Calculating calories burned from walking

29_adjacent

Hi.

So I've seen lots of people on here saying that MFP's estimates for exercise calories are often too high and consequently you should only eat back 50-75% of them.

However, I've checked several online calculators for all the walking I do (currently this is the only exercise I'm doing) and none of them seem to be very far off what MFP is telling me. In fact, if anything the online calculators are telling me I'm burning MORE that what MFP says.

Does this mean that MFP's estimates for walking are actually pretty accurate and therefore I should be eating back pretty much ALL the calories I burn from walking?

Does anyone know the best site to use for accurate exercise calories information?

susanevenden

Generally a chart of calories burned is based on a 150lb male, unless otherwise stated. I believe MFP adjusts it based on your weight and gender (I could be wrong)

I have not found the calories to be incorrect. I haven't really studied this closely, but I have over 20 years of experience as a Fitness Instructor and 10 as a Personal Trainer in my career history and they seem okay to me.

3dogsrunning

It is a common repeated sentiment on here, but that does not make it true.

For some things - yes, MFP can be inflated. Things like Zumba, circuit training, aerobics, etc, are hard to estimate values because there are so many variables. The less specific the activity, the more likely the chance of incorrect information.

That said - the energy requirements for things like walking and running are very well researched and fairly constant. If you know you are walking at a certain pace over a certain distance at a certain weight, the estimate will be fairly accurate. Choosing an entry like "brisk walking" or "walking uphill" will be less accurate as again you are introducing unknown variables.

A good explanation here
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/estimating-calories-activity-databases-198041

ETA - I should add there was a recent bug where some of the walking entries were really inflated, however that seems to be fixed now. Even then there were two entries, one correct, one inflated. But it was the kind of inflated where you looked and said there is no way that should be right.

3dogsrunning

Generally a chart of calories burned is based on a 150lb male, unless otherwise stated. I believe MFP adjusts it based on your weight and gender (I could be wrong)

I have not found the calories to be incorrect. I haven't really studied this closely, but I have over 20 years of experience as a Fitness Instructor and 10 as a Personal Trainer in my career history and they seem okay to me.

MFP does account for weight. I just adjusted my pregnancy weight yesterday and got 5 more calories for the swim entry I always use (all the other info the same).

29_adjacent

Generally a chart of calories burned is based on a 150lb male, unless otherwise stated. I believe MFP adjusts it based on your weight and gender (I could be wrong).

All the online calculators I've used have asked my weight, walking speed and time taken but not my gender. Would there be a big difference in calories burned by a man who weighs the same as me?

3dogsrunning

Generally a chart of calories burned is based on a 150lb male, unless otherwise stated. I believe MFP adjusts it based on your weight and gender (I could be wrong).

All the online calculators I've used have asked my weight, walking speed and time taken but not my gender. Would there be a big difference in calories burned by a man who weighs the same as me?

No. Calories burned is weight and intensity. For HR equations gender is needed for their algorithms but it takes the same energy to move 150lbs of man or woman at the same speed over the same distance.

29_adjacent

It is a common repeated sentiment on here, but that does not make it true.

For some things - yes, MFP can be inflated. Things like Zumba, circuit training, aerobics, etc, are hard to estimate values because there are so many variables. The less specific the activity, the more likely the chance of incorrect information.

That said - the energy requirements for things like walking and running are very well researched and fairly constant. If you know you are walking at a certain pace over a certain distance at a certain weight, the estimate will be fairly accurate. Choosing an entry like "brisk walking" or "walking uphill" will be less accurate as again you are introducing unknown variables.

A good explanation here
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/estimating-calories-activity-databases-198041

ETA - I should add there was a recent bug where some of the walking entries were really inflated, however that seems to be fixed now. Even then there were two entries, one correct, one inflated. But it was the kind of inflated where you looked and said there is no way that should be right.

Ok that makes sense, thanks!

So if I know the exact distance I'm walking and the speed MFP's estimate will be based on my weight and will be pretty accurate? Does that mean I SHOULD be eating back all calories from walking, rather than the 50-75% I've seen recommended on here?

pawprint061

I've never had any problems with MFP being wrong. I have my own pediometer for when I walk and it tells me calories burned and it's always close to MFP.

ucabucca

I think they are accurate enough and I do eat mine back

susanevenden

it takes the same energy to move 150lbs of man or woman at the same speed over the same distance.

There is some debate about this, but many schools of thought say that a 150lb male has a larger frame and more muscle than a 150lb female and therefore burns more calories at the same activity.

It's a fine point of debate and I have seen entire running groups break up because of arguments over how to calculate RHR.

I am happy with the calorie database on MFP and have found it accurate when it's been compared to other places I have looked, although I haven't invested a lot of energy into researching it.

nofoodforthemood

You could always find a tracker online that you feel more comfortable with and then manually enter those exercise calories on here. I like this website: http://www.fatburn.com/free_tool_activity_burn.asp Has more exercise options than mfp

thirteeninches

When I walk, I manually check my heart rate every ten minutes or so. (Yes I know it is not perfectly accurate but it is a fair approximation) I know I need to stay between 12-14 beats per five seconds to stay at the proper intensity to burn fat (according to various websites) then I do a little math and plug the number, plus my age, weight and duration of the activity into a calories burned/ heart rate calculator I found online. (I compared various online calories/heart rate calculators and they all are very close-within 10 calories) When I compare those cals with most stuff on MFP or other sites, it can be off by 50 calories or more, but I trust my counting rather than their estimations (even when it means I log fewer calories burned.) It has been a good way for me to train myself to recognize the proper intensity, too. And a five to ten second break between an anaerobic interval exercise and an aerobic one makes it easier to carry on

Eventually I think I will borrow a heart rate monitor and compare my accuracy against the technology. If the difference is not significant, then I won't bother spending the money, but if I've been counting wrong all this time.. well, I'm still losing weight and getting stronger at a satisfying pace, so I don't know how much it matters.

ChrisM8971

I believe that the walking calories on here are pretty accurate and I used to eat the calories back while losing pretty much the weight predicted each week

However, in my opinion, the biggest source of inaccuracies for many exercises on here is over estimation of speed or the selection of light, moderate & intense etc

If you are unfit it may well seem that you are walking fast or putting in intensive effort but in the real world it might actually be slow or a light workout

For walking I drove the route I was going to walk first (on the road next to the path so no pedestrians were harmed in the preparation) giving me the distance. I then timed myself walking the route and could actually calculate my exact speed for the walk

mdg1946

hi thank you for the web site fatburn.com I golf and can not get a correct account of golfing 4hours pulling a cart. fatburn 1748 myfitnesspal 1428 these amount seem very high. the web site was helpful. bye mg

sodakat

I believe that the walking calories on here are pretty accurate and I used to eat the calories back while losing pretty much the weight predicted each week

However, in my opinion, the biggest source of inaccuracies for many exercises on here is over estimation of speed or the selection of light, moderate & intense etc

If you are unfit it may well seem that you are walking fast or putting in intensive effort but in the real world it might actually be slow or a light workout

For walking I drove the route I was going to walk first (on the road next to the path so no pedestrians were harmed in the preparation) giving me the distance. I then timed myself walking the route and could actually calculate my exact speed for the walk

That's what I did too. The route I walk most often is a loop in a park nearby that is 1/3 mile long. So if it takes me 5 minutes to walk once around I know I am walking a mile in 15 minutes or 4 miles per hour. When I started I was walking about 2.5 miles per hour.

My "S-Health" tracker on my smart phone shows the same calorie burn as MFP, btw. I did enter my height/weight/age in S-Health when I first started using it because the default was set for a 6'3 male!

FairlyOddChelle

I use Kaiser Permanente's app, "Every Body Walk!" I usually adjust the calories in MFP from what the app tells me. But even so, the calorie difference isn't much. So, I'd say MFP is pretty accurate.

grandmothercharlie

I do it two ways. When I walk track in the gym, I use my Omron pedometer. I jot down how many calories I have burned during the day from just my regular walking, then I know how many laps I go. My pedometer has an "aerobic" counter that only counts steps after 10 continuous minutes at a speed over 2 MPH. It will also tell you how fast that walk is. When I am done. I look at the totally calories burned for the day and subtract the number I jotted down at the beginning of the cardio walk. It is actually pretty close to MFP usually, but I adjust the MFP to the number I got.

When I walk outside, I use MapMyWalk. It will usually be higher than MFP but that is because it takes into consideration climbs/hills where you will obviously expend more energy.

I NEVER log all the walking calories burned from my pedometer, because my regular daily walking is already figured in my TDEE profile as slightly active. That would be like counting them twice.

Although, this is really academic for me, because I usually don't eat back too many of my exercise calories. When I get down to my goal, because of my age and being so short even with exercise calories, my calorie count will be very low. I might as well get used to it now.

3dogsrunning

it takes the same energy to move 150lbs of man or woman at the same speed over the same distance.

There is some debate about this, but many schools of thought say that a 150lb male has a larger frame and more muscle than a 150lb female and therefore burns more calories at the same activity.

It's a fine point of debate and I have seen entire running groups break up because of arguments over how to calculate RHR.

I am happy with the calorie database on MFP and have found it accurate when it's been compared to other places I have looked, although I haven't invested a lot of energy into researching it.

RMR is a whole seperate issue. Yes, muscle is more metabolicly active than fat, so at rest a more muscular body will require more calories, but we are assuming net calories burn - that is we have already accounted for the calories we would burn anyway during that time if we weren't active, so we just want to know what extra calories we burned through the exercise. That comes down to weight and intensity. Gross calories may be slightly different, but net should be the same.

chantwizzle83

I use Runtastic to log my activities. I feel like its fairly accurate because its also measuring how much ground I've covered in a time period. Its generally pretty close to what to MFP. And I almost never eat back my exercise calories.

arf24_1

I use a heart rate monitor while walking. I also use an app to track my mph and distance. The MFP estimate is about 50% too low for my actual burn.

BrendaBK175

I found using a HRM the best for tracking my walking calories and most exercise other than weight lifting. It tracks my calories much higher than what MFP does and my fitness coach that I use told me to go by my HRM then the tracker on mfp.

jonathandavid_t

Remember that with a calculation for an hour walking, if for example it comes up as 300kcal expenditure, (regardless of whether on tracker or MFP estimates or HRM), if you had sat at home watching TV you still would have burnt TDEE/24 kcal anyway (80, for example) so the ADDITIONAL benefit you got from walking was e.g. 300-80 = 220 kcal.

Which fits the 50-75% thing.

ChrisM8971

Remember that with a calculation for an hour walking, if for example it comes up as 300kcal expenditure, (regardless of whether on tracker or MFP estimates or HRM), if you had sat at home watching TV you still would have burnt TDEE/24 kcal anyway (80, for example) so the ADDITIONAL benefit you got from walking was e.g. 300-80 = 220 kcal.

Which fits the 50-75% thing.

I do a similar calculation as well but its never as easy as it seems.

TDEE includes exercise so you wouldn't even add in the calories from walking

If the walking is part of your normal daily activity its part of your NEAT so again don't count it

If walking is in addition to your daily activity (a deliberate exercise) then deduct NEAT/24 calories

Shropshire1959

.

amusedmonkey

Remember that with a calculation for an hour walking, if for example it comes up as 300kcal expenditure, (regardless of whether on tracker or MFP estimates or HRM), if you had sat at home watching TV you still would have burnt TDEE/24 kcal anyway (80, for example) so the ADDITIONAL benefit you got from walking was e.g. 300-80 = 220 kcal.

Which fits the 50-75% thing.

I use an unorthodox trick to avoid the calculation. I burn about 95 resting, and my walking speed is fairly consistent for now. I found that if I set my heart rate monitor weight 50 pounds lighter it shows 95 calories less per hour than the usual number. It's not pinpoint accurate but it does the trick for me.

krystina_letitia9

Personally... I burn more calories walking than MFP tells me, according to my HRM. Everything else is inflated for me, though!

29_adjacent

Remember that with a calculation for an hour walking, if for example it comes up as 300kcal expenditure, (regardless of whether on tracker or MFP estimates or HRM), if you had sat at home watching TV you still would have burnt TDEE/24 kcal anyway (80, for example) so the ADDITIONAL benefit you got from walking was e.g. 300-80 = 220 kcal.

Which fits the 50-75% thing.

Thanks, I did not know this! I will take that into consideration from now on.

29_adjacent

Remember that with a calculation for an hour walking, if for example it comes up as 300kcal expenditure, (regardless of whether on tracker or MFP estimates or HRM), if you had sat at home watching TV you still would have burnt TDEE/24 kcal anyway (80, for example) so the ADDITIONAL benefit you got from walking was e.g. 300-80 = 220 kcal.

Which fits the 50-75% thing.

I do a similar calculation as well but its never as easy as it seems.

TDEE includes exercise so you wouldn't even add in the calories from walking

If the walking is part of your normal daily activity its part of your NEAT so again don't count it

If walking is in addition to your daily activity (a deliberate exercise) then deduct NEAT/24 calories

Thanks, that make sense. The walking is in addition to my daily activity so I will take this into account when working out my calories burnt.