How would you log this?

Options
xynyth
xynyth Posts: 89 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I've been going to nature parks lately to "hike" and I put in in quotes because I'm not sure if it can really be considered hiking or if it's just more like a walk in the woods. I average about 2.5 mph and sometimes the trails include boardwalks and sometimes it's just dirt paths with nothing I would consider a hill but that does vary slightly in elevation. Nothing challenging.

I have both map my walk and map my hike installed but I think map my hike WAY overestimated my calories burned.

This morning I decided to use map my walk and I walked 2.75 miles for 64 minutes. I paused my workout whenever I stopped to take in the scenery which was only twice I think. I'm sweaty but not exhausted or feel like I spent an hour in the gym or anything.

Here's where I get confused about how I should log this:

The app says I burned 736 calories
MFP says walking 2.5 mph for an hour burns 428 and hiking 857

So am I hiking or walking? Do I trust the app? I just feel like that is an absurd amount of calories to have burned in a hour even though I'm really really overweight.

I try to eat only half my calories back but this is such a big difference.

Replies

  • AigreDoux
    AigreDoux Posts: 594 Member
    Options
    I think it's closer to the 428.
    I went on a similar walk yesterday. With my 1 year old and 4 year old who stop a lot and don't walk very fast. I walked 4000 steps/2 miles over the course of about an hour, and my Fitbit said I burned about 250 calories. You're going a bit faster and not sure if you're heavier than me, but 800 seems like a ton for walking less than 3 miles.
  • xynyth
    xynyth Posts: 89 Member
    Options
    AigreDoux wrote: »
    I think it's closer to the 428.
    I went on a similar walk yesterday. With my 1 year old and 4 year old who stop a lot and don't walk very fast. I walked 4000 steps/2 miles over the course of about an hour, and my Fitbit said I burned about 250 calories. You're going a bit faster and not sure if you're heavier than me, but 800 seems like a ton for walking less than 3 miles.

    Thanks :) I miss my fitbit. My kids got ahold of it and now I find the band here, or the charger there but never everything in one place lol.

    I'm about 295 lbs now so I know I burn more calories than an average size person but 800 cal an hour just seems ridiculous. At the same time I don't want to eat too little and fall back in to the terribly slow metabolism problem I was having before.

    Maybe I'll just log the 400 and not worry about only eating half lol.

    Thanks again!
  • no_day_but_2day
    no_day_but_2day Posts: 222 Member
    Options
    If you don't have a heart rate monitor I suggest three things : 1. Always use the lower end of the calorie burn, 2.It doesn't matter what you put in the database, just don't eat those calories (that's why you see a lot of people put 1 for their calorie burn), OR 3. it's a good rough estimate that you only burn about 100 calories per mile walking or running. If you did 3 miles, I'd just say it was around 300 calories.
  • xynyth
    xynyth Posts: 89 Member
    Options
    Thanks. That would seem a lot more reasonable. :)
  • ASKyle
    ASKyle Posts: 1,475 Member
    Options
    I agree with the above poster- 100 calories/mile is probably closer than the 428.
  • pondee629
    pondee629 Posts: 2,469 Member
    Options
    The MFP data base I looked up says:

    How Many Calories Did I Burn?

    Walking, 2.5 mph, leisurely pace
    Your Weight: 187.6 # Kilograms Pounds Stone/Pounds
    How Long: 64 Minutes

    Calories burned: 272

    Looks to be about 100 calories per mile.
  • xynyth
    xynyth Posts: 89 Member
    Options
    Turned out to be a moot point today lol. I got busy and haven't even come close to my regular calorie goal for the day :/ Still thanks for answering, it will be good to know for tomorrow :)

Categories