Map My Walk vs My Fitness Pal discrepencies
B_Plus_Effort
Posts: 311 Member
so decided to enter my Map My Walk data into My Fitness Pal and am a bit surprised by the discrepancies in the calories burned estimates
for example I walked 5.5 miles in 1 hour and 30 minutes so MMW says I burned 597 calories
MFP shows 495 calories when I pick Walking, 3.5 mph, brisk pace
or 652 calories when I pick Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace
Note: there is nothing in between
I am not renting I don't take any of this as gospel, but it makes me wonder why my swimming stats are so low, and maybe MFP is more conservative I don't know, I just don't get how some "systems" can guestimate your calories burned when they never ask your sex, age, height, and weight
for example I walked 5.5 miles in 1 hour and 30 minutes so MMW says I burned 597 calories
MFP shows 495 calories when I pick Walking, 3.5 mph, brisk pace
or 652 calories when I pick Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace
Note: there is nothing in between
I am not renting I don't take any of this as gospel, but it makes me wonder why my swimming stats are so low, and maybe MFP is more conservative I don't know, I just don't get how some "systems" can guestimate your calories burned when they never ask your sex, age, height, and weight
1
Replies
-
I'd be more concerned that both estimates are extremely high for 5.5 miles walked.
I'd also be concerned that both are also gross calorie estimates rather than net calories - quite significant for low burn but long duration exercise.
Personally I prefer to use a mass moved X distance X efficiency ratio to come up with a modest estimate for flat ground and normal speed walking.
e.g. weight in lbs X miles x 0.3 (other formulas are available....)
"I just don't get how some "systems" can guestimate your calories burned when they never ask your sex, age, height, and weight"
Because for some exercises sex, age, height and weight can be irrelevant (either completely or just some of those factors) for different types of exercise to get a net calorie estimate - like my main sport of cycling, all those factors don't mean anything, if I produce 200w and a shorter, younger, lighter, female also produces 200w our net calories are the same (our gross calories would be different but that's already accounted for by MFP).
BTW - both your MMW app and MFP do take some of your personal stats into account. Your walking estimate is in relation to your weight which both ask you to input.1 -
thank you for your reply I appreciate itBTW - both your MMW app and MFP do take some of your personal stats into account. Your walking estimate is in relation to your weight which both ask you to input.
I hear you, but that's so misleading since there is a huge difference between a 175 lb boy and a 175 lb girl. Or a 175 lb 20 year old and a 175 lb 40 year old or a 60 year old.
I don't know if it's a privacy thing or what, but hewk they all know everything about us already anyway, now where did I put my aluminum foil hat, darn it!1 -
thank you for your reply I appreciate itBTW - both your MMW app and MFP do take some of your personal stats into account. Your walking estimate is in relation to your weight which both ask you to input.
I hear you, but that's so misleading since there is a huge difference between a 175 lb boy and a 175 lb girl. Or a 175 lb 20 year old and a 175 lb 40 year old or a 60 year old.
I don't know if it's a privacy thing or what, but hewk they all know everything about us already anyway, now where did I put my aluminum foil hat, darn it!
But what is the difference in net calories burned by two same size people of different genders or age doing exactly the same exercise? (Walking the same distance or lifting the same weight or producing the same power....)
Moving mass over distance is a matter of physics and not biology.
Think you are confusing total calorie burn for different genders and ages, even then they are averages/typical.
A lot of aging related calorie need differences are as a result of changing habits or reduced capability rather than the passage of time.2 -
I like to use Gaia gps for outdoor walking as I get my total distance, average speed, and any changes in incline. I still go with mfp -20% as I prefer to UNDER report my calories burned. I then eat most of my exercise calories back and I consistently lose 1 lb per week.
It might take some trial and error to determine which calories are the closest to being accurate, but I agree with the above that both of those sound rather high for calories burned.0 -
Moving mass over distance is a matter of physics and not biology.
correct but what does that have to do with the price of eggs, lol, I am talking about burning calories which is 100% Biology the way we do it is a moot point, walking, swimming, doing jumping jacks, my point is there is a difference in the way two different people burn calories let alone the two different sexes1 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »I like to use Gaia gps for outdoor walking as I get my total distance, average speed, and any changes in incline. I still go with mfp -20% as I prefer to UNDER report my calories burned. I then eat most of my exercise calories back and I consistently lose 1 lb per week.
It might take some trial and error to determine which calories are the closest to being accurate, but I agree with the above that both of those sound rather high for calories burned.
I don't think 5.5 miles in 1 hour and 30 minutes burning 597 calories is high at all, it seems spot on, given it's 90 minutes of a brisk exercise1 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »I like to use Gaia gps for outdoor walking as I get my total distance, average speed, and any changes in incline. I still go with mfp -20% as I prefer to UNDER report my calories burned. I then eat most of my exercise calories back and I consistently lose 1 lb per week.
It might take some trial and error to determine which calories are the closest to being accurate, but I agree with the above that both of those sound rather high for calories burned.
I don't think 5.5 miles in 1 hour and 30 minutes burning 597 calories is high at all, it seems spot on, given it's 90 minutes of a brisk exercise
It’s definitely high and most likely off by quite a bit, but whatever makes you happy.1 -
For some perspective on WHY I think it’s too high:
I go hiking weekly with my dogs. 6 miles a trip in 90 min. I burn 396 calories AND that includes elevation changes, NOT flat ground. So I HIGHLY doubt your burning 200 calories MORE than that on a walk unless you have some crazy hills in that 5.5 miles (and I’m talking brutal hills).0 -
Moving mass over distance is a matter of physics and not biology.
correct but what does that have to do with the price of eggs, lol, I am talking about burning calories which is 100% Biology the way we do it is a moot point, walking, swimming, doing jumping jacks, my point is there is a difference in the way two different people burn calories let alone the two different sexes
Energy is studied as part of Physics, you do know that calories are units of energy I presume?
LOL usually means someone has given up thinking.
You avoided answering my question - please have a go at actually answering as would love to understand your theory.......
What is the difference in net calories burned by two same size people of different genders or age doing exactly the same exercise? (Walking the same distance or lifting the same weight or producing the same power....)
0 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »I like to use Gaia gps for outdoor walking as I get my total distance, average speed, and any changes in incline. I still go with mfp -20% as I prefer to UNDER report my calories burned. I then eat most of my exercise calories back and I consistently lose 1 lb per week.
It might take some trial and error to determine which calories are the closest to being accurate, but I agree with the above that both of those sound rather high for calories burned.
I don't think 5.5 miles in 1 hour and 30 minutes burning 597 calories is high at all, it seems spot on, given it's 90 minutes of a brisk exercise
quite honestly I would stick with the tried and tested weight in lbs * distance in miles * 0.3. If you like you can add a bit of extra for wind, terrain, very brisk walking, etc. But I'd not go too high on in. After all, we're bipedal and we're perfectly adapted to walking with using fairly little energy.2 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »I like to use Gaia gps for outdoor walking as I get my total distance, average speed, and any changes in incline. I still go with mfp -20% as I prefer to UNDER report my calories burned. I then eat most of my exercise calories back and I consistently lose 1 lb per week.
It might take some trial and error to determine which calories are the closest to being accurate, but I agree with the above that both of those sound rather high for calories burned.
I don't think 5.5 miles in 1 hour and 30 minutes burning 597 calories is high at all, it seems spot on, given it's 90 minutes of a brisk exercise
quite honestly I would stick with the tried and tested weight in lbs * distance in miles * 0.3. If you like you can add a bit of extra for wind, terrain, very brisk walking, etc. But I'd not go too high on in. After all, we're bipedal and we're perfectly adapted to walking with using fairly little energy.
I had not heard this before, but I did the math, and that comes out to 290 for my hiking example above which is only 6 calories fewer than I enter for those hikes. 😊1 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »Dogmom1978 wrote: »I like to use Gaia gps for outdoor walking as I get my total distance, average speed, and any changes in incline. I still go with mfp -20% as I prefer to UNDER report my calories burned. I then eat most of my exercise calories back and I consistently lose 1 lb per week.
It might take some trial and error to determine which calories are the closest to being accurate, but I agree with the above that both of those sound rather high for calories burned.
I don't think 5.5 miles in 1 hour and 30 minutes burning 597 calories is high at all, it seems spot on, given it's 90 minutes of a brisk exercise
It’s definitely high and most likely off by quite a bit, but whatever makes you happy.
no need to be rude, I am trying to have a healthy discussion here. So if you Google "how many calories does walking burn" you get a result that shows
Walking: 3.5 mph (17 min/mi) a 185 pound person would burn 178 calories in 30 minutes, so in 90 minutes that person would burn 534, me being upwards of 195 at the time would put me right in line with 597
https://www.health.harvard.edu/diet-and-weight-loss/calories-burned-in-30-minutes-of-leisure-and-routine-activities
as a side note, you can burn as many calories walking the same distance as you can running it's just that running may be better for your cardiovascular system1 -
What is the difference in net calories burned by two same size people of different genders or age doing exactly the same exercise? (Walking the same distance or lifting the same weight or producing the same power....)
ha ha, you are loading your question with too many assumptions and asking something I did not ask in the beginning, my point is men and women are different, you go ahead and find me a 6' 200 pound lady and we'll have at it, ha ha
of course there will be no difference in net calories burned but what about all the other factors, for example, when I walk at speed with my wife she falls behind she's shorter, not being sexist, she's only 5'5 and if she does keep up then she does 1,200 steps to my 1,000, so what do you suppose happens in 90 minutes do you think her and I burned the same amount of calories "doing exactly the same exercise"? absolutely not.
my point continues to be that in order to estimate proper calories burned the good machines will ask you for your sex, height, weight, and age, those will be much more accurate then the ones that only ask for your weight0 -
Not being rude. If your goal is weight loss and you insist on grossly over estimating your calorie burn, next week you’ll be another person posting about why you can’t figure out why you aren’t losing weight.
Frankly, you are NOT burning that many calories. Not rude, just honest and blunt. I see 0 need to beat around the bush 🤷🏻♀️0 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »Dogmom1978 wrote: »I like to use Gaia gps for outdoor walking as I get my total distance, average speed, and any changes in incline. I still go with mfp -20% as I prefer to UNDER report my calories burned. I then eat most of my exercise calories back and I consistently lose 1 lb per week.
It might take some trial and error to determine which calories are the closest to being accurate, but I agree with the above that both of those sound rather high for calories burned.
I don't think 5.5 miles in 1 hour and 30 minutes burning 597 calories is high at all, it seems spot on, given it's 90 minutes of a brisk exercise
It’s definitely high and most likely off by quite a bit, but whatever makes you happy.
no need to be rude, I am trying to have a healthy discussion here. So if you Google "how many calories does walking burn" you get a result that shows
Walking: 3.5 mph (17 min/mi) a 185 pound person would burn 178 calories in 30 minutes, so in 90 minutes that person would burn 534, me being upwards of 195 at the time would put me right in line with 597
https://www.health.harvard.edu/diet-and-weight-loss/calories-burned-in-30-minutes-of-leisure-and-routine-activities
as a side note, you can burn as many calories walking the same distance as you can running it's just that running may be better for your cardiovascular system
Also, your Harvard link is just a chart and doesn’t show anything regarding HOW they calculated said numbers. How many people were in the study? Was it even a study that was done to determine those figures?
People who have been doing this for a long time are trying to offer you sound advice explaining why you didn’t burn as much as you thought you did. If you don’t want to take that sound advice, then don’t.
Best of luck to you.0 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »Dogmom1978 wrote: »I like to use Gaia gps for outdoor walking as I get my total distance, average speed, and any changes in incline. I still go with mfp -20% as I prefer to UNDER report my calories burned. I then eat most of my exercise calories back and I consistently lose 1 lb per week.
It might take some trial and error to determine which calories are the closest to being accurate, but I agree with the above that both of those sound rather high for calories burned.
I don't think 5.5 miles in 1 hour and 30 minutes burning 597 calories is high at all, it seems spot on, given it's 90 minutes of a brisk exercise
quite honestly I would stick with the tried and tested weight in lbs * distance in miles * 0.3. If you like you can add a bit of extra for wind, terrain, very brisk walking, etc. But I'd not go too high on in. After all, we're bipedal and we're perfectly adapted to walking with using fairly little energy.
I had not heard this before, but I did the math, and that comes out to 290 for my hiking example above which is only 6 calories fewer than I enter for those hikes. 😊
It might be a bit more off for extremely obese people, not sure. I doubt this equation has been thoroughly tested for that. But it should work for pretty normal and overweight people. And it's net calories, and not the double dipping that most apps, like the map my series use.1 -
What is the difference in net calories burned by two same size people of different genders or age doing exactly the same exercise? (Walking the same distance or lifting the same weight or producing the same power....)
ha ha, you are loading your question with too many assumptions and asking something I did not ask in the beginning, my point is men and women are different, you go ahead and find me a 6' 200 pound lady and we'll have at it, ha ha
of course there will be no difference in net calories burned but what about all the other factors, for example, when I walk at speed with my wife she falls behind she's shorter, not being sexist, she's only 5'5 and if she does keep up then she does 1,200 steps to my 1,000, so what do you suppose happens in 90 minutes do you think her and I burned the same amount of calories "doing exactly the same exercise"? absolutely not.
my point continues to be that in order to estimate proper calories burned the good machines will ask you for your sex, height, weight, and age, those will be much more accurate then the ones that only ask for your weight
No - not a trick. Just trying to get you to think.
Rather than just tell you that machines don't ask your height, gender and age because they are irrelevant for the calorie estimates they provide I thought I would try to explain why.
BTW - the link you found by consulting the Great Oracle of Google also doesn't mention age, gender or height. Interesting huh?
And you didn't notice they are gross calorie estimates not the net estimate you want. Not sure you have grasped the difference TBH. Just like the Compendium of Physical Activities that MFP sources for a lot of its database also doesn't mention those factors when working out METS.
And no, telling someone their walking estimates are inflated isn't rude, it's called trying to help someone who is estimating badly.
As a side note, running is roughly twice as inefficient a movement as walking (the energy to propel yourself upwards to get both feet off the ground is wasted), which means the NET calorie burns per mile are roughly double the per mile calories walking. Which perhaps makes you realise why running 3 miles feels so much harder than walking 3 miles - it is!
I'll give up now, best of luck.
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions