Exercise Calorie Mismatch

kirstym1108
kirstym1108 Posts: 46 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I have just been for a brisk 45 min walk (got sweaty and out of breath); I logged my walk on Map My Walk when I came home which tells me I burned approx 450 calories. Logging the exercise here as brisk walk at 3mph for 45 min only gives a figure of 267 calories burned. That's a big mismatch, so which is correct? I have checked all my settings for age, gender, weight and height are correct. Thanks for your help!!

Replies

  • kgb6days
    kgb6days Posts: 880 Member
    I always go for the lower number. Not sure which is right, but I don't wanna overeat
  • kirstym1108
    kirstym1108 Posts: 46 Member
    If it was 50 or 60 calories I would do that, but it's such a huge discrepancy!
  • Princess4Run
    Princess4Run Posts: 135 Member
    I was getting big discrepancies on my workout calories as well so I bought a HRM with a chest strep a while back. I also wear my Fitbit Zip and keep it for workouts to get step count. For reference last night I compared some calories burned for a 3 mile interval run/walk. Mapmyrun overestimated calories burned the most. Runkeeper underestimated. Fitbit and MFP were almost the same but still overestimated a bit compared to HRM.

    For your workout, I would probably take the middle of the two. Good thing would be to invest in a HRM if you are worrying about calorie discrepancies.

    Wt. 178lbs. Calories burned same workout
    Fitbit 480
    HRM 429
    Mapmyrun 490
    MFP 478
    Runkeeper 378
  • kirstym1108
    kirstym1108 Posts: 46 Member
    Thanks for that information, very helpful.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    450 is way too high for walking at that pace for that time. That's closer to what you would expect to burn running for the same time

    I always go with the lowest option.
  • mwyvr
    mwyvr Posts: 1,883 Member
    edited August 2015
    ^^^ this!

    @kirstym1108 there is a huge divergence in reported calories from various apps and tools. The highest burn you noted is 600 calories per hour - that would be the rate you'd expect if you ran, not walked. For comparison I'm a 178 pound male and burn ~ 720 calories / hour running 10km (6 miles) per hour.

    Go with the lowest.

    Generally... I only log 200 calories for a 1 hour walk even for walking a fast clip. Better to under estimate IMO.
  • kcjchang
    kcjchang Posts: 709 Member
    I'm hoovering around 200 calories for 2.3 mile walk in around 32 minutes, roughly averaging a 4.2 mph pace. It's my (near) daily break on work days. The calculation is based on virtual power (IpBike). I found that MFP is on the generous side.

    Heart Rate monitor is not going to cut it at low & moderate low intensities. If you are lucky, it might get close in the aerobic zones (70-80ish percent of you lactate threshold heart rate). It measure the number of beats and that's it. Correlations are empirical and derived from a small subset of the population (if memory serves, mostly trained athletes). It can be a good tool for training but generally not that great as a calorie counter.
  • kirstym1108
    kirstym1108 Posts: 46 Member
    mwyvr wrote: »
    ^^^ this!

    @kirstym1108 there is a huge divergence in reported calories from various apps and tools. The highest burn you noted is 600 calories per hour - that would be the rate you'd expect if you ran, not walked. For comparison I'm a 178 pound male and burn ~ 720 calories / hour running 10km (6 miles) per hour.

    Go with the lowest.

    Generally... I only log 200 calories for a 1 hour walk even for walking a fast clip. Better to under estimate IMO.

    Thanks, although I do weigh 235lbs!!

Categories