I've burned 822 calories which is obviously wrong! Which is why I've been believing what mfp has been giving me.
sorry about the mumbled mess^^^ This whole thing has got my head swimming....
That 822 calories is the total amount of calories your body has burned since midnight (aka your TDEE).
There is a Fitbit group on here that has a lot of good information on how MFP and Fitbit work together.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/1290-fitbit-users0 -
Thanks it takes me all damn day to get there tho!!
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »
I'm walking around 15kms (9 miles) everyday. Those steps sync to mfp which gives me my "supposed" calorie burns....
I think that the mfp numbers can be a bit inflated. I made a post here once about walking calories and checked out a couple of online equations, I think the highest number I got for 10000 steps was around 300 calories for a moderate pace. I usually log about 150 calories per 10000 steps. I'm around 60kg
0 -
I am not in the least disputing that running for an hour will burn more calories than walking for an hour, unless you are talking extremely slow jogging vs extremely fast walking.Lots of quotes about different burns at different speeds and running vs walking
But it absolutely makes a difference at what speed you walk.
2.0 MET household walking, or less than 2.0mph, level ground strolling, very slow.
2.5 MET walking 2.0mph, slow pace firm surface
2.8 MET walking 2.5 mph downhill
3.0 MET walking the dog; 2.5mph, firm surface.
3.3 MET walking 3.0mph, level, moderate pace, firm surface
3.8 MET walking 3.5mph, level, brisk, firm surface (things are getting fast now)
4.0 MET walking to work or class
5.0 MET walking 4.0 mph, level, firm surface
5.0 MET walking grass track
6.0 MET walking 3.5 mph uphill
6.3 MET walking 4.5 mph, level firm surface
7.0 MET jogging, general
8.0 MET running, 5 mph (12 min/mile)
10.0 MET running, 6 mph (10 min/mile)
http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/MetsCaloriesCalculator/MetsCaloriesCalculator.htm
And don't forget to deduct 1 MET because... you do burn 1 MET just for being alive :-)
If you are way more into all this than even I am and if you are a "bigger" guy, you may be interest in further correcting MET values: https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/corrected-mets
Current government recommendations include achieving at least 500 to 1000 MET minutes a week.
MET activities between 3.0 and 5.9 qualify as "moderate". "vigorous" intensity activities are at MET 6.0 and above.
0 -
Fitbit is telling you the TOTAL number of calories burned up to that point in the day, not just exercise calories (remember, Fitbit bases its info on TDEE). What it tells MFP is only your exercise calories, assuming you have exercised more than what they figure for your activity level.
Did that make sense?
Do you have MFP set to sedentary? I have mine set to lightly active and I get no extra calories until I have walked well over 5k steps.
yes makes perfect sense. Thanks guys
@jkal1979 I've just joined that fitbit group. Haven't had a proper chance to check it out.
0 -
They are not negligible. Trust your Fitbit? Trust but verify against your actual weight loss. I suspect that the Fitbit adjustment is not 100% correct for me; but probably closer to 90%. But that will very by individual.Well, still wondering if walking calories are as negligible or not. I've been trusting my Fitbit to give me a decent estimate of my TDEE, maybe I shouldn't.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »
The reason I ask is... so far this morning I've walked 4,508 steps for which mfp has given me 121 calories burned.
If I look on my fitbit device it says I've burned 822 calories which is obviously wrong! Which is why I've been believing what mfp has been giving me.
sorry about the mumbled mess^^^ This whole thing has got my head swimming....
I believe Fitbit is giving you calories for everything you have done in the morning, not just the walking. That is what it is designed to do.0 -
I believe Fitbit is giving you calories for everything you have done in the morning, not just the walking. That is what it is designed to do.
Sorry, I was behind. Looks like it was covered above.
0 -
That's right. Because walking is a slow burn exercise, it *isn't* necessary to eat them back because the body can support the effort largely through fat oxidation, and the effort level isn't high enough to trigger meaningful amounts of muscle repair.
That isn't even remotely the same thing as saying walking is "useless".
You're conflating all kinds of things here. A 150 pound person walking 5 miles is burning just over 200 calories - if you *want* to eat those back, go for it, but your body doesn't *need* to eat those back. You can walk that 5 miles a day indefinitely, without eating any of it back, and without starting to strip away lean body mass.
Running the same number of calories is different because that energy has to come from parts of your body that *need* to be replenished if you're going to keep doing the activity.
I never said DO or DO NOT - I said there was no compelling reason, as there is for running or other higher-intensity exercise. The choice is yours.
But don't the bolded statements depend on how much stored body fat the individual has and how large a deficit they've built into their calorie goal? You can't just state it as a categorical truth in all circumstances.0 -
mwebster11 wrote: »
I don't know about anyone else. But this thread has helped me a lot. In between all of the confusion I have gained some knowledge too
0 -
They are not negligible. Trust your Fitbit? Trust but verify against your actual weight loss. I suspect that the Fitbit adjustment is not 100% correct for me; but probably closer to 90%. But that will very by individual.
I have been calculating my TDEE because I am thinking of switching to that from NEAT. Based on 12 days of logging, plus 3500 calories for each pound I have lost in the 12 days, my TDEE is about 2850. Fitbit is giving me a TDEE about 2750 when averaged out so they are pretty close. I am actually going to use 30 days of info when I actually switch.
0 -
Both you and Christine look pretty trim, so I wonder where those big calorie burns are coming from.
Holy crap! An NSV moment? 5'8" 196lbs and looking "trim"?!?! I see where Christine looks trim! Me? I'm just happy as a clam to have recently dipped into "overweight"!
My average "daily steps" since I joined MFP are north of 18,500 and my TDEE is north of 3,100.
As a result I've now set myself as "active" on MFP even though my job is extremely sedentary. This puts me at about 2,800 and allows me to plan meals a little bit better.
Then, if I am meeting my "activity" targets for the day I get an adjustment from Fitbit based on the total number of steps.
While I used to take 100% of that adjustment (and it would fully correspond to my weight changes), I've noticed lately that there is a discrepancy, so I am now experimenting with only taking 90% of the adjustment.
This change in behavior correlates with Fitbit giving me approximately 300 more calories per day for the same amount of steps and it started about a month ago.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »
Angel what kind of physical changes have you seen?
I've only been walking seriously for the last couple of weeks. I'm shiny and new and still excited by the whole walking as exercise thing :bigsmile: oh at first it was weird bc I wasnt losing anything but my clothes got loose but I didn't lose any inches either. The I noticed my legs were not spreading when I sat down and they firmed up. Then I started to notice muscles form and tone. Then my sides started getting that line where your abs are up into my bra area. My 2nd back roll started diminishing. But I do lots of miles I started with a half mile then mile then 3 then 4 then 6, 8 , 10 and my furthest 13 miles! I walk or try to daily a set amount like my current which is 5 then do 1 long walk which is 10 or more miles 1 x a week. I am prepping to do a long march which will be 50 miles! That was my motivation to start walking! I can now walk 4 miles in a hour if I walk fast but I try to have a slower pace to avoid injury. Also I have built up alot of knee stability ankle stability and the muscle above my knee. And my calves are "burly" as my husband commented to day! But ive always had big calves.
0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
But don't the bolded statements depend on how much stored body fat the individual has and how large a deficit they've built into their calorie goal? You can't just state it as a categorical truth in all circumstances.
This is what I want to know too. My understand (which could be wrong) is that your body can only burn a certain amount of fat per day. Therefore if you create a deficit bigger than that, your body will start chomping on muscle. You could be doing no exercise and your body will burn muscle if your deficit is too big. That's why guidelines for sensible deficit amounts exist. Ergo, if your 5 mile walk puts you at a deficit that would result in more muscle being burned than is desirable, it is sensible to eat some of those calories back.0 -
I am certainly guesstimating, so please don't take it that I "know" the formula. Observation is your best guide and there are so many sources of error in calorie counting that simultaneous errors often cancel each other. So. If you are losing as expected, certainly you shouldn't change anything. If you are losing faster than expected and getting 10,000 steps in, I would consider either logging some of your walking as exercise, or alternatively, I would consider whether I should change my MFP setting from "sedentary" to "active" to account for the fact that 10,000 steps does not correspond to being "sedentary".I did not know the 'formula' for setting activity levels. Great breakdown, thanks. Since using my FitBit I'm getting my 10,000 steps but not counting them towards my exercise logging. So, by your using your method I should log my walking after reaching that number.
0 -
That's right. Because walking is a slow burn exercise, it *isn't* necessary to eat them back because the body can support the effort largely through fat oxidation, and the effort level isn't high enough to trigger meaningful amounts of muscle repair. That isn't even remotely the same thing as saying walking is "useless".
...
if you *want* to eat those back, go for it, but your body doesn't *need* to eat those back. You can walk that 5 miles a day indefinitely, without eating any of it back, and without starting to strip away lean body mass.
Regardless of available fat mass and size of caloric deficit?0 -
Sounds like a good plan. There are (at least) two sources of error, the TDEE side and the MFP logging side--either could cause an "imbalance". I also use weightgrapher and trendweight (data automatically sucked in from Fitbit) to "smooth out" day to day weight variations.I have been calculating my TDEE because I am thinking of switching to that from NEAT. Based on 12 days of logging, plus 3500 calories for each pound I have lost in the 12 days, my TDEE is about 2850. Fitbit is giving me a TDEE about 2750 when averaged out so they are pretty close. I am actually going to use 30 days of info when I actually switch.
0 -
Holy crap! An NSV moment? 5'8" 196lbs and looking "trim"?!?! I see where Christine looks trim! Me? I'm just happy as a clam to have recently dipped into "overweight"!
My average "daily steps" since I joined MFP are north of 18,500 and my TDEE is north of 3,100.
As a result I've now set myself as "active" on MFP even though my job is extremely sedentary. This puts me at about 2,800 and allows me to plan meals a little bit better.
Then, if I am meeting my "activity" targets for the day I get an adjustment from Fitbit based on the total number of steps.
While I used to take 100% of that adjustment (and it would fully correspond to my weight changes), I've noticed lately that there is a discrepancy, so I am now experimenting with only taking 90% of the adjustment.
This change in behavior correlates with Fitbit giving me approximately 300 more calories per day for the same amount of steps and it started about a month ago.
Would've never guessed it (see bold)
Good discussion you started, and keep up all your good work.
0 -
I have been calculating my TDEE because I am thinking of switching to that from NEAT. Based on 12 days of logging, plus 3500 calories for each pound I have lost in the 12 days, my TDEE is about 2850. Fitbit is giving me a TDEE about 2750 when averaged out so they are pretty close. I am actually going to use 30 days of info when I actually switch.
Fitbit was right on for me when I switched to TDEE (and based on it's estimate of my burn vs. calories--the past month's average deficit was precisely what I'd lost).
Not having to mess with estimating exercise calories was a perk about switching, though.0 -
edited: nvm i was late to the reply show lol
0 -
I count it if I go for walk .. not for walking to the car haha.0
-
I haven't read the whole thread, but I lost most of my weight just walking 3-5 miles a day (plus a bit of weight lifting), and using the 'moderately active' setting on Scooby.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Fitbit was right on for me when I switched to TDEE (and based on it's estimate of my burn vs. calories--the past month's average deficit was precisely what I'd lost).
Not having to mess with estimating exercise calories was a perk about switching, though.
I am thinking of doing it partially because it is what I will do in maintenance but mostly because I feel like Goldilocks: too much food on pool days, not enough food on rest days, and walking only days are just right.
0 -
Sounds like a good plan. There are (at least) two sources of error, the TDEE side and the MFP logging side--either could cause an "imbalance". I also use weightgrapher and trendweight (data automatically sucked in from Fitbit) to "smooth out" day to day weight variations.
This is why I am using 30 days and I have always been very diligent with my logging so I believe I am as accurate as is humanly possible (which is what I credit my success to). The only thing I eyeball is leafy greens and the only things I don't log are seasonings or small servings of lower calorie condiments I use like mustard or Worcestershire (I log ketchup, don't use mayo but would log it if I did. I even measure the half and half that goes in my morning coffee).
I also use Trendweight.
0 -
I am thinking of doing it partially because it is what I will do in maintenance but mostly because I feel like Goldilocks: too much food on pool days, not enough food on rest days, and walking only days are just right.
That's exactly why I changed, except running, not pool.
I'm trying a modified eat back calories again--giving it until the end of April to be fair, started at the beginning of March--but I'm already looking forward to going back to more consistent days.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
That's exactly why I changed, except running, not pool.
I'm trying a modified eat back calories again--giving it until the end of April to be fair, started at the beginning of March--but I'm already looking forward to going back to more consistent days.
I hate up and down days too. I have been trying to eat based on my burn for the day but days like today when it's pouring down rain and I can't walk, I really don't want to eat 1200.
0 -
As a motivator juxtaposing the earning of extra calories with activity and exercise was a very good kick in the pants, at least for me.
I can vaguely recall days where I thought that an hour's dog walk was exercise and it represented 99% of my steps for the day!
After a few months I suspect that most people for whom the "extra" calories amount to an appreciable % of their TDEE end up either going the full tdee route, or to some form of custom "modified tdee". I.e. assume that a base level of activity or exercise will take place regardless and add a little bit on top of that when going beyond the base!
But actual record keeping and, depending on your consistency of habits, reviewing the records every so often becomes necessary at that point : - )0 -
I like walking kilometers rather than miles because you get...you know...higher numbers.
haha! 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.8K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions