Curious what others burn for walking at speeds of 3.5 to 4 + mph
Options
Replies
-
I tend to walk a ton while at my university. According to MapMyWalk for an average pace of about 3.5mph (maybe a little faster -I need to recalculate my average walk speed), I burn about 87 Calories per mile walked.0
-
If I calculate using MET formulas, I'd burn ~195 calories for 30 minutes of walking at that pace (or between 1.5 and 2 miles). To be safe I'd record that in my diary as 180 calories, and then only if the rest of my day had been pretty active as well.
Ty, would you think Mfp is close for this. For my 90 minutes total at 4mph it gives 510 (170/2miles)?
I have not found MFP to be anywhere near the results I see using METs to calculate calorie burn, and even that formula isn't perfectly accurate. When I log an hour of walking (I do a 5K every Saturday) MFP gives me almost 400 calories; my formula tells me I burn more like 300 (so that's a significant difference) and I usually log 225-250.
I do stationary cycling most weekdays and that's even worse. MFP tries to give me 375 calories for 30 minutes of stationary cycling; my formula gives me more like 155, and I log 115-125. I know it sucks to hear this, but the calories MFP allots you for exercise are wildly overstated, and on top of that you're likely overestimating the intensity of your exercise. That's not a slam against you -- almost everyone does it.
So mfp gives you almost 400 burn for 3 miles (5 km) and 300 for 3 miles w/ your formula. Also, thank you for your imput. Inspires me to push it!
Not quite, but I can see where it would be unclear. The pace (or really, the MET) I discussed would give a distance range, which is why I originally said "between 1.5 and 2 miles [in 30 minutes]." Walking in that speed range I'd cover something like 1.75 or 1.8 miles in half an hour (or between 3.5 and 3.6 miles in an hour), for which MFP would give me approximately 400 calories. For my 5K, which is 3 miles in a full hour, MFP wants to give me approximately 300. The speed difference seems negligible, but when we're talking time AND speed it adds enough distance that MFP tries to give me another 100 calories.0 -
I tend to walk a ton while at my university. According to MapMyWalk for an average pace of about 3.5mph (maybe a little faster -I need to recalculate my average walk speed), I burn about 87 Calories per mile walked.
mfp gives me (Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace) 85 calories burned/mile, so I log it 6 miles @ 510 (i don't usually eat back more than 25 to 50%), but it's great to have an idea0 -
you ask an interesting question, and yes, the burn is different for everyone. I have a problem trying to figure out what data to believe. I have a SyncBurn watch that will show heart rate, calories burned, steps, and distance. I also use MapMyRun with an App on my iPhone which will give distance via GPS, pace, split times, distance via GPS, calculated steps, calculated calorie burn, and it even draws a map of the route I walked. Last, many times I'll wear my HRM with a chest strap. That gives me HR, calories burned and time of exercise. When it comes to calories burned, the three do not agree and the values can be considerably different. I believe my HRM gives the most accurate reading for calories burned, the SyncBurn watch the least accurate and the MapMyRun App seems to be in the middle and closer to the HRM value than the SyncBurn value. Having said all this, during lunch I'll walk anywhere from 2.54 miles to 3.26 miles at a typical pace of 13:30 to 14:20 minutes per mile and burn anywhere from 433 calories to well over 500 calories depending upon the distance, and speed that day. I have the coaching feature on MapMyRun set to 14 minutes per mile and I'm usually walking much faster than my setting.0
-
If I calculate using MET formulas, I'd burn ~195 calories for 30 minutes of walking at that pace (or between 1.5 and 2 miles). To be safe I'd record that in my diary as 180 calories, and then only if the rest of my day had been pretty active as well.
Ty, would you think Mfp is close for this. For my 90 minutes total at 4mph it gives 510 (170/2miles)?
I have not found MFP to be anywhere near the results I see using METs to calculate calorie burn, and even that formula isn't perfectly accurate. When I log an hour of walking (I do a 5K every Saturday) MFP gives me almost 400 calories; my formula tells me I burn more like 300 (so that's a significant difference) and I usually log 225-250.
I do stationary cycling most weekdays and that's even worse. MFP tries to give me 375 calories for 30 minutes of stationary cycling; my formula gives me more like 155, and I log 115-125. I know it sucks to hear this, but the calories MFP allots you for exercise are wildly overstated, and on top of that you're likely overestimating the intensity of your exercise. That's not a slam against you -- almost everyone does it.
So mfp gives you almost 400 burn for 3 miles (5 km) and 300 for 3 miles w/ your formula. Also, thank you for your imput. Inspires me to push it!
Not quite, but I can see where it would be unclear. The pace (or really, the MET) I discussed would give a distance range, which is why I originally said "between 1.5 and 2 miles [in 30 minutes]." Walking in that speed range I'd cover something like 1.75 or 1.8 miles in half an hour (or between 3.5 and 3.6 miles in an hour), for which MFP would give me approximately 400 calories. For my 5K, which is 3 miles in a full hour, MFP wants to give me approximately 300. The speed difference seems negligible, but when we're talking time AND speed it adds enough distance that MFP tries to give me another 100 calories.
I'm logging mine from this in the mfp database "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace" and get 85 burnd for 15 min mile. so seems close for the 4 mph.
Here's what I get from mfp for mph walking from 2.5 to 4 mph @ 1 mile for 15 minutes.
0 -
Im_gonna_lose wrote: »you ask an interesting question, and yes, the burn is different for everyone. I have a problem trying to figure out what data to believe. I have a SyncBurn watch that will show heart rate, calories burned, steps, and distance. I also use MapMyRun with an App on my iPhone which will give distance via GPS, pace, split times, distance via GPS, calculated steps, calculated calorie burn, and it even draws a map of the route I walked. Last, many times I'll wear my HRM with a chest strap. That gives me HR, calories burned and time of exercise. When it comes to calories burned, the three do not agree and the values can be considerably different. I believe my HRM gives the most accurate reading for calories burned, the SyncBurn watch the least accurate and the MapMyRun App seems to be in the middle and closer to the HRM value than the SyncBurn value. Having said all this, during lunch I'll walk anywhere from 2.54 miles to 3.26 miles at a typical pace of 13:30 to 14:20 minutes per mile and burn anywhere from 433 calories to well over 500 calories depending upon the distance, and speed that day. I have the coaching feature on MapMyRun set to 14 minutes per mile and I'm usually walking much faster than my setting.
Thank you for this. Maybe I am burning 510 for 6, 15 minute miles. I've also, just started finishing the 6 miles in 87 minutes so I'm getting faster Thanks again 0 -
Female, 56, 5'8", 132 pounds. I burn about 80 calories a mile at a 4.0 pace according to my BodyMedia Fit.0
-
If I calculate using MET formulas, I'd burn ~195 calories for 30 minutes of walking at that pace (or between 1.5 and 2 miles). To be safe I'd record that in my diary as 180 calories, and then only if the rest of my day had been pretty active as well.
Ty, would you think Mfp is close for this. For my 90 minutes total at 4mph it gives 510 (170/2miles)?
I have not found MFP to be anywhere near the results I see using METs to calculate calorie burn, and even that formula isn't perfectly accurate. When I log an hour of walking (I do a 5K every Saturday) MFP gives me almost 400 calories; my formula tells me I burn more like 300 (so that's a significant difference) and I usually log 225-250.
I do stationary cycling most weekdays and that's even worse. MFP tries to give me 375 calories for 30 minutes of stationary cycling; my formula gives me more like 155, and I log 115-125. I know it sucks to hear this, but the calories MFP allots you for exercise are wildly overstated, and on top of that you're likely overestimating the intensity of your exercise. That's not a slam against you -- almost everyone does it.
So mfp gives you almost 400 burn for 3 miles (5 km) and 300 for 3 miles w/ your formula. Also, thank you for your imput. Inspires me to push it!
Not quite, but I can see where it would be unclear. The pace (or really, the MET) I discussed would give a distance range, which is why I originally said "between 1.5 and 2 miles [in 30 minutes]." Walking in that speed range I'd cover something like 1.75 or 1.8 miles in half an hour (or between 3.5 and 3.6 miles in an hour), for which MFP would give me approximately 400 calories. For my 5K, which is 3 miles in a full hour, MFP wants to give me approximately 300. The speed difference seems negligible, but when we're talking time AND speed it adds enough distance that MFP tries to give me another 100 calories.
I'm logging mine from this in the mfp database "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace" and get 85 burnd for 15 min mile. so seems close for the 4 mph.
Here's what I get from mfp for mph walking from 2.5 to 4 mph @ 1 mile for 15 minutes.
Yes, that does appear to be pretty close -- for me. If I entered my walking into MFP and it gave me those numbers, I would be content and not need to use MET formulas. Are you also 5'8" and 230 pounds? If not, it's not accurate for you and you'd be better off using MET formulas or cutting what MFP gives you by some percentage.
That's what others here have been trying to tell you. These estimates vary by person and calculator, so polling us for our results is fairly useless to you. MET formulas, for instance, use not only your exercise intensity but also your weight in kilograms and the time spent to determine a calorie burn, so the fact that your MFP estimates match my body is concerning, don't you think?
0 -
I think 100 cal per mile is pretty close as a sanity check, regardless of speed. On runner world calc: at 170lbs, 1 Mile / Any Speed = 129 cal. http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator0
-
This is why I never want to eat my calories back after exercising! I don't like the fact that MFP underestimates the calorie burn!
0 -
-
Distance: 6 miles
Duration: 00:87:00
Pace: 14:30 / mile
Calories Burned: 635
Calorie Burn Rates:
105.88 / mile
438.1 / hour
7.30/ minute
(For this i used 140lbs and the weight of the runner)0 -
If I calculate using MET formulas, I'd burn ~195 calories for 30 minutes of walking at that pace (or between 1.5 and 2 miles). To be safe I'd record that in my diary as 180 calories, and then only if the rest of my day had been pretty active as well.
Ty, would you think Mfp is close for this. For my 90 minutes total at 4mph it gives 510 (170/2miles)?
I have not found MFP to be anywhere near the results I see using METs to calculate calorie burn, and even that formula isn't perfectly accurate. When I log an hour of walking (I do a 5K every Saturday) MFP gives me almost 400 calories; my formula tells me I burn more like 300 (so that's a significant difference) and I usually log 225-250.
I do stationary cycling most weekdays and that's even worse. MFP tries to give me 375 calories for 30 minutes of stationary cycling; my formula gives me more like 155, and I log 115-125. I know it sucks to hear this, but the calories MFP allots you for exercise are wildly overstated, and on top of that you're likely overestimating the intensity of your exercise. That's not a slam against you -- almost everyone does it.
So mfp gives you almost 400 burn for 3 miles (5 km) and 300 for 3 miles w/ your formula. Also, thank you for your imput. Inspires me to push it!
Not quite, but I can see where it would be unclear. The pace (or really, the MET) I discussed would give a distance range, which is why I originally said "between 1.5 and 2 miles [in 30 minutes]." Walking in that speed range I'd cover something like 1.75 or 1.8 miles in half an hour (or between 3.5 and 3.6 miles in an hour), for which MFP would give me approximately 400 calories. For my 5K, which is 3 miles in a full hour, MFP wants to give me approximately 300. The speed difference seems negligible, but when we're talking time AND speed it adds enough distance that MFP tries to give me another 100 calories.
I'm logging mine from this in the mfp database "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace" and get 85 burnd for 15 min mile. so seems close for the 4 mph.
Here's what I get from mfp for mph walking from 2.5 to 4 mph @ 1 mile for 15 minutes.
Yes, that does appear to be pretty close -- for me. If I entered my walking into MFP and it gave me those numbers, I would be content and not need to use MET formulas. Are you also 5'8" and 230 pounds? If not, it's not accurate for you and you'd be better off using MET formulas or cutting what MFP gives you by some percentage.
That's what others here have been trying to tell you. These estimates vary by person and calculator, so polling us for our results is fairly useless to you. MET formulas, for instance, use not only your exercise intensity but also your weight in kilograms and the time spent to determine a calorie burn, so the fact that your MFP estimates match my body is concerning, don't you think?
this is gtk and I appreciate you telling me this. I'm 150 lbs, 5, 5", 47 y/o, female. Fortunately I only eat 1/2 back or less, but I do the walking for more than calorie burn. This question was for curiosity and inspiration, but really good to know. I'm learning stuff today. Although I still may be coming off as confused, I am thankful for the enlightenment. 0 -
I powerwalk for 1 hour at around 4mph and my calorie burn is around 300.
I'm 5,4', 133lbs and 49 yrs old.0 -
I'd personally use what MFP says, dice it seems reasonable or maybe conservative. That way, you aren't overestimating your burn. I see people burning around 1000 calories in a 45 min cardio session and am often skeptical about the accuracy.0
-
ExRelaySprinter wrote: »I powerwalk for 1 hour at around 4mph and my calorie burn is around 320 (MFP estimate it much higher).
I'm 5,4', 133lbs and 49 yrs old.
I'm 5, 5', 150 and 47/yo and get 340 for 1 hr @ 4mph from mfp "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace". I'm an inch taller and 17 lbs heavier. Only 20 calories difference. I'm wondering if a different database is used for phones as the computers. It may be a silly question, but mfp is giving 85 cal per mile (estimate) @ 4 mph. I choose this in the database "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace for that estimate. Now i'm really curious
0 -
ExRelaySprinter wrote: »I powerwalk for 1 hour at around 4mph and my calorie burn is around 320 (MFP estimate it much higher).
I'm 5,4', 133lbs and 49 yrs old.
I'm 5, 5', 150 and 47/yo and get 340 for 1 hr @ 4mph from mfp "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace". I'm an inch taller and 17 lbs heavier. Only 20 calories difference. I'm wondering if a different database is used for phones as the computers. It may be a silly question, but mfp is giving 85 cal per mile (estimate) @ 4 mph. I choose this in the database "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace for that estimate. Now i'm really curious
0 -
Oops, i'm so sorry...i got it wrong!ExRelaySprinter wrote: »I powerwalk for 1 hour at around 4mph and my calorie burn is around 320 (MFP estimate it much higher).
I'm 5,4', 133lbs and 49 yrs old.
I'm 5, 5', 150 and 47/yo and get 340 for 1 hr @ 4mph from mfp "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace". I'm an inch taller and 17 lbs heavier. Only 20 calories difference. I'm wondering if a different database is used for phones as the computers. It may be a silly question, but mfp is giving 85 cal per mile (estimate) @ 4 mph. I choose this in the database "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace for that estimate. Now i'm really curious
I was entering 5mph in the MFP calculator - 4mph gives me 297 cals.
What a Numpty.
0 -
I really think people get "too into" that number on your pedometer or even the MFP. If your goal is weight loss and you're losing, you are in your game. Don't get hung up on the calorie burn number. They aren't too accurate anyway. A good friend on MPF recommends just using your minutes as your calorie burn. 90 mins = 90 cals. Simple and you're not into any kind of "head game" with numbers that aren't accurate anyway. Works for me.
Great luck to you in achieving your ultimate goal! 0 -
ExRelaySprinter wrote: »
Oops, i'm so sorry...i got it wrong!ExRelaySprinter wrote: »I powerwalk for 1 hour at around 4mph and my calorie burn is around 320 (MFP estimate it much higher).
I'm 5,4', 133lbs and 49 yrs old.
I'm 5, 5', 150 and 47/yo and get 340 for 1 hr @ 4mph from mfp "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace". I'm an inch taller and 17 lbs heavier. Only 20 calories difference. I'm wondering if a different database is used for phones as the computers. It may be a silly question, but mfp is giving 85 cal per mile (estimate) @ 4 mph. I choose this in the database "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace for that estimate. Now i'm really curious
I was entering 5mph in the MFP calculator - 4mph gives me 297 cals.
What a Numpty.
you get 297 burned for 60 @ 4 mph entering from the database (mfp) this ""Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace""
I'm getting 340. Are you using the phone app or your computer? This is curious.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions