Counting steps or trusting walking apps

donjtomasco
donjtomasco Posts: 790 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I read in our forum that others have problems with "map my walk" like I experienced with it saying I burned too many calories.

So what is the most reliable method to get some half *kitten* idea of what we burn? Is it counting total steps in a day and there is then an overall formula that can be applied using sex and age x # of steps in the day?

I am a walker and now can't trust map my walk and i need some way to come up with a calories burned number.

Thank you!

Replies

  • apullum
    apullum Posts: 4,838 Member
    Many people here use miles walked * weight in pounds * 0.3.
  • donjtomasco
    donjtomasco Posts: 790 Member
    Apullum, that formula is conservative and undercounts which is better than overcounting. Thank you!
  • emmamcgarity
    emmamcgarity Posts: 1,594 Member
    I use my Fitbit connected to MFP to estimate my calories burned. Prior to that I carried my phone with me everywhere and connected my steps count from my phone to MFP
  • lgfrie
    lgfrie Posts: 1,449 Member
    In my humble opinion, the miles * weight * 0.3 formula for net calories from walking is way, way too low and overcompensates for the high readings from MapMyWalk and other apps. I use a coefficient of 0.45 rather than 0.3, and that aligns with my actual scale loss.
  • donjtomasco
    donjtomasco Posts: 790 Member
    Lgfrie, that is a simple solution. Thanks!
  • jhanleybrown
    jhanleybrown Posts: 240 Member
    I vote weight (lbs) x .3 x miles.

    I don't think it's conservative unless you have hills.

  • durhammfp
    durhammfp Posts: 494 Member
    edited November 2019
    @apullum How does the formula "miles walked * weight in pounds * 0.3" change if some of the miles have been run instead of walked? Or does it?
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    edited November 2019
    durhammfp wrote: »
    @apullum How does the formula "miles walked * weight in pounds * 0.3" change if some of the miles have been run instead of walked? Or does it?

    @durhammfp

    As running is roughly twice as inefficient a movement as walking the efficiency ration changes from 0.3 to 0.63

    That's a net calorie figure by the way, many apps and MyFitnessPal give a gross calorie estimate.
  • durhammfp
    durhammfp Posts: 494 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    durhammfp wrote: »
    @apullum How does the formula "miles walked * weight in pounds * 0.3" change if some of the miles have been run instead of walked? Or does it?

    @durhammfp

    As running is roughly twice as inefficient a movement as walking the efficiency ration changes from 0.3 to 0.63

    That's a net calorie figure by the way, many apps and MyFitnessPal give a gross calorie estimate.

    Thanks so much for the information @sijomial ... Also, I noticed on your profile that you have attained a remarkable degree of fitness considering injuries you experience earlier in your life. If I may ask, do you run now or do you use cycling or rowing or some other type of exercise as your main way to keep fit?

  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    durhammfp wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    durhammfp wrote: »
    @apullum How does the formula "miles walked * weight in pounds * 0.3" change if some of the miles have been run instead of walked? Or does it?

    @durhammfp

    As running is roughly twice as inefficient a movement as walking the efficiency ration changes from 0.3 to 0.63

    That's a net calorie figure by the way, many apps and MyFitnessPal give a gross calorie estimate.

    Thanks so much for the information @sijomial ... Also, I noticed on your profile that you have attained a remarkable degree of fitness considering injuries you experience earlier in your life. If I may ask, do you run now or do you use cycling or rowing or some other type of exercise as your main way to keep fit?
    Thank you!

    My major knee injuries plus some more minor / temporary injuries to the other knee has meant for a long time running wasn't a good choice for me. Plus I've never enjoyed distance running (unless it was part of a ballgame/sport). I only ran as training for my sports or a challenge (charity runs for example).

    I completely stopped running a few years ago when I found a very few miles of running a week caused more soreness than 100 miles of cycling.

    Roundabout way of saying road cycling is my main sport and passion now. Roughly 5,000 miles including a couple of century rides a year and at least one metric century (100km) most months.
  • xxzenabxx
    xxzenabxx Posts: 935 Member
    lgfrie wrote: »
    In my humble opinion, the miles * weight * 0.3 formula for net calories from walking is way, way too low and overcompensates for the high readings from MapMyWalk and other apps. I use a coefficient of 0.45 rather than 0.3, and that aligns with my actual scale loss.

    I also agree with you. 0.3 was way too low for me so I used the formula that you gave to me. I burn about 33 calories per 1000 steps. It’s so much more accurate ands it’s right in the middle of MapMyWalk and the 0.3 formula.

Categories