4.0 mph vs. 5.2 mph

pjb58

Here is my question: Why does running 5.2 mph for 30 min. say I have only burned 259 calories but running 4.0 mph says I have burned over 1000?

Anybody?

LassoOfTruth

Here is my question: Why does running 5.2 mph for 30 min. say I have only burned 259 calories but running 4.0 mph says I have burned over 1000?

Anybody?

Where exactly does it say that? In the MFP database... that's wildly inaccurate. They overestimate, underestimate, make stuff up at times. Lolz.

SingingSingleTracker

Here is my question: Why does running 5.2 mph for 30 min. say I have only burned 259 calories but running 4.0 mph says I have burned over 1000?

Anybody?

Something is either wrong with your HR monitor, or you are using a database for the 4.0 mph from somebody that is 6'9" and weighs 400 pounds. ;-)

Try plugging in your information in the Runner's World Calculator...

http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator

pjb58

These stats were per MFP

Edmond_Dantes

1000 cals is way off - probably closer to 130 cals. Don't believe every calorie estimate!

xxghost

Yikes, those were MFP stats? I sure hope more people haven't used those.

Edmond_Dantes

Yikes, those were MFP stats? I sure hope more people haven't used those.

Yes, walk for 30 min at 4 mph and then eat a Whopper meal since the stroll burned 1000 cals!

JTick

I vaguely remember reading something about a bug affecting the 4mph entry on MFP...it was wildly miscalculating. I'd use a different calculator and manually enter your calories for now.

pjb58

Thanks for all of your help. After checking on the other speeds I would say the 4.0 mph is definitely off.
I also discovered 4.0 is pretty slow; I am actually doing an average of 5.3