Pedometer Reading versus MFP Reading

wdwithers

According to my pedometer, I walked 2.182 miles, burned 360.4 calories, and 4,938 steps in 55 minutesout on the side of the highway. My pedometer reads 360.4 calories, but MFP says I burned 646 calories. So, two things:

1. Why the difference?
2. Which should I go with?

I'm thinking my pedometer since I was the one who added this particular walking excercise in the database. I have been trying to edit what I put in it when I first created it, but I don't think I can.

I also tink that I may have burned even more only because out on the highway, you have different degrees in inclines, a different type of terrain than on a treadmill. Or does that just mean more muscle usage not more calories?

Please answer all 3 questions.

cookadook

well, i don't really know the answers to your questions.. but I tend to lean more towards the MFP calories burned. My Pedometer doesn't know how much I weigh, my age, my gender, etc...and MFP does. I think (hope) the calories burned according to MFP takes at least my weight into account. Because I burn more calories moving my body that weighs close to 300 lbs than the smaller person who is moving their 150 pound body for example. I feel this way because if I do the quick start on my elliptical machine and go for thirty minutes it will say I burned 300 calories (for example), but when I enter in my weight into the elliptical settlings, it will say I burned 600 (for example)... and then when I log it in MFP.. the number is around 600 (for example). So.. to me, that means that MFP is closer to realistic than a machine that doesn't know if I way a buck or 3 bucks. Hope that gives you a new perspective to think about.

arc918

646 for two miles of walking seems really high to me.

skylark94

I always deducted 25-50% from anything MFP gave me. The numbers it gives seems to be very inflated.