Calories burned running/walking?

catt952
catt952 Posts: 190 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I know people on here think myfitnesspal way overestimates calories burned during exercise, but do you think their calories for running/walking is accurate?

I usec25k and when i send my results to myfitnesspal it says i have burned about 61 calories in 9 minutes of jogging at 5.2mph. But when i put the same time and speed into myfitnesspal it says i burn 95 calories. Putting my walking time and speed in yeilds different calorie burns as well.

Replies

  • oh_happy_day
    oh_happy_day Posts: 1,137 Member
    No, I don't think their calories for walking/running are accurate. I use my polar HRM to give me an estimate.
  • jmarie1025
    jmarie1025 Posts: 114 Member
    I use my Fitbit Charge HR to get accurate calories burned. C25K and mfp are way low. Mfp says 180 calories burned and my Fitbit says 305
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    body weight in pounds * miles run (not walked - run) * .6

    If you're 150, your 9 minutes burned about 70 calories. Scale for your own actual weight.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    jmarie1025 wrote: »
    I use my Fitbit Charge HR to get accurate calories burned. C25K and mfp are way low. Mfp says 180 calories burned and my Fitbit says 305

    MFP is a lot closer. Still too high - but closer.
  • brynnsmom
    brynnsmom Posts: 945 Member
    My experience is that MFP slightly underestimates my walking burns. There are other exercises in the database though that are off the charts too high.
  • oilphins
    oilphins Posts: 240 Member
    I think mfp might be a little off but not a whole lot. When I run 5 miles on the treadmill at 7.5 mph it tells me I've burned about 800 calories which I knew was a bit more than I thought. Mfp says its closer to about 680 which is identical to my nike plus app which I've used for the last five years. When I do a 10k run outside my app says it's about 800 which is what mfp says as well.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    oilphins wrote: »
    I think mfp might be a little off but not a whole lot. When I run 5 miles on the treadmill at 7.5 mph it tells me I've burned about 800 calories which I knew was a bit more than I thought. Mfp says its closer to about 680 which is identical to my nike plus app which I've used for the last five years.

    680 is about the right burn for a 225-pounder. Scale accordingly (if necessary).

  • mwyvr
    mwyvr Posts: 1,883 Member
    My Garmin running watch today estimated 798 calories for an undulating 10km trail run, 179 pound male.

    MFP would give me ~ 50 more. Strava calls it 1,009. As Garmin is always the lowest I simply go with that and have Garmin automatically feeding MFP and I don't sweat it.
  • jmarie1025
    jmarie1025 Posts: 114 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    jmarie1025 wrote: »
    I use my Fitbit Charge HR to get accurate calories burned. C25K and mfp are way low. Mfp says 180 calories burned and my Fitbit says 305

    MFP is a lot closer. Still too high - but closer.

    Wrong. MFP has no idea the speed and incline I am walking/ running at. 180 calories burned for walking at 3.8 mph for 20 minutes and running at 5.3 for 15 minutes is not right. My HRM is far more accurate. Btw I do not have Fitbit and mfp synced.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    jmarie1025 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    jmarie1025 wrote: »
    I use my Fitbit Charge HR to get accurate calories burned. C25K and mfp are way low. Mfp says 180 calories burned and my Fitbit says 305

    MFP is a lot closer. Still too high - but closer.

    Wrong. MFP has no idea the speed and incline I am walking/ running at. 180 calories burned for walking at 3.8 mph for 20 minutes and running at 5.3 for 15 minutes is not right. My HRM is far more accurate. Btw I do not have Fitbit and mfp synced.

    MFP allows you to choose the speed. Elevation isn't a huge factor until you hit a certain point.
    180 calories seems very reasonable to me. That is a little over a mile of running.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    For a 200 pound person .... walking 1.3 miles and running 1.3, a 305 calorie burn is inflated. If you weigh more, that burn might be right. If weigh less, the burn is more inaccurate.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited August 2015
    jmarie1025 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    jmarie1025 wrote: »
    I use my Fitbit Charge HR to get accurate calories burned. C25K and mfp are way low. Mfp says 180 calories burned and my Fitbit says 305

    MFP is a lot closer. Still too high - but closer.

    Wrong. MFP has no idea the speed and incline I am walking/ running at. 180 calories burned for walking at 3.8 mph for 20 minutes and running at 5.3 for 15 minutes is not right. My HRM is far more accurate. Btw I do not have Fitbit and mfp synced.

    If you're using an HRM for calories from walks, you're using it wrong, and have highly highly inflated numbers.

    But hey...this is MFP...believe what you like.
  • dawniemate
    dawniemate Posts: 395 Member
    Okay guys .... I always use mfp and sync runkeeper. I walk/ jog 5 miles at a good pace outdoor. Mfp always shows I've burned about 100 calories per mile but runkeeper puts it at about 60. I'm 5 ft and weigh 135lbs. ...... which do you think is more accurate. ???? I always just put in half calories burned. ...at least that way I don't over account for it. Thanks
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    jmarie1025 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    jmarie1025 wrote: »
    I use my Fitbit Charge HR to get accurate calories burned. C25K and mfp are way low. Mfp says 180 calories burned and my Fitbit says 305

    MFP is a lot closer. Still too high - but closer.

    Wrong. MFP has no idea the speed and incline I am walking/ running at. 180 calories burned for walking at 3.8 mph for 20 minutes and running at 5.3 for 15 minutes is not right. My HRM is far more accurate.

    MFP is significantly closer to correct than your Fitbit, for what you describe I'd assess about 160cals.


  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    catwils1 wrote: »
    I know people on here think myfitnesspal way overestimates calories burned during exercise, but do you think their calories for running/walking is accurate?

    The challenge with MFP is that lots of the type of exercise that people do is very difficult to assess in a meaningful way, particularly as it's based on their own perception of effort. I'd also say that lots of people use HRMs and assume that they're "more accurate" despite not understanding how they work, what they tell you and how that relates to what's actually going on.

    As far as running and walking are concerned I've generally found MFP to be pretty reasonable. I've used Runkeeper, Endomondo, Strava, Runtastic, MFP and a Garmin. There is a spread of results, even taking the Garmin file and putting it through each of those they'll come up with different answers. MFP is generally in the middle of the spread, or a little towards the lower end.

    The challenge with the figures that you're asking about is that they're so small any error is significantly overpronounced. For me, on a 10 mile run the difference between 1000 cals (about right) and the 1100 that Endomondo will give me isn't significant, where you're talking about the difference between 60 and 66 cals is lost in the noise. That's a flight of stairs.

  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    edited August 2015
    catwils1 wrote: »
    I know people on here think myfitnesspal way overestimates calories burned during exercise, but do you think their calories for running/walking is accurate?

    Accurate enough to be reasonable.
    Pick a method of estimating that is simple and convenient for you, be consistent, adjust overall calorie balance based on actual results over time.
    Doesn't have to be any more complex that that.
  • peter56765
    peter56765 Posts: 352 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    catwils1 wrote: »
    I know people on here think myfitnesspal way overestimates calories burned during exercise, but do you think their calories for running/walking is accurate?

    Accurate enough to be reasonable.
    Pick a method of estimating that is simple and convenient for you, be consistent, adjust overall calorie balance based on actual results over time.
    Doesn't have to be any more complex that that.

    My belief is that MFP exercise estimates are probably as good as its food estimates (taking into account the inaccuracies of calorie estimation techniques and the variability among the same kind of products). So yeah, it should be good enough.
  • _Waffle_
    _Waffle_ Posts: 13,049 Member
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    As far as running and walking are concerned I've generally found MFP to be pretty reasonable. I've used Runkeeper, Endomondo, Strava, Runtastic, MFP and a Garmin. There is a spread of results, even taking the Garmin file and putting it through each of those they'll come up with different answers. MFP is generally in the middle of the spread, or a little towards the lower end.

    I have the same experience. MFP estimates for walking/running aren't that far off the scale.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    peter56765 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    catwils1 wrote: »
    I know people on here think myfitnesspal way overestimates calories burned during exercise, but do you think their calories for running/walking is accurate?

    Accurate enough to be reasonable.
    Pick a method of estimating that is simple and convenient for you, be consistent, adjust overall calorie balance based on actual results over time.
    Doesn't have to be any more complex that that.

    My belief is that MFP exercise estimates are probably as good as its food estimates (taking into account the inaccuracies of calorie estimation techniques and the variability among the same kind of products). So yeah, it should be good enough.

    My understanding and my experience is that for things like walking and running where there is specific detail on time/speed it is a fairly reliable estimate.
    For less specific things like "elliptical" (with no indication of pace, resistance) or "volleyball", it is less so and seems to give rather high estimates.

Categories