Thrown my pedometer in the bin!

Options
RoyBeck
RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Just did a local walk which I estimated to be around the mile mark. Got home and the pedometer said

Distance = 1.92 miles (Definately miles as it says miles at the top but KM would've been more accurate)
Calories = 119

Well if the distance was 1.92 miles I'm sure I'd've burnt closer to the 200 calorie mark so something's wrong somewhere.

HRM it is I guess?

Replies

  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,583 Member
    Options
    distance has no effect on how many calories you burn. It matters on how much exertion you're putting into it. Don't blame the tool.
  • triskaidekaphile13
    triskaidekaphile13 Posts: 92 Member
    Options
    Have you calibrated it to the length of your stride? I do 3.1 miles including some steep hills in the morning. I typically burn 378 calories for an hour's brisk walking.
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    Options
    Wrist watch?
  • Lrdoflamancha
    Lrdoflamancha Posts: 1,280 Member
    Options
    HUH.... no offense but can you explain this.... So I guess if I walk 1 mile I am going to burn the same number of calories as if I walk 50 miles?
  • TheGr8Kimbini
    TheGr8Kimbini Posts: 92
    Options
    It depends on much more than just your distance (stride, incline, weight, etc.)... It's what you accomplished during that distance is what counts. Try Runtastic, it's an app you can download and it syncs with you MFP account and seems to be pretty accurate if you're looking for a second opinion.
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    Options
    distance has no effect on how many calories you burn. It matters on how much exertion you're putting into it. Don't blame the tool.

    Hmm not sure I agree with this. Please elaborate?

    Also, I acknowledge a HRM will give me a more accurate reading but how can a pedometer be so inaccurate?
  • ze_hombre
    ze_hombre Posts: 377 Member
    Options
    If you want a decent pedometer get a Fitbit. The Zip is pretty cheap now. I don't recommend it for tracking running or similar cardio, use a HRM for that, but as a pedometer Fitbit is pretty good.
  • triskaidekaphile13
    triskaidekaphile13 Posts: 92 Member
    Options
    If you amble along for a 1 mile and walk at a very slow pace and then power walk the same mile home at a brisk pace you will have completely different calorie burns despite travelling the same distance.

    I love my FitBit and I can see that walking at a slow pace burns very few calories over sitting on the sofa.
  • xinit0
    xinit0 Posts: 310 Member
    Options
    distance has no effect on how many calories you burn. It matters on how much exertion you're putting into it. Don't blame the tool.

    Hmm not sure I agree with this. Please elaborate?

    Also, I acknowledge a HRM will give me a more accurate reading but how can a pedometer be so inaccurate?

    Pretty much 100 calories per mile, regardless of the speed at which you go. That's assuming level ground.
  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,583 Member
    Options
    distance has no effect on how many calories you burn. It matters on how much exertion you're putting into it. Don't blame the tool.

    Hmm not sure I agree with this. Please elaborate?

    Also, I acknowledge a HRM will give me a more accurate reading but how can a pedometer be so inaccurate?
    If I run 1 mile at 5mph or walk 1 mile at a quarter of that, I burn more running. Same mile, same conditions.

    according to my HRM and miles and miles and miles of running....
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    Options
    Ok. Would a very basic pedometer acknowledge a difference in pace then as, admittedly, I walked very leisurely tonight.
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    Options
    distance has no effect on how many calories you burn. It matters on how much exertion you're putting into it. Don't blame the tool.

    Hmm not sure I agree with this. Please elaborate?

    Also, I acknowledge a HRM will give me a more accurate reading but how can a pedometer be so inaccurate?

    Pretty much 100 calories per mile, regardless of the speed at which you go. That's assuming level ground.

    Ah so you don't think speed comes into it. This is interesting. Need to look into this further.
  • triskaidekaphile13
    triskaidekaphile13 Posts: 92 Member
    Options
    If that were the case then MFP wouldn't ask what pace you were walking at when calculating the calories!

    There's a calculator on about.com here: http://walking.about.com/library/cal/uccalc1.htm I have no idea if it's accurate but it takes into account pace, distance and your weight.
  • Destanie_Robyn
    Destanie_Robyn Posts: 304 Member
    Options
    It depends on much more than just your distance (stride, incline, weight, etc.)... It's what you accomplished during that distance is what counts. Try Runtastic, it's an app you can download and it syncs with you MFP account and seems to be pretty accurate if you're looking for a second opinion.

    I agree this app is great! I use it for running and it seems to be pretty accurate for me
    If you want a decent pedometer get a Fitbit. The Zip is pretty cheap now. I don't recommend it for tracking running or similar cardio, use a HRM for that, but as a pedometer Fitbit is pretty good.

    I also agree with this too I own a fitbit ultra and was impressed with how accurate it seems to be.
    distance has no effect on how many calories you burn. It matters on how much exertion you're putting into it. Don't blame the tool.

    Hmm not sure I agree with this. Please elaborate?

    Also, I acknowledge a HRM will give me a more accurate reading but how can a pedometer be so inaccurate?

    Pretty much 100 calories per mile, regardless of the speed at which you go. That's assuming level ground.

    Ah so you don't think speed comes into it. This is interesting. Need to look into this further.

    There is a difference between walking and running .. you burn more calories when running. However, within the same exercise you tend to burn around the same amount for a specified distance.. that is until you hit a certain speed and then the calories increase.... for example running 3 mile at a pace anywhere from 13 min/mile to 8 min/mile will burn roughly the same amount of calories .. however, when you increase you speed over that .. to like 5-6 min/mile pace you calorie burn also increases for the same distance.
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    Options
    Have you calibrated it to the length of your stride? I do 3.1 miles including some steep hills in the morning. I typically burn 378 calories for an hour's brisk walking.

    It's a very basic pedometer don't think I can tbh.
  • xinit0
    xinit0 Posts: 310 Member
    Options
    distance has no effect on how many calories you burn. It matters on how much exertion you're putting into it. Don't blame the tool.

    Hmm not sure I agree with this. Please elaborate?

    Also, I acknowledge a HRM will give me a more accurate reading but how can a pedometer be so inaccurate?

    Pretty much 100 calories per mile, regardless of the speed at which you go. That's assuming level ground.

    Ah so you don't think speed comes into it. This is interesting. Need to look into this further.

    Speed does come into it; but in the "calories per hour" number. You run faster, you get more miles in per hour, and more calories (to a point... apparently there's a leveling after 6mph if I understand the runners)
  • wolfchild59
    wolfchild59 Posts: 2,608 Member
    Options
    I've found the 100 calories per mile thing to only be accurate at different paces of actual running. If I run a mile in 12 minutes, 10 minutes or 9 minutes, I tend to burn somewhere around that 100 calorie mark.

    But if I walk a mile in, say, 16-18 minutes (or longer if I'm really just wandering along), then I tend to burn a lot less. It just doesn't get my heart rate up at all and I think the most I've seen as a burn while walking was about 75 calories per mile.

    And that's my personal experience from about two years of running and training for race distances from 5K to a couple of half marathons and pretty much everything in between. (only need an 8K and a 15K to knock all "official" race distances off my list. :wink: )
  • froeschli
    froeschli Posts: 1,292 Member
    Options
    If that were the case then MFP wouldn't ask what pace you were walking at when calculating the calories!

    ah, but you put time into MFP, not distance - by asking your speed, it can estimate the distance....
  • KathryneJY
    KathryneJY Posts: 83 Member
    Options
    Ok. Would a very basic pedometer acknowledge a difference in pace then as, admittedly, I walked very leisurely tonight.

    It would because it is based on steps. A fast pace would register steps quicker than a slow pace. So assuming you were walking at a leisurely pace, your gait, or time between steps would result in a lower calorie burn. I walk daily for about 40-60 minutes and I use a pedometer on my iphone. Today my walk was slower because I forgot my runners at home and I had a friends dog along.

    Today I walked for 38 minutes at a slow pace and burned 168 calories, or 4.4 calories per minute (2.6 km = 64.6 cals per km). Yesterday, I walked at a brisk pace, for 70 minutes and burned 431 calories or 6.1 calories per minute (6.4 km = 67.3 cals per km). The day before that, I walked for 45 minutes at a brisk pace and burned 279 calories, or 6.2 calories per minute (4.2 km = 66.4 cals per km). I have tested my HRM against my iphone pedometer and they are pretty close, usually within 10-20 calories.

    So, with all those numbers, you can see how pace matters more than distance, because the calories per km are almost identical, but the per minute burn is higher with a faster pace. If you were running, your calories per minute would be much higher but you would probably burn only slightly more per km becasue you are covering that km faster and you have less time to burn off calories in that distance.

    Your distance may be off if you can't calibrate your stride, but effort would be measured by the speed of your gait (steps per minute)
  • savithny
    savithny Posts: 1,200 Member
    Options
    Have you calibrated it to the length of your stride? I do 3.1 miles including some steep hills in the morning. I typically burn 378 calories for an hour's brisk walking.

    It's a very basic pedometer don't think I can tbh.

    I've had several basic pedometers, they've all allowed you to input your stride length (which you do by walking ten steps and measuring them, rather than by trying to measure one stride). If there is a mode button somewhere, its probably hidden behind that.

    I axtually just took a guess this time when i replaced the batteries; i don't use the pedometer to measure my walks, I use the google maps hack at Gmaps Pedomter and map my favorite routes there. MFP just wants time and relative speed anyway.

Categories