App can tell run from walk?
Springerrr
Posts: 44 Member
Hello, is there an app that can tell from my speed if I am running or walking and assign the appropriate negative calories accordingly?
0
Replies
-
Pretty much every GPS based app does this0
-
It doesn't help too much though if you're running very slowly or walking quickly. In most apps you can chose in advance though if you want to run or walk.1
-
It doesn't help too much though if you're running very slowly or walking quickly. In most apps you can chose in advance though if you want to run or walk.
Exactly, it would be nice if I could tell the app "If I am going faster than 3.5 MPH, I am running". The thing is the burn rate per step is more when you are running than when you are walking, and the app, which, as you point out, must be pre-told what you plan to do, can't track run/walking, which is what a lot of us out of shape dudes do!0 -
-
Springerrr wrote: »
Most apps [Strava, Endomondo, MapMyFitness, Run Keeper, Google Fit] use different algorithms for Caloric Burn Guesstimates based off BMI for walking & running along with cycling, swimming, paddle boarding, hiking and others. I do think there is one app that will do distinguish between walking and running automatically.1 -
Many do calorie burned based on distance, since, plus or minus some, jogging a mile and walking a mile take roughly the same energy.1
-
what's the big deal?I f the app gives you credit for walking when you actually ran very slowly it will just credit you with less calories burned. Since most apps tend to overestimate calories burned this should work out ok for you.4
-
Many do calorie burned based on distance, since, plus or minus some, jogging a mile and walking a mile take roughly the same energy.
I used to think that as well! My daughter demonstrated to me that that is incorrect. Many more muscles (e.g. in the arms, abdomen, back, etc) are used during running, and so it is not surprising that running burns more calories per unit distance than walking.0 -
Springerrr wrote: »Many do calorie burned based on distance, since, plus or minus some, jogging a mile and walking a mile take roughly the same energy.
I used to think that as well! My daughter demonstrated to me that that is incorrect. Many more muscles (e.g. in the arms, abdomen, back, etc) are used during running, and so it is not surprising that running burns more calories per unit distance than walking.
Oh it does, slightly more, maybe moderately more, depending on person. But mind you, the important bit is it burns more calories over time than walking.
Sprinting even more so, if you can keep it up.
Training economy says that a 300 calorie walk in 1 hour would better be replaced by a 300 calorie run in 30 minutes!
0 -
dancingonstarz wrote: »Samsung Health tracks your steps and automatically decides if you are walking or running. I've found its running threshold to be a bit low, but it does detect automatically.
S-Health only works on Samsung Devices. And doesn't sync back to MFP.0 -
-
Training economy says that a 300 calorie walk in 1 hour would better be replaced by a 300 calorie run in 30 minutes!
For me, 300 calories of walking is six miles, while 300 calories of running would be three miles. So about 80 minutes of walking compared with 25 minutes of running...
0 -
Springerrr wrote: »Hello, is there an app that can tell from my speed if I am running or walking and assign the appropriate negative calories accordingly?
I would observe that when you're talking about intervals it's not that significant, so most apps are fine. If you go for a walk, tell it you're walking, if you go for a run then tell it you're running. If you walk/ run the balance will be somewhere between.
As an example, going back to your previous post:- Run 4 miles at c 110 cals per mile - 440 cals total
- Walk 4 miles at c55 cals per mile - 220 cals total
- Run 2 miles and walk 2 miles - 330 cals
- Run 3 miles and walk 1 mile - 385 cals
So whilst there is an error it's only in the order of 100 cals either way, that's less than two pieces of fruit.
In a months time you'll be running most of that 4 miles, so the error comes down even more.1 -
Yes, running has roughly double the MET of walking. ...since you're moving around twice as fast.
Let walking 3mph be 4.5
Let running 6mph be 10
Then 4.5 met over 60 minutes (3 miles)
vs 10 met over 30 minutes... (3 miles)
Which means the effort for the distance is fairly similar. Running has an edge of course, but not 'double the calories for the same distance'
For a 165lb adult male:
Run 3 miles = 393 Calories
Walk 3 miles = 354 Calories
A 165lb adult male will burn 39 more calories over 3 miles, if he runs instead of walks. More importantly, the salient point is it takes him half the time.
To run really fast, for example 14 MPH, your MET is 23.
It would take roughly 13 minutes to travel 3 miles at 14 mph.
165lb adult male at a FAST 14mph burns....: 422!
So if you can maintain a 14mph pace for 3 miles, you'll burn 68 more calories than if you had walked that distance.
0 -
You've conflated the distance based and the time based calculations.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »You've conflated the distance based and the time based calculations.
It's a simple calculator where you plug in MET, time, and bodyweight. Example:
http://lamb.cc/calories-burned-calculator/
(Refresh the page for every calculation, or it will give you a cumulative result)
Help me out here.
A: Do you agree that 3 miles are traveled in 60 minutes at 3mph?
A1: Do you agree that 3 miles are traveled in 30 minutes at 6mph?
B: Do you agree that 3mph walking MET is about 4.5? (We can call it 4 if you like, different sites show different METs)
B1: Do you agree that 6mph running MET is about 10?0 -
Calories per mile:
Running - 0.63*weight in lbs
Walking - 0.3*weight in lbs
And fwiw I think that site is including BMR, using my own stats it's overestimating by about 20-25%0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Calories per mile:
Running - 0.63*weight in lbs
Walking - 0.3*weight in lbs
And fwiw I think that site is including BMR, using my own stats it's overestimating by about 20-25%
Is that the runnersworld formula they referenced? I think I'll stick to published MET numbers.0 -
The Campbell research in Medicine & Sports Science
From a runners perspective it's consistent with my GPS for flat sessions out to 13 miles. Anything I've done longer than that has had hills so not a fair comparison.0 -
it's always a guess if it's an app, despite the arguing above.1
-
I was going to discuss running vs walking but I now see it has been exhaustively discussed. But MFP does not let one delete a post. Therefore, here is a haiku instead:Rainy afternoon,
Little daughter you will never
Teach that cat to dance.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions