17 minute miles...input accuracy?

Options
dragongummy
dragongummy Posts: 24 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I can walk a mile in 17 minutes, and I walked 3 miles today in around 53 minutes. I'm trying to be as accurate as possible, which walking pace do I select? 3.0 or 3.5 and what should I put the minutes walked as? So confused. Thanks for helping my slow butt figure this out...!!

(my walking speed is like 3.3 mph)

Replies

  • dragongummy
    dragongummy Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    bump
  • Lizzy622
    Lizzy622 Posts: 3,705 Member
    Options
    I use Runtastic which directly sends my numbers over. I would probably use 3 since MFP is usually estimates a bit high.
  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,224 Member
    Options
    This is the kind of minutia that will drive you insane. I don't know the calorie difference, but it's just not huge-or frankly big enough to make any real impact. But, since you're worried, people generally consider the calorie burns in mfp's database to be high, so maybe go with 3.0 just in case. But really, just get out and walk. Whether you burn 83 or 74 or 96 calories is just not a big difference in the grand scheme of things. I promise.
  • dragongummy
    dragongummy Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    That makes sense to choose 3.0 mph. I shall do so!! I keep forgetting it's not a huge calorie difference. Bleh! Thank you guys~
  • buffywhitney
    buffywhitney Posts: 172 Member
    Options
    If you use the mapmywalk app it will calculate calories burned for you as well. I do the same as you and it works out to be roughly 100 cals per mile. I'm 5'6 and 158 lbs.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    I can walk a mile in 17 minutes, and I walked 3 miles today in around 53 minutes. I'm trying to be as accurate as possible, which walking pace do I select? 3.0 or 3.5 and what should I put the minutes walked as? So confused. Thanks for helping my slow butt figure this out...!!

    (my walking speed is like 3.3 mph)

    Forget "speed", just use this...

    .30 * your weight pounds * miles walked

    That'll be your net burn from walking.
  • stumblinthrulife
    stumblinthrulife Posts: 2,558 Member
    Options
    I can walk a mile in 17 minutes, and I walked 3 miles today in around 53 minutes. I'm trying to be as accurate as possible, which walking pace do I select? 3.0 or 3.5 and what should I put the minutes walked as? So confused. Thanks for helping my slow butt figure this out...!!

    (my walking speed is like 3.3 mph)

    Forget "speed", just use this...

    .30 * your weight pounds * miles walked

    That'll be your net burn from walking.

    Source? This seems really low.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    I can walk a mile in 17 minutes, and I walked 3 miles today in around 53 minutes. I'm trying to be as accurate as possible, which walking pace do I select? 3.0 or 3.5 and what should I put the minutes walked as? So confused. Thanks for helping my slow butt figure this out...!!

    (my walking speed is like 3.3 mph)

    Forget "speed", just use this...

    .30 * your weight pounds * miles walked

    That'll be your net burn from walking.

    Source? This seems really low.

    Runners World, it's googlable, tons of references in the article. If you're just after the gross number (ie, not net) the multiplier is 0.53. For running, the multipliers are 0.75 for gross, 0.63 for net.
  • samammay
    samammay Posts: 468
    Options
    I can walk a mile in 17 minutes, and I walked 3 miles today in around 53 minutes. I'm trying to be as accurate as possible, which walking pace do I select? 3.0 or 3.5 and what should I put the minutes walked as? So confused. Thanks for helping my slow butt figure this out...!!

    (my walking speed is like 3.3 mph)

    Forget "speed", just use this...

    .30 * your weight pounds * miles walked

    That'll be your net burn from walking.

    Source? This seems really low.

    Runners World, it's googlable, tons of references in the article. If you're just after the gross number (ie, not net) the multiplier is 0.53. For running, the multipliers are 0.75 for gross, 0.63 for net.

    Net being the amount you burnt on top of just being alive for that period of time?
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,248 Member
    Options
    The amount of calories burned walking a 3.3mph vs 3.0mph aren't going to be different enough to have any kind of impact. If you know you went three miles, just select 3mph and put in 60 minutes.

    When I counted exercise calories instead of TDEE, I'd go by either the treadmill or Runkeeper's calorie estimates and input it as my own exercise. Ie, "LorinaLynn burned 263 calories during 58 minutes of walking 3.2 really hilly miles while listening to disco."
  • shannashannabobana
    shannashannabobana Posts: 625 Member
    Options
    This is the kind of minutia that will drive you insane.
    Yep! Just pick one and roll with it. I usually use the 3.0 one when I'm casually strolling and the 3.5 when I'm walking with purpose :)

    Running won't go lower than 5.0 and I'm a slow runners, so not always there. I don't really care, especially it doesn't matter if you're only eating back part of your exercise calories (because I do think MFP estimates are high).

Categories