We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Curious what others burn for walking at speeds of 3.5 to 4 + mph
Replies
-
-
Distance: 6 miles
Duration: 00:87:00
Pace: 14:30 / mile
Calories Burned: 635
Calorie Burn Rates:
105.88 / mile
438.1 / hour
7.30/ minute
(For this i used 140lbs and the weight of the runner)0 -
If I calculate using MET formulas, I'd burn ~195 calories for 30 minutes of walking at that pace (or between 1.5 and 2 miles). To be safe I'd record that in my diary as 180 calories, and then only if the rest of my day had been pretty active as well.
Ty, would you think Mfp is close for this. For my 90 minutes total at 4mph it gives 510 (170/2miles)?
I have not found MFP to be anywhere near the results I see using METs to calculate calorie burn, and even that formula isn't perfectly accurate. When I log an hour of walking (I do a 5K every Saturday) MFP gives me almost 400 calories; my formula tells me I burn more like 300 (so that's a significant difference) and I usually log 225-250.
I do stationary cycling most weekdays and that's even worse. MFP tries to give me 375 calories for 30 minutes of stationary cycling; my formula gives me more like 155, and I log 115-125. I know it sucks to hear this, but the calories MFP allots you for exercise are wildly overstated, and on top of that you're likely overestimating the intensity of your exercise. That's not a slam against you -- almost everyone does it.
So mfp gives you almost 400 burn for 3 miles (5 km) and 300 for 3 miles w/ your formula. Also, thank you for your imput. Inspires me to push it!
Not quite, but I can see where it would be unclear. The pace (or really, the MET) I discussed would give a distance range, which is why I originally said "between 1.5 and 2 miles [in 30 minutes]." Walking in that speed range I'd cover something like 1.75 or 1.8 miles in half an hour (or between 3.5 and 3.6 miles in an hour), for which MFP would give me approximately 400 calories. For my 5K, which is 3 miles in a full hour, MFP wants to give me approximately 300. The speed difference seems negligible, but when we're talking time AND speed it adds enough distance that MFP tries to give me another 100 calories.
I'm logging mine from this in the mfp database "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace" and get 85 burnd for 15 min mile. so seems close for the 4 mph.
Here's what I get from mfp for mph walking from 2.5 to 4 mph @ 1 mile for 15 minutes.
Yes, that does appear to be pretty close -- for me. If I entered my walking into MFP and it gave me those numbers, I would be content and not need to use MET formulas. Are you also 5'8" and 230 pounds? If not, it's not accurate for you and you'd be better off using MET formulas or cutting what MFP gives you by some percentage.
That's what others here have been trying to tell you. These estimates vary by person and calculator, so polling us for our results is fairly useless to you. MET formulas, for instance, use not only your exercise intensity but also your weight in kilograms and the time spent to determine a calorie burn, so the fact that your MFP estimates match my body is concerning, don't you think?
this is gtk and I appreciate you telling me this. I'm 150 lbs, 5, 5", 47 y/o, female. Fortunately I only eat 1/2 back or less, but I do the walking for more than calorie burn. This question was for curiosity and inspiration, but really good to know. I'm learning stuff today. Although I still may be coming off as confused, I am thankful for the enlightenment. 0 -
I powerwalk for 1 hour at around 4mph and my calorie burn is around 300.
I'm 5,4', 133lbs and 49 yrs old.0 -
I'd personally use what MFP says, dice it seems reasonable or maybe conservative. That way, you aren't overestimating your burn. I see people burning around 1000 calories in a 45 min cardio session and am often skeptical about the accuracy.0
-
ExRelaySprinter wrote: »I powerwalk for 1 hour at around 4mph and my calorie burn is around 320 (MFP estimate it much higher).
I'm 5,4', 133lbs and 49 yrs old.
I'm 5, 5', 150 and 47/yo and get 340 for 1 hr @ 4mph from mfp "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace". I'm an inch taller and 17 lbs heavier. Only 20 calories difference. I'm wondering if a different database is used for phones as the computers. It may be a silly question, but mfp is giving 85 cal per mile (estimate) @ 4 mph. I choose this in the database "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace for that estimate. Now i'm really curious
0 -
ExRelaySprinter wrote: »I powerwalk for 1 hour at around 4mph and my calorie burn is around 320 (MFP estimate it much higher).
I'm 5,4', 133lbs and 49 yrs old.
I'm 5, 5', 150 and 47/yo and get 340 for 1 hr @ 4mph from mfp "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace". I'm an inch taller and 17 lbs heavier. Only 20 calories difference. I'm wondering if a different database is used for phones as the computers. It may be a silly question, but mfp is giving 85 cal per mile (estimate) @ 4 mph. I choose this in the database "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace for that estimate. Now i'm really curious
0 -
Oops, i'm so sorry...i got it wrong!ExRelaySprinter wrote: »I powerwalk for 1 hour at around 4mph and my calorie burn is around 320 (MFP estimate it much higher).
I'm 5,4', 133lbs and 49 yrs old.
I'm 5, 5', 150 and 47/yo and get 340 for 1 hr @ 4mph from mfp "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace". I'm an inch taller and 17 lbs heavier. Only 20 calories difference. I'm wondering if a different database is used for phones as the computers. It may be a silly question, but mfp is giving 85 cal per mile (estimate) @ 4 mph. I choose this in the database "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace for that estimate. Now i'm really curious
I was entering 5mph in the MFP calculator - 4mph gives me 297 cals.
What a Numpty.
0 -
I really think people get "too into" that number on your pedometer or even the MFP. If your goal is weight loss and you're losing, you are in your game. Don't get hung up on the calorie burn number. They aren't too accurate anyway. A good friend on MPF recommends just using your minutes as your calorie burn. 90 mins = 90 cals. Simple and you're not into any kind of "head game" with numbers that aren't accurate anyway. Works for me.
Great luck to you in achieving your ultimate goal! 0 -
ExRelaySprinter wrote: »
Oops, i'm so sorry...i got it wrong!ExRelaySprinter wrote: »I powerwalk for 1 hour at around 4mph and my calorie burn is around 320 (MFP estimate it much higher).
I'm 5,4', 133lbs and 49 yrs old.
I'm 5, 5', 150 and 47/yo and get 340 for 1 hr @ 4mph from mfp "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace". I'm an inch taller and 17 lbs heavier. Only 20 calories difference. I'm wondering if a different database is used for phones as the computers. It may be a silly question, but mfp is giving 85 cal per mile (estimate) @ 4 mph. I choose this in the database "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace for that estimate. Now i'm really curious
I was entering 5mph in the MFP calculator - 4mph gives me 297 cals.
What a Numpty.
you get 297 burned for 60 @ 4 mph entering from the database (mfp) this ""Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace""
I'm getting 340. Are you using the phone app or your computer? This is curious.
0 -
At 32y/o, and 260, I burn about 400cal/hr at 3.5mph.0
-
ExRelaySprinter wrote: »
Oops, i'm so sorry...i got it wrong!ExRelaySprinter wrote: »I powerwalk for 1 hour at around 4mph and my calorie burn is around 320 (MFP estimate it much higher).
I'm 5,4', 133lbs and 49 yrs old.
I'm 5, 5', 150 and 47/yo and get 340 for 1 hr @ 4mph from mfp "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace". I'm an inch taller and 17 lbs heavier. Only 20 calories difference. I'm wondering if a different database is used for phones as the computers. It may be a silly question, but mfp is giving 85 cal per mile (estimate) @ 4 mph. I choose this in the database "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace for that estimate. Now i'm really curious
I was entering 5mph in the MFP calculator - 4mph gives me 297 cals.
What a Numpty.
you get 297 burned for 60 @ 4 mph entering from the database (mfp) this ""Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace""
I'm getting 340. Are you using the phone app or your computer? This is curious.
On the computer.0 -
ExRelaySprinter wrote: »
Oops, i'm so sorry...i got it wrong!ExRelaySprinter wrote: »I powerwalk for 1 hour at around 4mph and my calorie burn is around 320 (MFP estimate it much higher).
I'm 5,4', 133lbs and 49 yrs old.
I'm 5, 5', 150 and 47/yo and get 340 for 1 hr @ 4mph from mfp "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace". I'm an inch taller and 17 lbs heavier. Only 20 calories difference. I'm wondering if a different database is used for phones as the computers. It may be a silly question, but mfp is giving 85 cal per mile (estimate) @ 4 mph. I choose this in the database "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace for that estimate. Now i'm really curious
I was entering 5mph in the MFP calculator - 4mph gives me 297 cals.
What a Numpty.
you get 297 burned for 60 @ 4 mph entering from the database (mfp) this ""Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace""
I'm getting 340. Are you using the phone app or your computer? This is curious.
or could it be that it estimates with my current weight? In other words, because my cw is 150 @ 5, 5' it gives me a higher burn (i'm still getting that mfp overestimates and I'm accounting for that by not eating all, just curious to how it comes up with different estimates for other users)0 -
It seems like you'd have to be a tiny, tiny person for that to any better than the other numbers. However off MapMyFitness or MFP might be, I'm gonna say I burned more than 58 calories walking 4.5 miles in 58 minutes.Luv2Smile55 wrote: »I really think people get "too into" that number on your pedometer or even the MFP. If your goal is weight loss and you're losing, you are in your game. Don't get hung up on the calorie burn number. They aren't too accurate anyway. A good friend on MPF recommends just using your minutes as your calorie burn. 90 mins = 90 cals. Simple and you're not into any kind of "head game" with numbers that aren't accurate anyway. Works for me. Great luck to you in achieving your ultimate goal!
To the larger point, yeah, it's much better to gauge burn in terms of how it's affecting your real-world results than to worry about what this app or that calculator says about it.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
It seems like you'd have to be a tiny, tiny person for that to any better than the other numbers. However off MapMyFitness or MFP might be, I'm gonna say I burned more than 58 calories walking 4.5 miles in 58 minutes.Luv2Smile55 wrote: »I really think people get "too into" that number on your pedometer or even the MFP. If your goal is weight loss and you're losing, you are in your game. Don't get hung up on the calorie burn number. They aren't too accurate anyway. A good friend on MPF recommends just using your minutes as your calorie burn. 90 mins = 90 cals. Simple and you're not into any kind of "head game" with numbers that aren't accurate anyway. Works for me. Great luck to you in achieving your ultimate goal!
To the larger point, yeah, it's much better to gauge burn in terms of how it's affecting your real-world results than to worry about what this app or that calculator says about it.
I would hope your burning more that 58 cal @ 58 minutes at that rate of walking!
I agree with gauging by my results. I just like having an idea. I am loving what I'm doing and how my body is changing. I don't even go by the scale for success now. I go by what I see in the mirror, how my clothes fit, how I feel...etc. but that being said, I would like to think i'm burning more than 90 calories for 90 minutes 0 -
Luv2Smile55 wrote: »I really think people get "too into" that number on your pedometer or even the MFP. If your goal is weight loss and you're losing, you are in your game. Don't get hung up on the calorie burn number. They aren't too accurate anyway. A good friend on MPF recommends just using your minutes as your calorie burn. 90 mins = 90 cals. Simple and you're not into any kind of "head game" with numbers that aren't accurate anyway. Works for me. Great luck to you in achieving your ultimate goal!
I would end up starving my body and screwing up my LBM is i went by this. I'm already set to sedentary and get 1300 calories. Often I work out up to 3 hours in a day. I love what it does for my "head". It's better than ativan for me thats for sure. But I do need to eat to compensate for the exercise. I may still be eating too little. I'm losing size rapidly and since I have been doing weight lifting (almost a month in now @ 1.5 hours "logged at 1 hr" @ 4x/wk) my weight loss is slower, but my clothes are falling off. So, 90 cal for 90 min @ 4mph could hurt me. Not sure if that's good advice for me, but thank you anyway.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Is this gross or net?euronorris wrote: »At 3.7mph I was burning an average of 130 cals per mile.
At 4.2mph I was burning an average of 137 cals per mile.
At 5.4mph I was burning an average of 156 cals per mile.
This was at the height of my moonwalk training when I was fitter than I am now and weighed about 165lbs.
This was tracked with a Polar HRM and the Endomondo app (for my speeds, times etc).
At 6'9", 231, I burn about 70 calories a mile, net.
At 4.5 mph, MFP says I burn 996 calories an hour (221.3 calories per mile). I am doubtful.
Net. And I'm 5'7".
Over time, as my fitness improved the calorie burn decreased. And some days it was higher because I was also carrying a heavy backpack and/or walking up very steep hills.
Man I hated those hills. The worst was the hill at the end of the actual marathon when my legs were absolutely killing me!
0 -
If I calculate using MET formulas, I'd burn ~195 calories for 30 minutes of walking at that pace (or between 1.5 and 2 miles). To be safe I'd record that in my diary as 180 calories, and then only if the rest of my day had been pretty active as well.
Ty, would you think Mfp is close for this. For my 90 minutes total at 4mph it gives 510 (170/2miles)?
I have not found MFP to be anywhere near the results I see using METs to calculate calorie burn, and even that formula isn't perfectly accurate. When I log an hour of walking (I do a 5K every Saturday) MFP gives me almost 400 calories; my formula tells me I burn more like 300 (so that's a significant difference) and I usually log 225-250.
I do stationary cycling most weekdays and that's even worse. MFP tries to give me 375 calories for 30 minutes of stationary cycling; my formula gives me more like 155, and I log 115-125. I know it sucks to hear this, but the calories MFP allots you for exercise are wildly overstated, and on top of that you're likely overestimating the intensity of your exercise. That's not a slam against you -- almost everyone does it.
So mfp gives you almost 400 burn for 3 miles (5 km) and 300 for 3 miles w/ your formula. Also, thank you for your imput. Inspires me to push it!
Not quite, but I can see where it would be unclear. The pace (or really, the MET) I discussed would give a distance range, which is why I originally said "between 1.5 and 2 miles [in 30 minutes]." Walking in that speed range I'd cover something like 1.75 or 1.8 miles in half an hour (or between 3.5 and 3.6 miles in an hour), for which MFP would give me approximately 400 calories. For my 5K, which is 3 miles in a full hour, MFP wants to give me approximately 300. The speed difference seems negligible, but when we're talking time AND speed it adds enough distance that MFP tries to give me another 100 calories.
I'm logging mine from this in the mfp database "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace" and get 85 burnd for 15 min mile. so seems close for the 4 mph.
Here's what I get from mfp for mph walking from 2.5 to 4 mph @ 1 mile for 15 minutes.
That's not right - if you're putting in the same minutes for each speed, you're not getting numbers for "1 mile", you're getting numbers for four different distances. 15 minutes @ 4mph is 20 minutes @ 3mph.
And using the above numbers, 20min @ 3mph will give 75, which is well within margin of error of the 85 you're getting for 4mph. Similarly, the actual time to do a mile @ 2.5mph scales up to 81 calories, even more practically-the-same as 85.
0 -
euronorris wrote: »Over time, as my fitness improved the calorie burn decreased.
No, it doesn't, fitness level has minimal bearing on calorie burn per mile walking.
If you're using an HRM for walking burns, you're living in a state of mortal sin.
0 -
Calories burned for me will not be the same for you...
Height, weight, age, stride, distance and effort will ALL be different I do have a fitbit charge.. but giving you a number based on a walk I did say yesterday will not help..way too many variables..
Agree...I use a Polar FT7 and it calculates based on my weight, height, age, and heart rate/ level of activity.0 -
If I calculate using MET formulas, I'd burn ~195 calories for 30 minutes of walking at that pace (or between 1.5 and 2 miles). To be safe I'd record that in my diary as 180 calories, and then only if the rest of my day had been pretty active as well.
Ty, would you think Mfp is close for this. For my 90 minutes total at 4mph it gives 510 (170/2miles)?
I have not found MFP to be anywhere near the results I see using METs to calculate calorie burn, and even that formula isn't perfectly accurate. When I log an hour of walking (I do a 5K every Saturday) MFP gives me almost 400 calories; my formula tells me I burn more like 300 (so that's a significant difference) and I usually log 225-250.
I do stationary cycling most weekdays and that's even worse. MFP tries to give me 375 calories for 30 minutes of stationary cycling; my formula gives me more like 155, and I log 115-125. I know it sucks to hear this, but the calories MFP allots you for exercise are wildly overstated, and on top of that you're likely overestimating the intensity of your exercise. That's not a slam against you -- almost everyone does it.
So mfp gives you almost 400 burn for 3 miles (5 km) and 300 for 3 miles w/ your formula. Also, thank you for your imput. Inspires me to push it!
Not quite, but I can see where it would be unclear. The pace (or really, the MET) I discussed would give a distance range, which is why I originally said "between 1.5 and 2 miles [in 30 minutes]." Walking in that speed range I'd cover something like 1.75 or 1.8 miles in half an hour (or between 3.5 and 3.6 miles in an hour), for which MFP would give me approximately 400 calories. For my 5K, which is 3 miles in a full hour, MFP wants to give me approximately 300. The speed difference seems negligible, but when we're talking time AND speed it adds enough distance that MFP tries to give me another 100 calories.
I'm logging mine from this in the mfp database "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace" and get 85 burnd for 15 min mile. so seems close for the 4 mph.
Here's what I get from mfp for mph walking from 2.5 to 4 mph @ 1 mile for 15 minutes.
That's not right - if you're putting in the same minutes for each speed, you're not getting numbers for "1 mile", you're getting numbers for four different distances. 15 minutes @ 4mph is 20 minutes @ 3mph.
And using the above numbers, 20min @ 3mph will give 75, which is well within margin of error of the 85 you're getting for 4mph. Similarly, the actual time to do a mile @ 2.5mph scales up to 81 calories, even more practically-the-same as 85.
Sorry that confused me. I did not log all that for different speeds. I just selected those four and took a screen shot of what mfp gives me. For instance, I did 1/2 my walk today 45 minutes @ 4 mph, 3 miles. Mfp gave me 255 calories burned.0 -
I wonder how you can net more per mile than I do.euronorris wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Is this gross or net?euronorris wrote: »At 3.7mph I was burning an average of 130 cals per mile.
At 4.2mph I was burning an average of 137 cals per mile.
At 5.4mph I was burning an average of 156 cals per mile.
This was at the height of my moonwalk training when I was fitter than I am now and weighed about 165lbs.
This was tracked with a Polar HRM and the Endomondo app (for my speeds, times etc).
At 6'9", 231, I burn about 70 calories a mile, net.
At 4.5 mph, MFP says I burn 996 calories an hour (221.3 calories per mile). I am doubtful.
Net. And I'm 5'7".
Over time, as my fitness improved the calorie burn decreased. And some days it was higher because I was also carrying a heavy backpack and/or walking up very steep hills.
Man I hated those hills. The worst was the hill at the end of the actual marathon when my legs were absolutely killing me!
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I wonder how you can net more per mile than I do.euronorris wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Is this gross or net?euronorris wrote: »At 3.7mph I was burning an average of 130 cals per mile.
At 4.2mph I was burning an average of 137 cals per mile.
At 5.4mph I was burning an average of 156 cals per mile.
This was at the height of my moonwalk training when I was fitter than I am now and weighed about 165lbs.
This was tracked with a Polar HRM and the Endomondo app (for my speeds, times etc).
At 6'9", 231, I burn about 70 calories a mile, net.
At 4.5 mph, MFP says I burn 996 calories an hour (221.3 calories per mile). I am doubtful.
Net. And I'm 5'7".
Over time, as my fitness improved the calorie burn decreased. And some days it was higher because I was also carrying a heavy backpack and/or walking up very steep hills.
Man I hated those hills. The worst was the hill at the end of the actual marathon when my legs were absolutely killing me!
She can't.0 -
goingtobefit2015 wrote: »Calories burned for me will not be the same for you...
Height, weight, age, stride, distance and effort will ALL be different I do have a fitbit charge.. but giving you a number based on a walk I did say yesterday will not help..way too many variables..
Agree...I use a Polar FT7 and it calculates based on my weight, height, age, and heart rate/ level of activity.
I have the same Polar watch,
So i adjust the minutes here on MFP to the amount of calories the watch gave me. And when i walk an hour exactly two days in a row even those total burned amounts are different lol.
So anywhere between 300 and 400 at 3.5mph
0 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »goingtobefit2015 wrote: »Calories burned for me will not be the same for you...
Height, weight, age, stride, distance and effort will ALL be different I do have a fitbit charge.. but giving you a number based on a walk I did say yesterday will not help..way too many variables..
Agree...I use a Polar FT7 and it calculates based on my weight, height, age, and heart rate/ level of activity.
I have the same Polar watch,
So i adjust the minutes here on MFP to the amount of calories the watch gave me. And when i walk an hour exactly two days in a row even those total burned amounts are different lol.
So anywhere between 300 and 400 at 3.5mph
I'm getting interested again in a device. Is this the one you have? http://www.walmart.com/ip/Polar-FT4-Female-Heart-Rate-Monitor-Purple-Pink/17679202 Are you happy with this. Still back and forth wether to get a tracker or not, but I am leaning on getting it now. 0 -
euronorris wrote: »Over time, as my fitness improved the calorie burn decreased.
No, it doesn't, fitness level has minimal bearing on calorie burn per mile walking.
If you're using an HRM for walking burns, you're living in a state of mortal sin.
Why not? My exertion level decreased and my heart rate stopped getting so high.
Why do you say that?0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I wonder how you can net more per mile than I do.euronorris wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Is this gross or net?euronorris wrote: »At 3.7mph I was burning an average of 130 cals per mile.
At 4.2mph I was burning an average of 137 cals per mile.
At 5.4mph I was burning an average of 156 cals per mile.
This was at the height of my moonwalk training when I was fitter than I am now and weighed about 165lbs.
This was tracked with a Polar HRM and the Endomondo app (for my speeds, times etc).
At 6'9", 231, I burn about 70 calories a mile, net.
At 4.5 mph, MFP says I burn 996 calories an hour (221.3 calories per mile). I am doubtful.
Net. And I'm 5'7".
Over time, as my fitness improved the calorie burn decreased. And some days it was higher because I was also carrying a heavy backpack and/or walking up very steep hills.
Man I hated those hills. The worst was the hill at the end of the actual marathon when my legs were absolutely killing me!
I don't know. A variety of reasons I guess. One of which could be that my HRM isn't 100% accurate. I understand that none of them are 100%. But I do know that I continued to lose steadily at that time even though I was eating those calories back, so I'm not overly concerned if the numbers are slightly out.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K 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
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K 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