Walking calories vs sports

mathiar86
mathiar86 Posts: 26 Member
edited 7:32AM in Social Groups
Alright here's a puzzle

I did 54min of walking and burned in the area of 530 calories. Mind you yes half of that was uphill and my HR was in the fat burning zone the whole time.
But then I went to soccer training and that was 1:40h. I only did 642 calories. My HR was in the fat burn zone and cardio zone for the whole time, since unlike the actual game, you're constantly moving with very few breaks in training. There were no gaps in HR monitoring, no weight training involved just lots of running, sprinting, etc.

Someone please explain how 40min of soccer only gave me ~100 calories more when I was wrecked after that session and just sweaty after my walk?!?

After training I usually don't care what mfp says I can eat in calories, I eat something healthy but I eat tons of it, I know I've earned it. It's just an interesting observation.

Replies

  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Don't let sweat enter the equation - it's not a valid method of estimating intensity - too many variables.

    And don't attempt to use the big wide zones to decide if workouts were similar.

    Looking at the actual activity report - what was the average HR for each activity?

    And you mention 2 times for the soccer - 1:40h and 40 min - which is it we are comparing to 54 min walk?

    And what was the distance count on the time for the walk and the soccer?

    I'm wondering if they have tweaked their calorie burn formula to include pace and distance now and not only HR.
  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,522 Member
    Sounds fishy. Compare to mfp estimate for soccer. No doubt, soccer practice can burn much more than walking for equal time.
This discussion has been closed.