We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

Calorie Difference

phillip181
phillip181 Posts: 4 Member
edited November 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
I have a trail that run/walk. One time one map my fitness I put it down for 1.83 miles of general hiking and got 720 calories. Then I did the same the route with trail running and it only gave me 330 calories. Which is right and why such a difference?

Replies

  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    Unless it's straight uphill, you will not burn 720 miles in 1.83 miles.

    330 also sounds a little high but could be possible depending on elevation changes and pace.
  • phillip181
    phillip181 Posts: 4 Member
    Well you will if you weigh 290 lbs. :)
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,179 Member
    I suggest that "general hiking" assumes moving across unimproved terrain and assumes a worst case of slogging up a steep hill. Also, "running" assumes moving across a level paved track. Try logging the walk as "walking" and you'll observe a calorie burn lower than "hiking" because "walking" also assumes a level paved surface.
  • amtyrell
    amtyrell Posts: 1,447 Member
    Possibly neither.
    If your goal is weight loss i would pick the lower number
  • rbiss
    rbiss Posts: 422 Member
    I weighed 320 lbs and I walked 5 miles and I did not burn that much. I think 303 is even too high.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    edited October 2017
    phillip181 wrote: »
    Well you will if you weigh 290 lbs. :)

    Not really...you'd have to be going over some pretty crazy terrain. I have a trail that I walk...I wouldn't consider it at all to be "hiking"...even at my heaviest, there's no way I'm burning 720 calories walking just under 2 miles.

    My favorite hiking trail...you gain 3,775 feet of elevation at 12% grade in about 7.5 miles to the top...

    rocky-trail.jpg

    My favorite walking trail...

    Rio_Grande_Trail.jpg

    Very different things...
  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,463 Member
    So you've done it twice? See what the average is after 10 times, assuming it's a route you'd do frequently. Even if you don't do it often, you should still have comparison numbers from similar length routes. These devices do give wacky results sometimes.
    You could use the general formula which is .3 x bodyweight x miles for walking and .6 for running, IIRC.
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    edited October 2017
    At 290lbs, 330 calories for a 1.83 mile run should be pretty reasonable if you run the entire distance (assuming relatively flat ground). You'd have to adjust downward for the proportion of the trail walked.
  • phillip181
    phillip181 Posts: 4 Member
    The other weird thing is I did a 19 mile bike ride on crushed, on touring bike setting, and got 2000 calories. Then I did actual mountain biking for 7 miles. I copied the route from another user and it said I only burned 500 calories.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    phillip181 wrote: »
    The other weird thing is I did a 19 mile bike ride on crushed, on touring bike setting, and got 2000 calories. Then I did actual mountain biking for 7 miles. I copied the route from another user and it said I only burned 500 calories.

    There's no way a 19 mile ride burned 2,000 calories...I'm an avid cycling enthusiast and I would have to ride about 60 miles to do that at a pretty good clip...

    The mountain bike could be accurate if it was actually mountain biking...ie rough terrain, etc. An other wise mostly flat surface I'd burn around 250 give or take...
  • ewhsweets
    ewhsweets Posts: 167 Member
    Are you using a chest strap to measure your HR/calorie burn or just the app? If you want an accurate read, suggest a HR monitor of some sort. I prefer the strap for accuracy.
  • phillip181
    phillip181 Posts: 4 Member
    So from what I hear, I should get some sort of heart rate monitor if I want to really track my calories, like a FitBit or something. How does heart rate correlate to calorie burn?
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 35,430 Member
    phillip181 wrote: »
    So from what I hear, I should get some sort of heart rate monitor if I want to really track my calories, like a FitBit or something. How does heart rate correlate to calorie burn?

    Heart rate is an imperfect proxy for calorie burn. Your heart rate goes up when you work harder (which burns calories) but also when you strain physically (doesn't burn many calories), weather is hotter (burns no calories), you're dehydrated (ditto), and more. Typically heart rate monitors give you more accurate calorie estimates for steady state cardio, less accurate for other cardio types (like intense intervals), and pretty poor for weight training.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    phillip181 wrote: »
    So from what I hear, I should get some sort of heart rate monitor if I want to really track my calories, like a FitBit or something. How does heart rate correlate to calorie burn?

    Here's a great read about heart rate monitors, accuracy and calorie burns, courtesy of @Azdak :
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
This discussion has been closed.

Categories