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!
What is the best way to estimate calories burned walking? Fitbit, MFP, MMW, etc?
Replies
-
Based on your BMR you'd have burned ~80 calories if you had taken a nap instead of a walk. During cardio your burn per minute would increase of course. Going w/ the middle range of 350-ish seems the safest. 10 cals per minute seems extreme. 5 cals per minute does not in my opinion. Considering your weight, the truth could even be a little higher. But if you go with the 350 you can judge your results for the next 4-6 weeks. If you're losing faster than expected, you'll know your cardio burn rate is likely higher.
1 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »0.3*bodyweight in lbs per mile, so c60 Cal's per mile.
That gives you c210 calories.
That seems incredibly off. It doesn't take into account height or fitness level. You should think of height because a short person 5'0" needs to put a lot more energy in than say someone who is 6'0".
The key points are your body mass and the distance you travelled. Height and fitness levels are immaterial.
Walking doesn't burn a huge amount of energy.
Fwiw your HR based measurements are confusing the issue. HR isn't a reliable proxy for calorie expenditure at low levels of intensity.
As a person who is less than 5 foot I could not disagree with you more. Do you know how many extra steps I have to take to walk a mile compared to someone who is 6 foot? The effort I need to put in to walk the same distance is greater, therefore more calories would be burned. You don't need scientific research to figure this out.You just need to be short trying to keep up with someone much taller than you to know this.
It's worth thinking about the physics here. Energy is required to move a mass through space. The energy required doesn't vary depending on the shape of that mass, or the speed that the mass is moving (at the speeds we're talking about).
The higher cadence that you're referring to isn't moving you a greater distance. A mile is a mile regardless of how many steps you take to cover it.
What is affected by leg length and bodily centre of gravity is walking efficiency, which can make a small difference to energy consumption. That's driven by pace. As an example the pace that my partner walks comfortably at is somewhat slower than my comfortable pace. Partly that's biomechanical and partly adaptation. So for her to keep up with me the efficiency reduction plays in, and equally for me to slow down to her pace causes inefficiency in my gait. To appreciate the materiality of that it's worth looking at the Metabolic Equivalencies and playing with those. Essentially it's not all that material, a single figure percentage effect on calorie expenditure.
What I think is highly likely with the originator is that she's not calibrated her FitBit to her actual leg length, so it assumes she's walked further than she has.
It's pretty basic physics really.0 -
scorpio516 wrote: »
I hit about 180lbs at my peak and went with about 200 cal/hour walking. If I had been running at a pretty good pace for an hour, I might have gone with 400 cal, but I wasn't running at all then.
I had a look yesterday and noticed that MFP has me at about 160 cal/hour for walking now. That's OK. For me, it works better to be realistically low than to overestimate things.
2 -
Are you able to get a HR monitor? Those are usually the most accurate.1
-
roamingtiger wrote: »Are you able to get a HR monitor? Those are usually the most accurate.
Read the whole thread - you missed some excellent posts about why that is NOT true.1 -
I have used various methods over the two years I've been losing weight. They all work when you adjust them according to how the scale performs. It's all really just guessing.
I currently use a fitbit that I've tweaked to be reliable.
I will say this. I have consistently burned more than that Runner's World calculation posted upthread, but I walk rather briskly. Perhaps that calculation is meant for a different pace? I don't know.1 -
Excellent studies - going to use that.
With so many people doing so much walking with activity trackers (sadly sometimes to the detriment of a better workout because they just want steps), that would be easy for Fitbit to incorporate.
For a slow 30 min dog walk the difference in accuracy doesn't matter.
For your 20K steps/day people - that could be significant if no other intense workouts being done, or even with.
The Fitbit uses the other most recent formula's already, but they know height, so improvement would be easy.
But still, that potential improvement could be thrown off by an incorrect stride length being used, and wrong distance calculated.
Or hills or extra weight carried.
Or, using HR-based calorie burn when step-based would be better, because HR-based down at bottom of the exercise range loses accuracy potential too.1 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »0.3*bodyweight in lbs per mile, so c60 Cal's per mile.
That gives you c210 calories.
That seems incredibly off. It doesn't take into account height or fitness level. You should think of height because a short person 5'0" needs to put a lot more energy in than say someone who is 6'0".
The key points are your body mass and the distance you travelled. Height and fitness levels are immaterial.
Walking doesn't burn a huge amount of energy.
Fwiw your HR based measurements are confusing the issue. HR isn't a reliable proxy for calorie expenditure at low levels of intensity.
As a person who is less than 5 foot I could not disagree with you more. Do you know how many extra steps I have to take to walk a mile compared to someone who is 6 foot? The effort I need to put in to walk the same distance is greater, therefore more calories would be burned. You don't need scientific research to figure this out.You just need to be short trying to keep up with someone much taller than you to know this.
This is also scientifically proven now from the conclusions of multiple studies.0 -
It depends on body mass. She'll burn fewer calories as she shrinks.
I've been maintaining for over 5 years at between 135-140 pounds and I burn about 100 calories per mile, and I weigh a lot less than the OP. But then again, my walks aren't meandering on flat sidewalks. I hike at a brisk pace on hilly trails and get my heart rate up. I eat all my exercise calories back and I've managed to maintain for years, so I guess I can't be that far off. I think if OP is getting her heart rate up and really working, that's NOT low intensity. She could actually be burning a good amount of calories. She already has a big deficit. It won't hurt to try estimating calories at that mid-range point. If she doesn't lose she can drop it down.
That is the conclusion I ended up coming to on my own so I agree. Thank you. And I burn about 100 cal per mile from what my experience and weight loss shows but again I am much heavier so I might burn that without the hills etc. Originally I wasn't thinking to just take the shorter walk and multiple it to get what I burned I was too tired (mentally) to think about it lol. It didn't cross my mind for some reason. 0 -
StaciMarie1974 wrote: »Based on your BMR you'd have burned ~80 calories if you had taken a nap instead of a walk. During cardio your burn per minute would increase of course. Going w/ the middle range of 350-ish seems the safest. 10 cals per minute seems extreme. 5 cals per minute does not in my opinion. Considering your weight, the truth could even be a little higher. But if you go with the 350 you can judge your results for the next 4-6 weeks. If you're losing faster than expected, you'll know your cardio burn rate is likely higher.
Thank you! 350 sounds reasonable too. I went with 400 originally but I mean 50 cal difference isnt a big deal to me so I could go either way. Thanks for the help. 0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »0.3*bodyweight in lbs per mile, so c60 Cal's per mile.
That gives you c210 calories.
That seems incredibly off. It doesn't take into account height or fitness level. You should think of height because a short person 5'0" needs to put a lot more energy in than say someone who is 6'0".
The key points are your body mass and the distance you travelled. Height and fitness levels are immaterial.
Walking doesn't burn a huge amount of energy.
Fwiw your HR based measurements are confusing the issue. HR isn't a reliable proxy for calorie expenditure at low levels of intensity.
As a person who is less than 5 foot I could not disagree with you more. Do you know how many extra steps I have to take to walk a mile compared to someone who is 6 foot? The effort I need to put in to walk the same distance is greater, therefore more calories would be burned. You don't need scientific research to figure this out.You just need to be short trying to keep up with someone much taller than you to know this.
It's worth thinking about the physics here. Energy is required to move a mass through space. The energy required doesn't vary depending on the shape of that mass, or the speed that the mass is moving (at the speeds we're talking about).
The higher cadence that you're referring to isn't moving you a greater distance. A mile is a mile regardless of how many steps you take to cover it.
What is affected by leg length and bodily centre of gravity is walking efficiency, which can make a small difference to energy consumption. That's driven by pace. As an example the pace that my partner walks comfortably at is somewhat slower than my comfortable pace. Partly that's biomechanical and partly adaptation. So for her to keep up with me the efficiency reduction plays in, and equally for me to slow down to her pace causes inefficiency in my gait. To appreciate the materiality of that it's worth looking at the Metabolic Equivalencies and playing with those. Essentially it's not all that material, a single figure percentage effect on calorie expenditure.
What I think is highly likely with the originator is that she's not calibrated her FitBit to her actual leg length, so it assumes she's walked further than she has.
It's pretty basic physics really.
Except science has literally proven that's wrong. And we are not just solid mass we are people so you need to take into account that we are the force moving us and we use more energy for each movement. Not the same at all.0 -
roamingtiger wrote: »Are you able to get a HR monitor? Those are usually the most accurate.
Isn't a FitBit a HR monitor too?0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »I checked on MFP the calories burned and it seemed a little low, then MMW (MapMyWalk) seemed a tiny bit high and so I checked my FitBit and it said double MFP! I am 192ish pounds and 5'4" 26 years old and very out of shape. My resting HR lately is about 64BPM and my average during my walk was 135BPM (according to my FitBit which usually matches my Drs readings) went as high as 165bpm. I walked for 79 minutes around 3.5 miles (I think this includes stoplights so we can say 70 minutes). MFP estimated I'd burn a bit over 300 like 330-350 calories. MapMyWalk estimated I think 460 calories (might include my height since my stride is short) and FitBit estimates 758 calories with an average burn of 10 calories per minute. Which do you think is more accurate? Somewhere between MFP and MMW or somewhere between MMW and FitBit? Not sure if it matters but I have 8 screws a plate and a wire in my leg so it does take a bit more energy than it used to and I'm not sure how HR factors in but help? I don't want to over or underestimate too much because my net calorie goal is 1200.
The Fitbit number sounds really high if I compare it to my recent activities using my Garmin with a chest strap HRM. I'm 5'3", so super close to you in height, but weigh 220. A recent run/walk activity was 72 minutes, 4.42 miles, and Garmin has me burning 655 calories. Unless Garmin is way underestimating on my end, which is also possible, I should be burning more calories for my activity than you are for yours because I am much heavier and was moving a little faster. I am also at 5000', which should raise my heart rate a little more too, assuming you are lower, though I'm not sure by how much. I had an elevation gain of only 58', so if your route was very hilly that could make a difference, and also make MFP's calculations unrealistic. I doubt MFP accounts for the challenge of hills.1 -
jennybearlv wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »I checked on MFP the calories burned and it seemed a little low, then MMW (MapMyWalk) seemed a tiny bit high and so I checked my FitBit and it said double MFP! I am 192ish pounds and 5'4" 26 years old and very out of shape. My resting HR lately is about 64BPM and my average during my walk was 135BPM (according to my FitBit which usually matches my Drs readings) went as high as 165bpm. I walked for 79 minutes around 3.5 miles (I think this includes stoplights so we can say 70 minutes). MFP estimated I'd burn a bit over 300 like 330-350 calories. MapMyWalk estimated I think 460 calories (might include my height since my stride is short) and FitBit estimates 758 calories with an average burn of 10 calories per minute. Which do you think is more accurate? Somewhere between MFP and MMW or somewhere between MMW and FitBit? Not sure if it matters but I have 8 screws a plate and a wire in my leg so it does take a bit more energy than it used to and I'm not sure how HR factors in but help? I don't want to over or underestimate too much because my net calorie goal is 1200.
The Fitbit number sounds really high if I compare it to my recent activities using my Garmin with a chest strap HRM. I'm 5'3", so super close to you in height, but weigh 220. A recent run/walk activity was 72 minutes, 4.42 miles, and Garmin has me burning 655 calories. Unless Garmin is way underestimating on my end, which is also possible, I should be burning more calories for my activity than you are for yours because I am much heavier and was moving a little faster. I am also at 5000', which should raise my heart rate a little more too, assuming you are lower, though I'm not sure by how much. I had an elevation gain of only 58', so if your route was very hilly that could make a difference, and also make MFP's calculations unrealistic. I doubt MFP accounts for the challenge of hills.
My streets weren't so much hilly as awful lol sloped broken up sidewalks but Im in the city. I might ask my dr to take let me see a cardiologist because my HR spikes very easy and very high which I think is why my FitBit estimates super high. My HR went over 160 and I was only walking 3mph0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »jennybearlv wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »I checked on MFP the calories burned and it seemed a little low, then MMW (MapMyWalk) seemed a tiny bit high and so I checked my FitBit and it said double MFP! I am 192ish pounds and 5'4" 26 years old and very out of shape. My resting HR lately is about 64BPM and my average during my walk was 135BPM (according to my FitBit which usually matches my Drs readings) went as high as 165bpm. I walked for 79 minutes around 3.5 miles (I think this includes stoplights so we can say 70 minutes). MFP estimated I'd burn a bit over 300 like 330-350 calories. MapMyWalk estimated I think 460 calories (might include my height since my stride is short) and FitBit estimates 758 calories with an average burn of 10 calories per minute. Which do you think is more accurate? Somewhere between MFP and MMW or somewhere between MMW and FitBit? Not sure if it matters but I have 8 screws a plate and a wire in my leg so it does take a bit more energy than it used to and I'm not sure how HR factors in but help? I don't want to over or underestimate too much because my net calorie goal is 1200.
The Fitbit number sounds really high if I compare it to my recent activities using my Garmin with a chest strap HRM. I'm 5'3", so super close to you in height, but weigh 220. A recent run/walk activity was 72 minutes, 4.42 miles, and Garmin has me burning 655 calories. Unless Garmin is way underestimating on my end, which is also possible, I should be burning more calories for my activity than you are for yours because I am much heavier and was moving a little faster. I am also at 5000', which should raise my heart rate a little more too, assuming you are lower, though I'm not sure by how much. I had an elevation gain of only 58', so if your route was very hilly that could make a difference, and also make MFP's calculations unrealistic. I doubt MFP accounts for the challenge of hills.
My streets weren't so much hilly as awful lol sloped broken up sidewalks but Im in the city. I might ask my dr to take let me see a cardiologist because my HR spikes very easy and very high which I think is why my FitBit estimates super high. My HR went over 160 and I was only walking 3mph
160 sounds reasonable if you were challenging yourself. The run I mentioned was reading an average of 149 BPM. I was mostly running or walking at an easy pace for me. It got as high as 176 while climbing a steep hill. If your HRM reads dumb things like 80 bpm while charging up a hill or 218 on your cool down walk, all true stories, it's most likely the HRM being weird. My chest strap gets messed up readings when it's cold and windy, which is most of the time here. I chose that particular run to share because my HRM decided to behave the whole time that day. I'm sure wrist based HR has it's issues as well.2 -
Verity1111 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »0.3*bodyweight in lbs per mile, so c60 Cal's per mile.
That gives you c210 calories.
That seems incredibly off. It doesn't take into account height or fitness level. You should think of height because a short person 5'0" needs to put a lot more energy in than say someone who is 6'0".
The key points are your body mass and the distance you travelled. Height and fitness levels are immaterial.
Walking doesn't burn a huge amount of energy.
Fwiw your HR based measurements are confusing the issue. HR isn't a reliable proxy for calorie expenditure at low levels of intensity.
As a person who is less than 5 foot I could not disagree with you more. Do you know how many extra steps I have to take to walk a mile compared to someone who is 6 foot? The effort I need to put in to walk the same distance is greater, therefore more calories would be burned. You don't need scientific research to figure this out.You just need to be short trying to keep up with someone much taller than you to know this.
It's worth thinking about the physics here. Energy is required to move a mass through space. The energy required doesn't vary depending on the shape of that mass, or the speed that the mass is moving (at the speeds we're talking about).
The higher cadence that you're referring to isn't moving you a greater distance. A mile is a mile regardless of how many steps you take to cover it.
What is affected by leg length and bodily centre of gravity is walking efficiency, which can make a small difference to energy consumption. That's driven by pace. As an example the pace that my partner walks comfortably at is somewhat slower than my comfortable pace. Partly that's biomechanical and partly adaptation. So for her to keep up with me the efficiency reduction plays in, and equally for me to slow down to her pace causes inefficiency in my gait. To appreciate the materiality of that it's worth looking at the Metabolic Equivalencies and playing with those. Essentially it's not all that material, a single figure percentage effect on calorie expenditure.
What I think is highly likely with the originator is that she's not calibrated her FitBit to her actual leg length, so it assumes she's walked further than she has.
It's pretty basic physics really.
Except science has literally proven that's wrong. And we are not just solid mass we are people so you need to take into account that we are the force moving us and we use more energy for each movement. Not the same at all.
Crunch the numbers to see how material the effect is.
You'll see that I've addressed the point in the post you've just quoted. You get a few extra calories, you don't get to more than double it.
0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »jennybearlv wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »I checked on MFP the calories burned and it seemed a little low, then MMW (MapMyWalk) seemed a tiny bit high and so I checked my FitBit and it said double MFP! I am 192ish pounds and 5'4" 26 years old and very out of shape. My resting HR lately is about 64BPM and my average during my walk was 135BPM (according to my FitBit which usually matches my Drs readings) went as high as 165bpm. I walked for 79 minutes around 3.5 miles (I think this includes stoplights so we can say 70 minutes). MFP estimated I'd burn a bit over 300 like 330-350 calories. MapMyWalk estimated I think 460 calories (might include my height since my stride is short) and FitBit estimates 758 calories with an average burn of 10 calories per minute. Which do you think is more accurate? Somewhere between MFP and MMW or somewhere between MMW and FitBit? Not sure if it matters but I have 8 screws a plate and a wire in my leg so it does take a bit more energy than it used to and I'm not sure how HR factors in but help? I don't want to over or underestimate too much because my net calorie goal is 1200.
The Fitbit number sounds really high if I compare it to my recent activities using my Garmin with a chest strap HRM. I'm 5'3", so super close to you in height, but weigh 220. A recent run/walk activity was 72 minutes, 4.42 miles, and Garmin has me burning 655 calories. Unless Garmin is way underestimating on my end, which is also possible, I should be burning more calories for my activity than you are for yours because I am much heavier and was moving a little faster. I am also at 5000', which should raise my heart rate a little more too, assuming you are lower, though I'm not sure by how much. I had an elevation gain of only 58', so if your route was very hilly that could make a difference, and also make MFP's calculations unrealistic. I doubt MFP accounts for the challenge of hills.
My streets weren't so much hilly as awful lol sloped broken up sidewalks but Im in the city. I might ask my dr to take let me see a cardiologist because my HR spikes very easy and very high which I think is why my FitBit estimates super high. My HR went over 160 and I was only walking 3mph
The Fitbit has a not always so accurate HRM.
I'd confirm that high reading next time doing just 3 mph.
A count at the neck should be easy to see if you are really going to hit 40 beats in 15 sec. That's racing.
For many that see inaccuracy, it seems to actually stop going up as high as the HR really is, sometimes topping out at some low number when the HR is much higher.
You may be getting artificial double readings on a lot of your beats - if that is the reason, you may notice it on manual check too.
You ever walked a known distance (HS track) to confirm Fitbit got it right?
And walking stride length should be set to average daily pace, not your intense exercise walk.
You don't want super accurate for your maybe 1 hr daily, and all the other majority of walking you do daily being inflated distance because it's actually slower pace.
So the exercise walk should read a tad short for distance (though 3mph is close to daily pace probably), and therefore calorie burn.0 -
Remember that everything is based of a generic calculator. The only true way is to know your stride length and maybe use a heart rate monitor. If you're walking then no-you won't burn as many calories as you think. I'm 5 ft and 110...I do 4 miles at speed of 4.5 and 1 mile at speed 5. According to my Apple Watch which takes into consideration all of the factors my 5 miles just gets me to 450 calories burned. My treadmill will say something like 1.5 more. But Fitbit will tell me 3 times that number. Ive learned not to make the calorie burned my goal (because of the differences) but to make the activity movement the goal.
Best of luck and way to move! 5K walk is amazing!!1 -
I've just started using a Fitbit HR model and for now I am trusting it. Running (slow pace, a little over 5.0mph) is getting my heart rate into the 150's while my RMR is in the 50's. I'm 127 pounds, 42 years old, 5' 5.5". The Fitbit is giving me credit for 9-10 cals burned per minute which to my mind seems high. I would have expected 6-7.
But as I said, I'm trusting it. My original Fitbit is a One and its been very reliable over the years. When I first hit maintenance in the fall of 2014 I figured out that if I ate less than what the Fitbit showed I burned per day, then I lost weight. Which told me it was a reasonable judge of my TDEE. I wasn't running at the time, or not enough to matter.
Now I am running more and very close to being back in maintenance after losing ~10-12 pounds in the last 9 weeks (that I put on during 2016 due to lazy tracking). My maintenance intention is to eat just under what the Fitbit shows as my TDEE. Leaving 50-100 calories per day for error, then judging by results. Of course it will take a while for me to have data...1 -
Ps yesterday I ran about 3.1 miles in 34 minutes. Fitbit credited me w/ 311 burned. Mapmyrun showed me with 391 burned but that included 6 additional minutes of walking, so 3.5 miles total/40 minutes.
Oddly Mapmyrun gives my husband a lower # of burned for a walk than does the Fitbit HR. But I'm not sure if he has updated his weight in the Mapmyrun app and he's heavier now... So that may be why it gives lower.1 -
jennybearlv wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »jennybearlv wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »I checked on MFP the calories burned and it seemed a little low, then MMW (MapMyWalk) seemed a tiny bit high and so I checked my FitBit and it said double MFP! I am 192ish pounds and 5'4" 26 years old and very out of shape. My resting HR lately is about 64BPM and my average during my walk was 135BPM (according to my FitBit which usually matches my Drs readings) went as high as 165bpm. I walked for 79 minutes around 3.5 miles (I think this includes stoplights so we can say 70 minutes). MFP estimated I'd burn a bit over 300 like 330-350 calories. MapMyWalk estimated I think 460 calories (might include my height since my stride is short) and FitBit estimates 758 calories with an average burn of 10 calories per minute. Which do you think is more accurate? Somewhere between MFP and MMW or somewhere between MMW and FitBit? Not sure if it matters but I have 8 screws a plate and a wire in my leg so it does take a bit more energy than it used to and I'm not sure how HR factors in but help? I don't want to over or underestimate too much because my net calorie goal is 1200.
The Fitbit number sounds really high if I compare it to my recent activities using my Garmin with a chest strap HRM. I'm 5'3", so super close to you in height, but weigh 220. A recent run/walk activity was 72 minutes, 4.42 miles, and Garmin has me burning 655 calories. Unless Garmin is way underestimating on my end, which is also possible, I should be burning more calories for my activity than you are for yours because I am much heavier and was moving a little faster. I am also at 5000', which should raise my heart rate a little more too, assuming you are lower, though I'm not sure by how much. I had an elevation gain of only 58', so if your route was very hilly that could make a difference, and also make MFP's calculations unrealistic. I doubt MFP accounts for the challenge of hills.
My streets weren't so much hilly as awful lol sloped broken up sidewalks but Im in the city. I might ask my dr to take let me see a cardiologist because my HR spikes very easy and very high which I think is why my FitBit estimates super high. My HR went over 160 and I was only walking 3mph
160 sounds reasonable if you were challenging yourself. The run I mentioned was reading an average of 149 BPM. I was mostly running or walking at an easy pace for me. It got as high as 176 while climbing a steep hill. If your HRM reads dumb things like 80 bpm while charging up a hill or 218 on your cool down walk, all true stories, it's most likely the HRM being weird. My chest strap gets messed up readings when it's cold and windy, which is most of the time here. I chose that particular run to share because my HRM decided to behave the whole time that day. I'm sure wrist based HR has it's issues as well.
No my hrm works perfect. It matches my Dr's and the hospitals when I was in. That makes sense I guess that since I'm very out of shape my hr might spike. I appreciate you responding. 0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »0.3*bodyweight in lbs per mile, so c60 Cal's per mile.
That gives you c210 calories.
That seems incredibly off. It doesn't take into account height or fitness level. You should think of height because a short person 5'0" needs to put a lot more energy in than say someone who is 6'0".
The key points are your body mass and the distance you travelled. Height and fitness levels are immaterial.
Walking doesn't burn a huge amount of energy.
Fwiw your HR based measurements are confusing the issue. HR isn't a reliable proxy for calorie expenditure at low levels of intensity.
As a person who is less than 5 foot I could not disagree with you more. Do you know how many extra steps I have to take to walk a mile compared to someone who is 6 foot? The effort I need to put in to walk the same distance is greater, therefore more calories would be burned. You don't need scientific research to figure this out.You just need to be short trying to keep up with someone much taller than you to know this.
It's worth thinking about the physics here. Energy is required to move a mass through space. The energy required doesn't vary depending on the shape of that mass, or the speed that the mass is moving (at the speeds we're talking about).
The higher cadence that you're referring to isn't moving you a greater distance. A mile is a mile regardless of how many steps you take to cover it.
What is affected by leg length and bodily centre of gravity is walking efficiency, which can make a small difference to energy consumption. That's driven by pace. As an example the pace that my partner walks comfortably at is somewhat slower than my comfortable pace. Partly that's biomechanical and partly adaptation. So for her to keep up with me the efficiency reduction plays in, and equally for me to slow down to her pace causes inefficiency in my gait. To appreciate the materiality of that it's worth looking at the Metabolic Equivalencies and playing with those. Essentially it's not all that material, a single figure percentage effect on calorie expenditure.
What I think is highly likely with the originator is that she's not calibrated her FitBit to her actual leg length, so it assumes she's walked further than she has.
It's pretty basic physics really.
Except science has literally proven that's wrong. And we are not just solid mass we are people so you need to take into account that we are the force moving us and we use more energy for each movement. Not the same at all.
Crunch the numbers to see how material the effect is.
You'll see that I've addressed the point in the post you've just quoted. You get a few extra calories, you don't get to more than double it.
Lol whatever. I burned 600 calories per hr doing Zumba but some people argued that too. Yet I lost 3.5lbs a week. So I'm going to agree to disagree. 200 is very very low.0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »jennybearlv wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »I checked on MFP the calories burned and it seemed a little low, then MMW (MapMyWalk) seemed a tiny bit high and so I checked my FitBit and it said double MFP! I am 192ish pounds and 5'4" 26 years old and very out of shape. My resting HR lately is about 64BPM and my average during my walk was 135BPM (according to my FitBit which usually matches my Drs readings) went as high as 165bpm. I walked for 79 minutes around 3.5 miles (I think this includes stoplights so we can say 70 minutes). MFP estimated I'd burn a bit over 300 like 330-350 calories. MapMyWalk estimated I think 460 calories (might include my height since my stride is short) and FitBit estimates 758 calories with an average burn of 10 calories per minute. Which do you think is more accurate? Somewhere between MFP and MMW or somewhere between MMW and FitBit? Not sure if it matters but I have 8 screws a plate and a wire in my leg so it does take a bit more energy than it used to and I'm not sure how HR factors in but help? I don't want to over or underestimate too much because my net calorie goal is 1200.
The Fitbit number sounds really high if I compare it to my recent activities using my Garmin with a chest strap HRM. I'm 5'3", so super close to you in height, but weigh 220. A recent run/walk activity was 72 minutes, 4.42 miles, and Garmin has me burning 655 calories. Unless Garmin is way underestimating on my end, which is also possible, I should be burning more calories for my activity than you are for yours because I am much heavier and was moving a little faster. I am also at 5000', which should raise my heart rate a little more too, assuming you are lower, though I'm not sure by how much. I had an elevation gain of only 58', so if your route was very hilly that could make a difference, and also make MFP's calculations unrealistic. I doubt MFP accounts for the challenge of hills.
My streets weren't so much hilly as awful lol sloped broken up sidewalks but Im in the city. I might ask my dr to take let me see a cardiologist because my HR spikes very easy and very high which I think is why my FitBit estimates super high. My HR went over 160 and I was only walking 3mph
The Fitbit has a not always so accurate HRM.
I'd confirm that high reading next time doing just 3 mph.
A count at the neck should be easy to see if you are really going to hit 40 beats in 15 sec. That's racing.
For many that see inaccuracy, it seems to actually stop going up as high as the HR really is, sometimes topping out at some low number when the HR is much higher.
You may be getting artificial double readings on a lot of your beats - if that is the reason, you may notice it on manual check too.
You ever walked a known distance (HS track) to confirm Fitbit got it right?
And walking stride length should be set to average daily pace, not your intense exercise walk.
You don't want super accurate for your maybe 1 hr daily, and all the other majority of walking you do daily being inflated distance because it's actually slower pace.
So the exercise walk should read a tad short for distance (though 3mph is close to daily pace probably), and therefore calorie burn.
No my hrm was right. This happens anytime I exercise. My hr when I use a stationary bike hits 185bpm very easily. I don't trust the calories burned on Fitbit it said 760+ I went with 400 but my hr is always right. When I go to Dr visits and when I was sick in the hospital I tested it.0 -
Remember that everything is based of a generic calculator. The only true way is to know your stride length and maybe use a heart rate monitor. If you're walking then no-you won't burn as many calories as you think. I'm 5 ft and 110...I do 4 miles at speed of 4.5 and 1 mile at speed 5. According to my Apple Watch which takes into consideration all of the factors my 5 miles just gets me to 450 calories burned. My treadmill will say something like 1.5 more. But Fitbit will tell me 3 times that number. Ive learned not to make the calorie burned my goal (because of the differences) but to make the activity movement the goal.
Best of luck and way to move! 5K walk is amazing!!
It was fun to me. I did about an 11-14k walk for be fun but I don't do it often. My bf didn't find it as much fun lol0 -
StaciMarie1974 wrote: »I've just started using a Fitbit HR model and for now I am trusting it. Running (slow pace, a little over 5.0mph) is getting my heart rate into the 150's while my RMR is in the 50's. I'm 127 pounds, 42 years old, 5' 5.5". The Fitbit is giving me credit for 9-10 cals burned per minute which to my mind seems high. I would have expected 6-7.
But as I said, I'm trusting it. My original Fitbit is a One and its been very reliable over the years. When I first hit maintenance in the fall of 2014 I figured out that if I ate less than what the Fitbit showed I burned per day, then I lost weight. Which told me it was a reasonable judge of my TDEE. I wasn't running at the time, or not enough to matter.
Now I am running more and very close to being back in maintenance after losing ~10-12 pounds in the last 9 weeks (that I put on during 2016 due to lazy tracking). My maintenance intention is to eat just under what the Fitbit shows as my TDEE. Leaving 50-100 calories per day for error, then judging by results. Of course it will take a while for me to have data...
See your hr went to the 150s running. My rhr is 64 and I went into the 160s walking... I think I might talk to my Dr today about it when I see her.0 -
I was/am nervous of relying on a wrist style heart rate monitor, and I realize no device is 100% accurate. Even a heart rate monitor is not perfect for calculating calories burned.
But ultimately you have to start with something, try it for a while, and see how it goes. If you lose faster than expected you can assume your actual burn is higher than what you're relying on, adjust your goals accordingly.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I have used various methods over the two years I've been losing weight. They all work when you adjust them according to how the scale performs. It's all really just guessing.
I currently use a fitbit that I've tweaked to be reliable.
I will say this. I have consistently burned more than that Runner's World calculation posted upthread, but I walk rather briskly. Perhaps that calculation is meant for a different pace? I don't know.
I agree that its all guessing and I would also add that each person is different. I have found that MFP overestimates my calories burned by 20% so I always subtract 20% from what MFP gives me. I've come to this conclusion after years of studying my numbers and tracking my weight loss.
I also found that Fitbit wasn't reliable at all so I ditched it.1 -
These are just some of the reasons using HR to estimate your walking calories is a bad idea....
"That makes sense I guess that since I'm very out of shape my hr might spike"
"See your hr went to the 150s running. My rhr is 64 and I went into the 160s walking"
"My hr when I use a stationary bike hits 185bpm very easily."
You clearly have a high exercise HR - that does not mean you burn more calories than someone identical to your size/height/weight who happens to have an average or even low HR.
It's also going to badly skew your estimates for other forms of cardio such as your stationary bike of course, power would be better if your bike records power output.
1 -
scorpio516 wrote: »
I hit about 180lbs at my peak and went with about 200 cal/hour walking. If I had been running at a pretty good pace for an hour, I might have gone with 400 cal, but I wasn't running at all then.
I had a look yesterday and noticed that MFP has me at about 160 cal/hour for walking now. That's OK. For me, it works better to be realistically low than to overestimate things.
In order to burn 400 Calories running a 5k, you have to weigh 205 pounds.
To do so walking, you would have to weigh about 260 lbs.2 -
Verity1111 wrote: »No my hrm works perfect. It matches my Dr's and the hospitals when I was in.
Were you huffing and puffing at 160 bpm when the doctors checked yours at the hospital? Or were you sitting in a chair relaxing? Exercise is where Fitbits have the most trouble with accuracy as HRMs.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.5K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions