Correct amount of calories burned

Options
cameronburns1982
cameronburns1982 Posts: 18 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Needing a little bit of help please. I use Strava to record the distance, time, etc when I'm out walking or cycling. I used it today to record a 3.3 mile walk and it said that I had burned 1126 calories but when I logged it in MFP as a vigorous 3.5mph walk it was only showing 541 calories burned. Which one do I go with and does anybody know how to work it out? Any help appreciated.
«1

Replies

  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    1100 calories for a 3.3 mile walk is out of this world ridiculous. Even 541 calories is more than I would expect. 80-100 calories per mile is more typical of walking; running is slightly more, maybe 100-120.

    I find that most of the calorie estimates by the MFP database are wildly overestimating calorie burn.
  • x_JT_x
    x_JT_x Posts: 364
    Options
    I'm not sure that both those values aren't high. I do a combination walk/run for 3 miles and I generally burn in the area of 375 cals.
  • cameronburns1982
    cameronburns1982 Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    That's pretty much what I thought. I'm 369lbs so I know I will burn a little bit extra just because of my weight but even those figures seem a bit on the high side.
  • SoDamnHungry
    SoDamnHungry Posts: 6,998 Member
    Options
    I agree that both of those sound way too high.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    That's pretty much what I thought. I'm 369lbs so I know I will burn a little bit extra just because of my weight but even those figures seem a bit on the high side.

    Ah you're a big dude. 500-some odd calories is probably in the ballpark then.
  • concordancia
    concordancia Posts: 5,320 Member
    Options
    That's pretty much what I thought. I'm 369lbs so I know I will burn a little bit extra just because of my weight but even those figures seem a bit on the high side.

    Ah you're a big dude. 500-some odd calories is probably in the ballpark then.

    I agree. Did you really walk 3.3 miles in an hour, though? If so, good on you!

    If not, double check by entering your time for a slower pace.
  • jzammetti
    jzammetti Posts: 1,956 Member
    Options
    The best way to get an accurate estimate of calories burned is to wear a HRM with a chest trap.
  • cameronburns1982
    cameronburns1982 Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    Thanks. I actually managed it in 51 minutes, according to Strava.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    Thanks. I actually managed it in 51 minutes, according to Strava.

    Well done, and good for you.
  • cameronburns1982
    cameronburns1982 Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    Thanks very much Jonnythan.
  • cameronburns1982
    cameronburns1982 Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    To jzammetti, I bought a HRM yesterday but not 100% how to use it. I'm assuming that I use the average Bpm to work out calories burned.
  • jzammetti
    jzammetti Posts: 1,956 Member
    Options
    To jzammetti, I bought a HRM yesterday but not 100% how to use it. I'm assuming that I use the average Bpm to work out calories burned.

    Which one did you buy? It doesn't show you total calories burned? I have polar FT4 and it shows me various stats - average HR, how much time in "the zone," total time and calories burned.,,so no guessing or math! lol
  • now_or_never13
    now_or_never13 Posts: 1,575 Member
    Options
    To jzammetti, I bought a HRM yesterday but not 100% how to use it. I'm assuming that I use the average Bpm to work out calories burned.

    What HRM did you buy?

    DId you get one with a chest strap and one that allows you to enter your age, sex, weight and height?

    I have a Polar FT7 and it shows HR, fat burn, fitness zone, and calories burned.
  • jellybeanmusic
    jellybeanmusic Posts: 161 Member
    Options
    I second the HRM, I use mine all the time now. I heard they can be out by up to 20%, but closer than guessing!

    You'll need to programme it with your height and weight and stuff, remember to update your settings regularly as you lose weight as it'll be more accurate if you do.
  • cameronburns1982
    cameronburns1982 Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    I bout the Target HRS410. It was one of the cheapest decent ones that I could find that came with a chest strap. I didn't want to spen a lot until I knew if it was any use to me or not. Once I get used to using it, I will go out and spend the money on a good one.
  • now_or_never13
    now_or_never13 Posts: 1,575 Member
    Options
    I bout the Target HRS410. It was one of the cheapest decent ones that I could find that came with a chest strap. I didn't want to spen a lot until I knew if it was any use to me or not. Once I get used to using it, I will go out and spend the money on a good one.

    Does it let you enter your age, sex, height and weight? And show calories burned?

    HRMs are a great investment. I'm glad I spent the money on mine.
  • cameronburns1982
    cameronburns1982 Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    It doesn't let you input any of that. It shows the time, heart rate ande average bpm's. like I say, if I find that it works for me, I'm more than happy to go and invest in a good one that would let me input age, sex, heir, weir, etc.
  • now_or_never13
    now_or_never13 Posts: 1,575 Member
    Options
    It doesn't let you input any of that. It shows the time, heart rate ande average bpm's. like I say, if I find that it works for me, I'm more than happy to go and invest in a good one that would let me input age, sex, heir, weir, etc.

    I would suggest trying to return the one that you got. By the sounds of it, it is only going to be useful for finding out your HR.

    If it doesn't let you input your height, age, sex and weight it will not give you an accurate calorie burn. In my opinion it would be a bit of a waste of money as it won't give you an accurate burn reading as it will go based off an average build which will be a lot different than yours. I ran into that issue with the first HRM I purchased which I returned. I than checked online and checked sales until I found a good one that I could afford.

    You can get ones that do and have a chest strap for relatively cheap (especially if you are in the US).
  • cameronburns1982
    cameronburns1982 Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    That seems to be the general consensus. I think I'll be doing a bit of research to see what I can find within my budget (need to work that out as well!!!).
  • jzammetti
    jzammetti Posts: 1,956 Member
    Options
    It doesn't let you input any of that. It shows the time, heart rate ande average bpm's. like I say, if I find that it works for me, I'm more than happy to go and invest in a good one that would let me input age, sex, heir, weir, etc.

    I would suggest trying to return the one that you got. By the sounds of it, it is only going to be useful for finding out your HR.

    If it doesn't let you input your height, age, sex and weight it will not give you an accurate calorie burn. In my opinion it would be a bit of a waste of money as it won't give you an accurate burn reading as it will go based off an average build which will be a lot different than yours. I ran into that issue with the first HRM I purchased which I returned. I than checked online and checked sales until I found a good one that I could afford.

    You can get ones that do and have a chest strap for relatively cheap (especially if you are in the US).

    I got my Polar FT4 (basic, but perfect) for $70 on Amazon. Worth every penny

Categories