Calorie burn overestimated?

lmclaine

I am worried that I am overestimating my calorie burn. I noticed that someone RAN 56 minutes and burned 497 calories. Yesterday, I walked briskly for 55 minutes and burned 426 calories according to MFP. Seems like running would burn substantially more calories than walking. I'm afraid that the number of calories burned may be calculated wrong and I may be hurting myself when I eat up to my exercise calories. Any thoughts?

ukgirly01

I think ita always over estimated I run on the treadmill (interval training so 22 minutes of running and 8 mins of brisk walking in total) MFP says this is near 500 cals the treadmill says 330 ish. (and yes I input my weight and age etc)

girlruns

Hmmm...that sounds like my workout! :laugh:

I wouldn't worry about it. My calorie burn has actually dropped quite a bit from when I first started. I used to get AT LEAST 100 calories to the mile, but not anymore :grumble:
Also, I think my body has become very efficient at running so it doesn't have to "work" as hard. Finally, whenever I do a walking workout, I burn way more than what MFP calculates (according to my heart rate monitor).

As long as you continue with the great progress you've had so far, I'd say you are doing something right.

lmclaine

Hmmm...that sounds like my workout! :laugh

Busted! Everything you said makes perfect sense. Seems like you were getting shortchanged or I was overestimating. I'm going exculsively by MFP calculations because I don't have any of the fancy do-dads like pedometers and heart monitors. If we are confident that a 60 minute brisk walk burns 450 calories, I'm good with that!

scagneti

Calories burned are determined by a lot of factors and one of the most important is current weight. If the person who ran the distance was significantly smaller, their burn would be much less than someone larger. Height and size also determine your burn.

lmclaine

Another excellent point, hadn't thought of that.