Calories burned walking confusion

M_A_S_H
M_A_S_H Posts: 17 Member
edited November 2024 in Food and Nutrition
I'm confused about how many calories are burned walking. I understand it depends on different factors but I had always just gone by the step counter to decipher how many calories I burn. However, I recently learned that the step counter tracks calories differently than if I were to enter walking into the app as exercise.
For example, this weekend I went on a 9ish mile trail walk. According to my weight/pace/the internet, I burned around 600 calories. According to MFP's step counter, I burned around 200 (eventhough it counted the distance accurately). If I enter it into MFP as exercise, I burned around 500. Why such a huge difference?

Replies

  • M_A_S_H
    M_A_S_H Posts: 17 Member
    Oops, I didn't mean to post this in Food and Nutrition..
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • CyberTone
    CyberTone Posts: 7,337 Member
    edited May 2017
    MFP does not have a step counter. It integrates with a wearable device such as Fitbit, or an app that uses GPS phone data such as Runkeeper, or the native iOS step counter on iPhones.

    The 200 Calories provided was most likely provided through data transferred from a synced device and MFP only provided an adjustment for the Calories transferred from the synced device that actually exceeded your MFP Activity Level setting at that point in the day.

    The MFP Cardiovascular activities in the Exercise Diary estimate Calories using the METs values from the Compendium of Physical Activities. When you use that estimate, it provides Calories based on a multiplication factor of your BMR for different walking speeds without regard to number of steps.

    Three different methods, three different results.
  • Rusty740
    Rusty740 Posts: 749 Member
    I dunno, but I know that about 40-60 cals/15 minutes average-paced walk is a good rough estimate depending on your height/weight.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    Bodyweight in lbs x 0.3 x distance in miles
  • M_A_S_H
    M_A_S_H Posts: 17 Member
    Ok, great. Thank you everyone.
  • gamerbabe14
    gamerbabe14 Posts: 876 Member
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Bodyweight in lbs x 0.3 x distance in miles

    This.
  • Tried30UserNames
    Tried30UserNames Posts: 561 Member
    edited May 2017
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Bodyweight in lbs x 0.3 x distance in miles

    Where does this equation come from? It seems very low in comparison to everything I've ever read on the subject. That would give me less than 50 calories per mile, yet almost every other article I've read on the subject tends to vary between 75 and 95 calories per mile for my weight and speed. My heart rate monitor used to give me more, but I tend to discount that as my heart doesn't beat quite right.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    Tried30UserNames wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Bodyweight in lbs x 0.3 x distance in miles

    Where does this equation come from? It seems very low in comparison to everything I've ever read on the subject. That would give me less than 50 calories per mile, yet almost every other article I've read on the subject tends to vary between 75 and 95 calories per mile for my weight and speed. My heart rate monitor used to give me more, but I tend to discount that as my heart doesn't beat quite right.

    The same place as bodyweight x 0.63 x miles for running... don't know where it originated from, sorry
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Tried30UserNames wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Bodyweight in lbs x 0.3 x distance in miles

    Where does this equation come from? It seems very low in comparison to everything I've ever read on the subject. That would give me less than 50 calories per mile, yet almost every other article I've read on the subject tends to vary between 75 and 95 calories per mile for my weight and speed. My heart rate monitor used to give me more, but I tend to discount that as my heart doesn't beat quite right.

    I think the difference is that it subtracts out what you would burn just sitting still. For long walks (or runs or bike rides) formulas that don't do this lead to overstating it.

    95 calories per mile is more than I get running.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited May 2017
    Tried30UserNames wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Bodyweight in lbs x 0.3 x distance in miles

    Where does this equation come from? It seems very low in comparison to everything I've ever read on the subject. That would give me less than 50 calories per mile, yet almost every other article I've read on the subject tends to vary between 75 and 95 calories per mile for my weight and speed. My heart rate monitor used to give me more, but I tend to discount that as my heart doesn't beat quite right.

    And my real world experience (based on scale data vs. recorded exercise burns/food logging) gives me a higher burn than this. It discounts pace and things which I figure factor in like how vigorously one pumps their arms and whether incline is involved.

    It gets posted on every walking thread, and I just don't have the energy or resources to argue with it.

    I'll just keep burning more than that by walking fast and let it keep being posted.
  • Rusty740
    Rusty740 Posts: 749 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Tried30UserNames wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Bodyweight in lbs x 0.3 x distance in miles

    Where does this equation come from? It seems very low in comparison to everything I've ever read on the subject. That would give me less than 50 calories per mile, yet almost every other article I've read on the subject tends to vary between 75 and 95 calories per mile for my weight and speed. My heart rate monitor used to give me more, but I tend to discount that as my heart doesn't beat quite right.

    And my real world experience gives me a higher burn than this.

    It gets posted on every walking thread, and I just don't have the energy or resources to argue with it.

    Yeah, I'm going to say it should be about 10% higher too.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Tried30UserNames wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Bodyweight in lbs x 0.3 x distance in miles

    Where does this equation come from? It seems very low in comparison to everything I've ever read on the subject. That would give me less than 50 calories per mile, yet almost every other article I've read on the subject tends to vary between 75 and 95 calories per mile for my weight and speed. My heart rate monitor used to give me more, but I tend to discount that as my heart doesn't beat quite right.

    The same place as bodyweight x 0.63 x miles for running... don't know where it originated from, sorry

    There was something in Runner's World. That's the source. I'm not sure what their source was.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    edited May 2017
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Tried30UserNames wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Bodyweight in lbs x 0.3 x distance in miles

    Where does this equation come from? It seems very low in comparison to everything I've ever read on the subject. That would give me less than 50 calories per mile, yet almost every other article I've read on the subject tends to vary between 75 and 95 calories per mile for my weight and speed. My heart rate monitor used to give me more, but I tend to discount that as my heart doesn't beat quite right.

    The same place as bodyweight x 0.63 x miles for running... don't know where it originated from, sorry

    Here: runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

    Scroll all the way to the bottom for a table of gross and net calorie burn equations for running and walking. Below the table is the reference to the original study that resulted in these equations.

    OP: Also note a similar and more recent study found nearly identical results. However, as usual the calculations are based on a mean and assume no incline/decline. You may well burn more or less for a specific run or walk. Also, the walking calculation assumes 3-4 mph. Speed can affect walking cals significantly.
  • Tried30UserNames
    Tried30UserNames Posts: 561 Member
    Tried30UserNames wrote: »

    Where does this equation come from?

    I found it. In a Runner's World article, they said it was: Adapted from "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise, Cameron et al, Dec. 2004.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Tried30UserNames wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Bodyweight in lbs x 0.3 x distance in miles

    Where does this equation come from? It seems very low in comparison to everything I've ever read on the subject. That would give me less than 50 calories per mile, yet almost every other article I've read on the subject tends to vary between 75 and 95 calories per mile for my weight and speed. My heart rate monitor used to give me more, but I tend to discount that as my heart doesn't beat quite right.

    And my real world experience (based on scale data vs. recorded exercise burns/food logging) gives me a higher burn than this. It discounts pace and things which I figure factor in like how vigorously one pumps their arms and whether incline is involved.

    It gets posted on every walking thread, and I just don't have the energy or resources to argue with it.

    I'll just keep burning more than that by walking fast and let it keep being posted.

    In all cases real life data is the best thing to use, but the formula is a good starting point prior to collecting your own data. Better to start low and be able to add extra cals than to have to reduce them because you're not losing weight.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Tried30UserNames wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Bodyweight in lbs x 0.3 x distance in miles

    Where does this equation come from? It seems very low in comparison to everything I've ever read on the subject. That would give me less than 50 calories per mile, yet almost every other article I've read on the subject tends to vary between 75 and 95 calories per mile for my weight and speed. My heart rate monitor used to give me more, but I tend to discount that as my heart doesn't beat quite right.

    And my real world experience (based on scale data vs. recorded exercise burns/food logging) gives me a higher burn than this. It discounts pace and things which I figure factor in like how vigorously one pumps their arms and whether incline is involved.

    It gets posted on every walking thread, and I just don't have the energy or resources to argue with it.

    I'll just keep burning more than that by walking fast and let it keep being posted.

    I burn about 100 calories a mile, but I typically walk at an incline (or outside where it's pretty hilly). I mean, it's what I get from Fitbit, and it's been pretty accurate for me over the last 5 months (and that's coming from someone who walks 20k steps a day in average).
This discussion has been closed.

Categories