We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

Exercise Calorie Mismatch

kirstym1108
kirstym1108 Posts: 46 Member
edited November 2024 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!!

This discussion has been closed.

Categories