I walked three miles (7500 steps) and Fitbit/MFP only gave me a 40 calorie adjustment?? What gives?
allison_gets_healthy91
Posts: 3 Member
Title pretty much says it all. I decided I should get some exercise in today so my friend and I walked all over town, about three miles in total. Now I'm not super used to being that active and I feel really hungry but MFP only gave me a 40 calorie adjustment for my walk. I swear a few months ago when I was tracking I would get roughly 100 calories per 2,000 steps, and from what I've read this sounds accurate. What gives? Has something changed in the way they calculate the adjustment? I looked it up and I can't seem to find any answers. Maybe I'm just very wrong about everything, I don't know but I'm really disappointed, if I only get 40 calories for that then I'm over my calories by a few hundred already.
0
Replies
-
What activity level is your MFP set to? If it's higher than sedentary it only kicked in when you went over the level of steps for that activity level.15
-
What is your activity level set at? The higher its set, the longer you have to walk before you start earning extra calories.5
-
That was it, I had it on lightly active instead of sedentary since I work on my feet all day. So it gives me more calories to eat by default but less for my steps. Thanks everyone
14 -
What is your daily goal according to mfp? Since mine is higher with more weight to lose (so 1800) I don't factor in exercise. I plan my meals out to keep me satiated and under goal, but don't beat myself up on the occasional slip. Now, if you're closer to goal and shorter, mfp may have you at a lower goal which means you've got a few options. Find a better way to keep yourself feeling full longer at 1200-1300 or exercise and eat some more to compensate for the burn. I'm surprised though, usually calorie burn from exercise is a bit ...lofty. 40 for 4 miles seems a bit low...0
-
MFP is giving me 1560 calories to eat a day which I thought was a bit high, but also I'm up to 244 lbs which is bigger than I've been so I figured that was why. But when I switch it to sedentary it changes my calorie goal to 1290 per day. So I assume I guess that's accurate, 1560 - 1290 = 270 + 40 = 310 which is more like what I would've guessed.2
-
allison_gets_healthy91 wrote: »MFP is giving me 1560 calories to eat a day which I thought was a bit high, but also I'm up to 244 lbs which is bigger than I've been so I figured that was why. But when I switch it to sedentary it changes my calorie goal to 1290 per day. So I assume I guess that's accurate, 1560 - 1290 = 270 + 40 = 310 which is more like what I would've guessed.
If that is your normal activity, then it would make sense to set your level to lightly active, start with more and get the small bump. However, I hated seeing the negative numbers on lazy days so I'm set to sedentary and get a decent sized bump when I'm active. In the end it all works out the same, but I just like being given calories instead of losing them,.8 -
That's usually when I start getting activity cals... about the 7k mark. I'm also set to lightly active since I walk all over the place despite my desk job.0
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »allison_gets_healthy91 wrote: »MFP is giving me 1560 calories to eat a day which I thought was a bit high, but also I'm up to 244 lbs which is bigger than I've been so I figured that was why. But when I switch it to sedentary it changes my calorie goal to 1290 per day. So I assume I guess that's accurate, 1560 - 1290 = 270 + 40 = 310 which is more like what I would've guessed.
If that is your normal activity, then it would make sense to set your level to lightly active, start with more and get the small bump. However, I hated seeing the negative numbers on lazy days so I'm set to sedentary and get a decent sized bump when I'm active. In the end it all works out the same, but I just like being given calories instead of losing them,.
My thoughts exactly!
4 -
allison_gets_healthy91 wrote: »MFP is giving me 1560 calories to eat a day which I thought was a bit high, but also I'm up to 244 lbs which is bigger than I've been so I figured that was why. But when I switch it to sedentary it changes my calorie goal to 1290 per day. So I assume I guess that's accurate, 1560 - 1290 = 270 + 40 = 310 which is more like what I would've guessed.
At 244 pounds, 1560 is certainly not high if you get any amount of physical activity!
You need to realize that your default activity level corresponds to an approximate number of steps and that you'll only get the ~100 cals per 2,000 steps *after* that number of steps is passed. At sedentary, you only got credit for steps over and above 2,000-3,000ish. At lightly active, you'll only get credit for steps over and above 6,000-8,000ish.3 -
You might want to adjust your stride on Fitbit... 3 miles is usually 2000 steps... unless you're very short?0
-
-
You might want to adjust your stride on Fitbit... 3 miles is usually 2000 steps... unless you're very short?
No. 2,000 steps is about 1 mile. There's some variability due to height, but not enough to make anyone walk 3 miles in 2,000 steps! My husband is over 6 feet tall and he gets 1 km for 1,000 steps - so, 1600 steps for 1 mile or 4800 steps for 3 miles.
2 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »You might want to adjust your stride on Fitbit... 3 miles is usually 2000 steps... unless you're very short?
No. 2,000 steps is about 1 mile. There's some variability due to height, but not enough to make anyone walk 3 miles in 2,000 steps! My husband is over 6 feet tall and he gets 1 km for 1,000 steps - so, 1600 steps for 1 mile or 4800 steps for 3 miles.
Just chiming in to agree 2000 steps is approx. 1 mile... 5'11ish here1 -
10k steps for me is approx 4.8 miles.
5k steps is approx 2.4 miles.
So 2k steps would be around 1 mile. I'm 5 7
Anyway steps are moot. Get a Fitbit and monitor your pace. An intense mile is a better workout than a slow, ambling 5-7k step walk.1 -
-
SusanMFindlay wrote: »No. 2,000 steps is about 1 mile. There's some variability due to height ...
Mile, from mil, for a thousand. A mile is a thousand paces. And a pace is a step with each foot, so two steps, making a mile two thousand steps. Today we have GPS and laser measurement and even rulers that are all the same; in ancient times, the way to know how far something distant was was to walk it and count paces. (See the first estimate of the size of the Earth.)
Of course, today, everybody agrees on exactly how far a mile is, so it's not going to be exactly 2,000 steps for everybody. Height is the big thing that'll affect this, also terrain and a person's style of walking. Here's a hike I did recently with a record of stride length per step, as measured by GPS: https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/17318495605 -
10k steps for me is approx 4.8 miles.
5k steps is approx 2.4 miles.
So 2k steps would be around 1 mile. I'm 5 7
Anyway steps are moot. Get a Fitbit and monitor your pace. An intense mile is a better workout than a slow, ambling 5-7k step walk.
Uh, NO. It might be moderately better than a 3000 step walk, but it's certainly not better than a 3 mile walk.4 -
-
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
I believe the claim was that running a mile was better than walking 3 miles...
Let's run the numbers... for me 237 lb man 5'11.
Run 1 Mile-- 179 Calories
Brisk walk 1 Mile--146 Calories
Leisurely 3 miles--354 calories
3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
I believe the claim was that running a mile was better than walking 3 miles...
Let's run the numbers... for me 237 lb man 5'11.
Run 1 Mile-- 179 Calories
Brisk walk 1 Mile--146 Calories
Leisurely 3 miles--354 calories
And this is why I walk.4 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »You might want to adjust your stride on Fitbit... 3 miles is usually 2000 steps... unless you're very short?
No. 2,000 steps is about 1 mile. There's some variability due to height, but not enough to make anyone walk 3 miles in 2,000 steps! My husband is over 6 feet tall and he gets 1 km for 1,000 steps - so, 1600 steps for 1 mile or 4800 steps for 3 miles.
Yes. Doh. 1 mile. I'm not sure why I typed 3. Need more coffee. Either way, I just meant that 7800 steps seems a lot for 3 miles, unless OP is short.2 -
Anyway steps are moot. Get a Fitbit and monitor your pace. An intense mile is a better workout than a slow, ambling 5-7k step walk.stanmann571 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »You are saying that a 1 mile brisk walk is better than covering 3 miles at a slower pace? I completely disagree with that.
I believe the claim was that running a mile was better than walking 3 miles...
Let's run the numbers... for me 237 lb man 5'11.
Run 1 Mile-- 179 Calories
Brisk walk 1 Mile--146 Calories
Leisurely 3 miles--354 calories
Sure but the claim was that it's "a better workout" not "burns more calories." Running a mile involves a lot more cardio-respitory stress than slowly walking three, that's beyond debate. Of course, that has nothing to do with the question this thread was about.1 -
MFP expects you to burn a certain # of calories per day base on your size/height/age/gender and activity level.
Fitbit estimates your burn based on those stats and your actual movement.
If Fitbit shows your burn is higher than what MFP expected, you earn extra calories. If you choose a higher activity level in MFP, then MFP expects you to burn more calories thus it takes more effort to earn additional.
Example with numbers:
At sedentary MFP expects me to burn about 1500/day. If Fitbit says I burned 1950, it would be a +450 adjustment. I'm at maintenance, so I need to eat around 1950.
At lightly active, MFP expects me to burn about 1750/day. If Fitbit says I burned 1950, it would be a +200 adjustment. Again, I need to eat around 1950.
Higher activity level means you start with a higher goal. But the end result is still the same.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Anyway steps are moot. Get a Fitbit and monitor your pace. An intense mile is a better workout than a slow, ambling 5-7k step walk.stanmann571 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »You are saying that a 1 mile brisk walk is better than covering 3 miles at a slower pace? I completely disagree with that.
I believe the claim was that running a mile was better than walking 3 miles...
Let's run the numbers... for me 237 lb man 5'11.
Run 1 Mile-- 179 Calories
Brisk walk 1 Mile--146 Calories
Leisurely 3 miles--354 calories
Sure but the claim was that it's "a better workout" not "burns more calories." Running a mile involves a lot more cardio-respitory stress than slowly walking three, that's beyond debate. Of course, that has nothing to do with the question this thread was about.
There's almost no metric under which an 8-10 minute workout is better than a 35-45 minute workout... especially if both workouts increase heartrate for the duration of the workout.
So no, it's not "beyond debate.
2 -
Completely unrelated...
When I saw this headline, my brain sang, "And I-I would walk 500 miles, and I-I would walk 500 more..."
9 -
allison_gets_healthy91 wrote: »MFP is giving me 1560 calories to eat a day which I thought was a bit high, but also I'm up to 244 lbs which is bigger than I've been so I figured that was why. But when I switch it to sedentary it changes my calorie goal to 1290 per day. So I assume I guess that's accurate, 1560 - 1290 = 270 + 40 = 310 which is more like what I would've guessed.
Your 244lb and sedentary only gives you 1290?
Im 5ft 2 and 244lb with a weekly weightloss goal of 2lb, set to sedentary and mfp and fitbit both give me 1770 a day
Im then given a few hundred in exercise cals3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Anyway steps are moot. Get a Fitbit and monitor your pace. An intense mile is a better workout than a slow, ambling 5-7k step walk.stanmann571 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »You are saying that a 1 mile brisk walk is better than covering 3 miles at a slower pace? I completely disagree with that.
I believe the claim was that running a mile was better than walking 3 miles...
Let's run the numbers... for me 237 lb man 5'11.
Run 1 Mile-- 179 Calories
Brisk walk 1 Mile--146 Calories
Leisurely 3 miles--354 calories
Sure but the claim was that it's "a better workout" not "burns more calories." Running a mile involves a lot more cardio-respitory stress than slowly walking three, that's beyond debate. Of course, that has nothing to do with the question this thread was about.
There's almost no metric under which an 8-10 minute workout is better than a 35-45 minute workout... especially if both workouts increase heartrate for the duration of the workout.
So no, it's not "beyond debate.
Running a mile is absolutely a better cardiovascular workout than walking three and one metric that shows as much is EPOC which Firstbeat's software calculates. Another metric is "Aerobic Training Effect." I could go on but there's really no point.
Did you just type all that with a straight face?
2 -
ruqayyahsmum wrote: »allison_gets_healthy91 wrote: »MFP is giving me 1560 calories to eat a day which I thought was a bit high, but also I'm up to 244 lbs which is bigger than I've been so I figured that was why. But when I switch it to sedentary it changes my calorie goal to 1290 per day. So I assume I guess that's accurate, 1560 - 1290 = 270 + 40 = 310 which is more like what I would've guessed.
Your 244lb and sedentary only gives you 1290?
Im 5ft 2 and 244lb with a weekly weightloss goal of 2lb, set to sedentary and mfp and fitbit both give me 1770 a day
Im then given a few hundred in exercise cals
I am 5'7" and 230 and if I try for 2lbs per week I get 1330 for sedentary. I never got as many as you even when over 280 lbs. I am kind of old though, over 50. I do get extra from walking though via fitbit and mfp0 -
KWlosingit wrote: »ruqayyahsmum wrote: »allison_gets_healthy91 wrote: »MFP is giving me 1560 calories to eat a day which I thought was a bit high, but also I'm up to 244 lbs which is bigger than I've been so I figured that was why. But when I switch it to sedentary it changes my calorie goal to 1290 per day. So I assume I guess that's accurate, 1560 - 1290 = 270 + 40 = 310 which is more like what I would've guessed.
Your 244lb and sedentary only gives you 1290?
Im 5ft 2 and 244lb with a weekly weightloss goal of 2lb, set to sedentary and mfp and fitbit both give me 1770 a day
Im then given a few hundred in exercise cals
I am 5'7" and 230 and if I try for 2lbs per week I get 1330 for sedentary. I never got as many as you even when over 280 lbs. I am kind of old though, over 50. I do get extra from walking though via fitbit and mfp
Odd
I lose my 2lb average thou so ill stick with it i guess and be thankful i still have wiggle room when i get to the last 10lb1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 427 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions