Big Difference in Cals burn info

Options
gtbalm
gtbalm Posts: 14 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Ok, help! I'm using a app called imapmyfitness....I walked 1.06 miles at a pace of between 5-6mph a total of 19:53 minutes long. The app says I burned 72 kCals, MFP says 228.....huge difference! Whom do I believe??

2421723.png
Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Nutrition Facts For Foods

Replies

  • christinaburns
    christinaburns Posts: 24
    Options
    Wow! That's crazy! MFP takes your weight and typical activity into account--maybe that has something to do with it? Does the other app you used do the same?
  • myshell67
    myshell67 Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    not to sound stupid, but if it took u 19 min to walk 1 mile, isn't that closer to 3 min a mile?
  • MissMegan3119
    MissMegan3119 Posts: 110
    Options
    I use the nike+ app, and the calories burned on there are just a little less than the ones here on MFP.
  • melizerd
    melizerd Posts: 870 Member
    Options
    Neither honestly. I know it's a broken record but a HRM is the only way to really know what you're burning.

    It depends on your height, weight, sex, fitness level and a HRM would be just for you.

    Edit: I agree with a previous poster, if you walked 1.06 miles in 19 min you did NOT walk at 5mph (that would be one mile in about 12min).
  • sarajean04
    sarajean04 Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    What's the Burn? A Calorie Calculator
    You can use the formulas below to determine your calorie-burn while running and walking. The "Net Calorie Burn" measures calories burned, minus basal metabolism. Scientists consider this the best way to evaluate the actual calorie-burn of any exercise. The walking formulas apply to speeds of 3 to 4 mph. At 5 mph and faster, walking burns more calories than running.
    Your Total Calorie Burn/Mile Your Net Calorie Burn/Mile
    Running .75 x your weight (in lbs.) .63 x your weight
    Walking .53 x your weight .30 x your weight


    http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html
    Adapted from "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise, Cameron et al, Dec. 2004.
  • Pril2000
    Pril2000 Posts: 254 Member
    Options
    I agree that if you're taking that long to walk a mile, then you're not walking at 5-6 mph. I jog regularly and my average pace is around 5.5-6 mph. It only takes me about 10 minutes to do a mile. If you're going over 4.5 mph, then you're jogging, not walking. Unless you have some kind of awesome speed walking skills we don't know about.
  • tbucks
    tbucks Posts: 72 Member
    Options
    If you walked for 20 minutes at 5mph it would have been closer to 1.6 miles. So something is definitely off. 5 mph is a 12 minute mile. 6 mph is a 10 minute mile.
  • sue26
    sue26 Posts: 412
    Options
    If you walked 1 mile in 20mins then you walked at 3mph not 6 mph, so maybe thats part of the problem?
  • Maydalis
    Maydalis Posts: 20 Member
    Options
    not to sound stupid, but if it took u 19 min to walk 1 mile, isn't that closer to 3 min a mile?

    I was going to say the same thing. Also, at 6mph, I have to move at a jog. At 5'11", even with my long legs, no way I can walk at that pace.
  • gtbalm
    gtbalm Posts: 14 Member
    Options
    Ok, both have my height/weight etc info......I used the 5mph only because the app said my pace was that....but it did also say my average was 3mph, even tho I never supposedly went below 5mph. I wish I had awesome speed walking skills LOL. Ok using the 3mph speed, MFP says 94 cals, which is much closer to the others 73. Thanks for all the input guys, this is what makes keeping track of foods and cals burned so very difficult.

    2421723.png
    Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Nutrition Facts For Foods
  • melizerd
    melizerd Posts: 870 Member
    Options
    If you can't invest in a heart rate monitor (HRM) then I suggest not eating your exercise calories back (Or only eating half of them) and then saving for a HRM. It really makes the difference long term to REALLY know what you're burning so you CAN eat those exercise calories back which when you're burning a lot of them is important. Under a 100 or even 200 I don't worry about eating them back.
  • Fochizzy
    Fochizzy Posts: 505 Member
    Options
    If you can't invest in a heart rate monitor (HRM) then I suggest not eating your exercise calories back (Or only eating half of them) and then saving for a HRM. It really makes the difference long term to REALLY know what you're burning so you CAN eat those exercise calories back which when you're burning a lot of them is important. Under a 100 or even 200 I don't worry about eating them back.

    You have to be careful turns out I was burning MORE than mfp and the machines said. I seem to be the only one but if I had been eating 1/2 my calories back when it was already 100-200 calories off I think I would of gotten sick. Love my Polar HRM though!
  • gtbalm
    gtbalm Posts: 14 Member
    Options
    I never gave any thought to an HRM, I'm very very new to all this. I never eat back my cals burned, mostly because I'm such a beginner at exercise that I never get more than 150 cals burn per time. So, what HRMs are suggested?

    2421723.png
    Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Nutrition Facts For Foods

Categories