Calories burned showing two VERY different numbers !

Options
chelsiekling755
chelsiekling755 Posts: 16 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
ok so I use MFP for tracking everything but when I walk I track it with map my fitness today I wAlked 0.85 miles at 3.0 pace in the map my fitness app it says walked 17 min and calories burned 215 when I put It in MFP for 3.0 17 min I get 134 calories burned I feel like that is a huge difference . Which one do I go with ??

(Can't wait to get my Fitbit )

Replies

  • futuremanda
    futuremanda Posts: 816 Member
    Options
    Personally, I'd go with MFP. 1) If we could burn 215 cals in 17 mins of walking at a moderate-brisk pace, we'd all be golden. and 2) When in doubt, opt for the safer option. (Assuming you burn less, or assuming you consumed more.)
  • Timorous_Beastie
    Timorous_Beastie Posts: 595 Member
    Options
    Unless all that walking was straight up a VERY steep mountain, go with MFP on that one.
  • chelsiekling755
    chelsiekling755 Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    That was my thoughts too thank you
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    I'd suggest that even MFP is high.
  • darlenegrace999
    darlenegrace999 Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    I track my walking just so I know day to day what I'm doing. I''m on a 1200 calorie diet and that's what I try to follow no matter what the calories burned says. There are too many variables that a fitness band or MFP does take into consideration. Are you going uphill? downhill? holding weights? speeding up? slowing down? sand? pavement? rough ground? All these things make a difference in calories burned, so really I would just ignore those numbers and stick with allowed calories, in the long run you'll lose more.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    darlenegrace999 wrote: »
    I track my walking just so I know day to day what I'm doing. I''m on a 1200 calorie diet and that's what I try to follow no matter what the calories burned says.

    So intentionally eating below generally recommended minimum calorie intake?

    Not particularly recommended. MFP is designed to eat back calories expended in exercise, although the observation that measuring calories expended is an exercise in large potential errors.

    Account for the exercise, try to avoid going below 1200, and adjust according to success or otherwise over time. If losing faster than goal then eat a little more to come back on track, if losing more slowly, then eat a little less.
  • flumi_f
    flumi_f Posts: 1,888 Member
    edited February 2015
    Options
    For comparison's sake....Yesterday I walked 8.3k / incline 165m in 90min, speed 5.5kph (= about 3mph) and burned 270cals. Today I ran the same route in 60min (8.5kph) and burned 450cal.

    My burns are generally alot lower than all the apps - I'm short, fit,in a healthy weight range and my heart rate is naturally lower than most people's. All apps overestimate my burns by 20-100% so I always measure my burns with an heart rate monitor. If you are not an 'average' person, the estimates from the apps or fitness machines are off.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
  • chelsiekling755
    chelsiekling755 Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

    Awesome I like that thanks
  • GPHX_GEEK
    GPHX_GEEK Posts: 32 Member
    Options
    I would definitely go with the estimate you got from MFP. As a side note, I'd like to share that even that number seems a bit high. I burn around 59 calories for 1 mile (15min) at a 3.0mph, which seems reasonable for me since I'm 5'4 and weigh 126.
  • kcjchang
    kcjchang Posts: 709 Member
    edited February 2015
    Options
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

    Interesting, I though Endomondo was closer but its on the high side (only really compared the cycling stats). Looks like my IpBike app has the closest net Calories burned estimate using its virtual power calc.

  • Zx14chick
    Zx14chick Posts: 255 Member
    Options
    I would go with the lower number, but in my case, I nearly always burn more than MFP or Fitbit think when I wear my HRM.
  • bentbikerbob
    bentbikerbob Posts: 2 Member
    Options
    I kind of noticed the same thing with my cycling. Calories calculated were about twice what they actually were. I didn't get it resolved until I got a heartrate monitor - much more accurate now!
    -
  • Cortelli
    Cortelli Posts: 1,369 Member
    Options
    chelsiekling755 wrote: »
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

    Awesome I like that thanks


    Yeah - that's a great link. He published an update almost a year ago (7 years later) - basically confirming the first article with additional studies (though forgoing the distinction between gross and net calories).

    runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn

Categories