I walked three miles (7500 steps) and Fitbit/MFP only gave me a 40 calorie adjustment?? What gives?
Options
Replies
-
stanmann571 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
I believe the claim was that running a mile was better than walking 3 miles...
Let's run the numbers... for me 237 lb man 5'11.
Run 1 Mile-- 179 Calories
Brisk walk 1 Mile--146 Calories
Leisurely 3 miles--354 calories
And this is why I walk.4 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »You might want to adjust your stride on Fitbit... 3 miles is usually 2000 steps... unless you're very short?
No. 2,000 steps is about 1 mile. There's some variability due to height, but not enough to make anyone walk 3 miles in 2,000 steps! My husband is over 6 feet tall and he gets 1 km for 1,000 steps - so, 1600 steps for 1 mile or 4800 steps for 3 miles.
Yes. Doh. 1 mile. I'm not sure why I typed 3. Need more coffee. Either way, I just meant that 7800 steps seems a lot for 3 miles, unless OP is short.2 -
Anyway steps are moot. Get a Fitbit and monitor your pace. An intense mile is a better workout than a slow, ambling 5-7k step walk.stanmann571 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »You are saying that a 1 mile brisk walk is better than covering 3 miles at a slower pace? I completely disagree with that.
I believe the claim was that running a mile was better than walking 3 miles...
Let's run the numbers... for me 237 lb man 5'11.
Run 1 Mile-- 179 Calories
Brisk walk 1 Mile--146 Calories
Leisurely 3 miles--354 calories
Sure but the claim was that it's "a better workout" not "burns more calories." Running a mile involves a lot more cardio-respitory stress than slowly walking three, that's beyond debate. Of course, that has nothing to do with the question this thread was about.1 -
MFP expects you to burn a certain # of calories per day base on your size/height/age/gender and activity level.
Fitbit estimates your burn based on those stats and your actual movement.
If Fitbit shows your burn is higher than what MFP expected, you earn extra calories. If you choose a higher activity level in MFP, then MFP expects you to burn more calories thus it takes more effort to earn additional.
Example with numbers:
At sedentary MFP expects me to burn about 1500/day. If Fitbit says I burned 1950, it would be a +450 adjustment. I'm at maintenance, so I need to eat around 1950.
At lightly active, MFP expects me to burn about 1750/day. If Fitbit says I burned 1950, it would be a +200 adjustment. Again, I need to eat around 1950.
Higher activity level means you start with a higher goal. But the end result is still the same.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Anyway steps are moot. Get a Fitbit and monitor your pace. An intense mile is a better workout than a slow, ambling 5-7k step walk.stanmann571 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »You are saying that a 1 mile brisk walk is better than covering 3 miles at a slower pace? I completely disagree with that.
I believe the claim was that running a mile was better than walking 3 miles...
Let's run the numbers... for me 237 lb man 5'11.
Run 1 Mile-- 179 Calories
Brisk walk 1 Mile--146 Calories
Leisurely 3 miles--354 calories
Sure but the claim was that it's "a better workout" not "burns more calories." Running a mile involves a lot more cardio-respitory stress than slowly walking three, that's beyond debate. Of course, that has nothing to do with the question this thread was about.
There's almost no metric under which an 8-10 minute workout is better than a 35-45 minute workout... especially if both workouts increase heartrate for the duration of the workout.
So no, it's not "beyond debate.
2 -
Completely unrelated...
When I saw this headline, my brain sang, "And I-I would walk 500 miles, and I-I would walk 500 more..."
9 -
allison_gets_healthy91 wrote: »MFP is giving me 1560 calories to eat a day which I thought was a bit high, but also I'm up to 244 lbs which is bigger than I've been so I figured that was why. But when I switch it to sedentary it changes my calorie goal to 1290 per day. So I assume I guess that's accurate, 1560 - 1290 = 270 + 40 = 310 which is more like what I would've guessed.
Your 244lb and sedentary only gives you 1290?
Im 5ft 2 and 244lb with a weekly weightloss goal of 2lb, set to sedentary and mfp and fitbit both give me 1770 a day
Im then given a few hundred in exercise cals3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Anyway steps are moot. Get a Fitbit and monitor your pace. An intense mile is a better workout than a slow, ambling 5-7k step walk.stanmann571 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »You are saying that a 1 mile brisk walk is better than covering 3 miles at a slower pace? I completely disagree with that.
I believe the claim was that running a mile was better than walking 3 miles...
Let's run the numbers... for me 237 lb man 5'11.
Run 1 Mile-- 179 Calories
Brisk walk 1 Mile--146 Calories
Leisurely 3 miles--354 calories
Sure but the claim was that it's "a better workout" not "burns more calories." Running a mile involves a lot more cardio-respitory stress than slowly walking three, that's beyond debate. Of course, that has nothing to do with the question this thread was about.
There's almost no metric under which an 8-10 minute workout is better than a 35-45 minute workout... especially if both workouts increase heartrate for the duration of the workout.
So no, it's not "beyond debate.
Running a mile is absolutely a better cardiovascular workout than walking three and one metric that shows as much is EPOC which Firstbeat's software calculates. Another metric is "Aerobic Training Effect." I could go on but there's really no point.
Did you just type all that with a straight face?
2 -
ruqayyahsmum wrote: »allison_gets_healthy91 wrote: »MFP is giving me 1560 calories to eat a day which I thought was a bit high, but also I'm up to 244 lbs which is bigger than I've been so I figured that was why. But when I switch it to sedentary it changes my calorie goal to 1290 per day. So I assume I guess that's accurate, 1560 - 1290 = 270 + 40 = 310 which is more like what I would've guessed.
Your 244lb and sedentary only gives you 1290?
Im 5ft 2 and 244lb with a weekly weightloss goal of 2lb, set to sedentary and mfp and fitbit both give me 1770 a day
Im then given a few hundred in exercise cals
I am 5'7" and 230 and if I try for 2lbs per week I get 1330 for sedentary. I never got as many as you even when over 280 lbs. I am kind of old though, over 50. I do get extra from walking though via fitbit and mfp0 -
KWlosingit wrote: »ruqayyahsmum wrote: »allison_gets_healthy91 wrote: »MFP is giving me 1560 calories to eat a day which I thought was a bit high, but also I'm up to 244 lbs which is bigger than I've been so I figured that was why. But when I switch it to sedentary it changes my calorie goal to 1290 per day. So I assume I guess that's accurate, 1560 - 1290 = 270 + 40 = 310 which is more like what I would've guessed.
Your 244lb and sedentary only gives you 1290?
Im 5ft 2 and 244lb with a weekly weightloss goal of 2lb, set to sedentary and mfp and fitbit both give me 1770 a day
Im then given a few hundred in exercise cals
I am 5'7" and 230 and if I try for 2lbs per week I get 1330 for sedentary. I never got as many as you even when over 280 lbs. I am kind of old though, over 50. I do get extra from walking though via fitbit and mfp
Odd
I lose my 2lb average thou so ill stick with it i guess and be thankful i still have wiggle room when i get to the last 10lb1 -
You might want to adjust your stride on Fitbit... 3 miles is usually 2000 steps... unless you're very short?
One mile is typically between 2000 and 2500 depending on your stride. 7500 for 3 miles sounds about right. I have a long stride so I usually get a mile at about 2100 steps.
0 -
gamerbabe14 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
I believe the claim was that running a mile was better than walking 3 miles...
Let's run the numbers... for me 237 lb man 5'11.
Run 1 Mile-- 179 Calories
Brisk walk 1 Mile--146 Calories
Leisurely 3 miles--354 calories
And this is why I walk.
OTOH..
Run 1 mile - 10 minutes
Leisurely walk 3 miles - 1 hour0 -
You might want to adjust your stride on Fitbit... 3 miles is usually 2000 steps... unless you're very short?
My gosh how big is your stride?
Ive done a smidge over 10,000 steps so far today and it works out at 3.5 mile
Im only 5ft 2 with a joint condition so my stride is shorter than average1 -
I'm starting to think there is a Fitbit/MFP sync issue. This happened to me last Monday 11K steps for 87 calories,Tuesday I did the same 12K steps for 297 calories. All steps were earned just walking around during day to day tasks, same activity setting both days (lightly active). Monday I was off work, Tuesday I was at work (desk job). There has to be a technical issue of their many people are experiencing the same thing.0
-
gamerbabe14 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
I believe the claim was that running a mile was better than walking 3 miles...
Let's run the numbers... for me 237 lb man 5'11.
Run 1 Mile-- 179 Calories
Brisk walk 1 Mile--146 Calories
Leisurely 3 miles--354 calories
And this is why I walk.
OTOH..
Run 1 mile - 10 minutes
Leisurely walk 3 miles - 1 hour
You're not including the time to shower and change clothes after the run.
1 -
I guess I must have a very long stride because it only takes me about 1700 steps to walk a mile and I'm only 5'6".0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Anyway steps are moot. Get a Fitbit and monitor your pace. An intense mile is a better workout than a slow, ambling 5-7k step walk.stanmann571 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »You are saying that a 1 mile brisk walk is better than covering 3 miles at a slower pace? I completely disagree with that.
I believe the claim was that running a mile was better than walking 3 miles...
Let's run the numbers... for me 237 lb man 5'11.
Run 1 Mile-- 179 Calories
Brisk walk 1 Mile--146 Calories
Leisurely 3 miles--354 calories
Sure but the claim was that it's "a better workout" not "burns more calories." Running a mile involves a lot more cardio-respitory stress than slowly walking three, that's beyond debate. Of course, that has nothing to do with the question this thread was about.
"A better workout" is completely subjective. To one person, a "better workout" means burning more calories, To another, it might mean greater cardio benefit. And if someone has hip or knee issues, running is out of the question. I am a runner, and I do like the cardio aspect. But if I have the choice to fit in a 1-mile run, OR a 3 mile walk, I am going to walk, because it burns more calories.1 -
crooked_left_hook wrote: »
I guess I must have a very long stride because it only takes me about 1700 steps to walk a mile and I'm only 5'6".
Probably should measure your stride and change the setting.0 -
[1] As far as fitting a workout into a specified time period, a 3 mile walk would be better compared to a 6 mile run (if you don't need to be polished afterward, or..).
[2] ..and who needs a shower after a piddly 10 minute run? Maybe make that a 4.5 mile run allowing15 minutes to change and blot makeup.
[3] If people are getting the steps and "miles walked" values from a step tracker they've been wearing all day, than the step number will (obviously) include every time they moved their arm along with any pacing/small steps (not just full walking strides). FYI- my walking stride is ~0.8-0.85 m (so ~1900-2000 steps/mile), my running stride is ~1.05 m.0 -
I'm about to go for a walk and will be testing how many steps i do in a mile (1.6kms), I'm 5"8. I'm curious how it will compare to you guys, and other women my height.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions