Overstated Calorie Count

frodneymiller9946
frodneymiller9946 Posts: 1 Member
in Goal: Maintaining Weight
Don't use any of the Map My apps if you want to accurately count calories. They typically count about 50% for than other apps e.g. with a Map My app you will burn about 300 calories during a 2 mile walk. Most other apps and exercise fitness experts will show about 200 calories burned during a 2 mile walk.

Replies

  • akronrick
    akronrick Posts: 8 Member
    frodneymiller9946 wrote: »
    Don't use any of the Map My apps if you want to accurately count calories. They typically count about 50% for than other apps e.g. with a Map My app you will burn about 300 calories during a 2 mile walk. Most other apps and exercise fitness experts will show about 200 calories burned during a 2 mile walk.

    I've found the same thing. I just use MapMyHike to record distance and time. Then I use a different calculator here on the interwebs.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    For walking try
    (Weight in lbs x 0.3) x distance in miles =cals burnt.

    And compare to the numbers you are getting from apps/devices.

    Cheers, h.

    Or 8 calories per minute.
  • ArmouredMuscle
    ArmouredMuscle Posts: 64 Member
    So what do you use? I'm using UA record
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    mmapags wrote: »
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    For walking try
    (Weight in lbs x 0.3) x distance in miles =cals burnt.

    And compare to the numbers you are getting from apps/devices.

    Cheers, h.

    Or 8 calories per minute.

    That ignores walking speed. I often walk up to 4.5 mph but sometimes only 3.5 or so.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    CarvedTones wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    For walking try
    (Weight in lbs x 0.3) x distance in miles =cals burnt.

    And compare to the numbers you are getting from apps/devices.

    Cheers, h.

    Or 8 calories per minute.

    That ignores walking speed. I often walk up to 4.5 mph but sometimes only 3.5 or so.

    Actually, it ignores distance. Calorie burn for walking and running is largely a function of distance (and weight). You don't burn a lot more calories regardless of walking 3.5mph or 4.5mph. If both result in a 5 mile walk then the calorie burn is fairly similar.

    You are right but it gives you a decent ballpark to compare to. It won't be dead accurate but what method is?
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »
    CarvedTones wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    For walking try
    (Weight in lbs x 0.3) x distance in miles =cals burnt.

    And compare to the numbers you are getting from apps/devices.

    Cheers, h.

    Or 8 calories per minute.

    That ignores walking speed. I often walk up to 4.5 mph but sometimes only 3.5 or so.

    Actually, it ignores distance. Calorie burn for walking and running is largely a function of distance (and weight). You don't burn a lot more calories regardless of walking 3.5mph or 4.5mph. If both result in a 5 mile walk then the calorie burn is fairly similar.

    You are right but it gives you a decent ballpark to compare to. It won't be dead accurate but what method is?

    That's true, but say you walk one hour at both speeds then one would result in a total of 3.5 miles walked, the other in 4.5 miles. For a person weighing 160lbs the calorie burns would be about 168 and 216 respectively. For me (ok, I'm lighter) that would be a difference between having a wafer bar (100kcal) for my workout or two :D

    IIRC, that number was based on a 4 minute mile in a calculator I saw some time ago. But I wouldn't stake my life on it. Yes, for someone lighter, it would make a bigger difference. For me at 182 lbs and eating 2200 to 2500 per day, inconsequential. So, decent ballpark for me. Not so hot for you.
  • SummerSkier
    SummerSkier Posts: 5,136 Member
    Map my run seems fairly accurate to me. 400 cals for an hour run is reasonable? It is based on pace also so when I run faster I get more cals expended per hour. Please don’t burst my bubble :#
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    SummerSkier wrote: »
    Map my run seems fairly accurate to me. 400 cals for an hour run is reasonable? It is based on pace also so when I run faster I get more cals expended per hour. Please don’t burst my bubble :#

    running at a ~typical speed is about 0.63 calories x weight in lbs x miles. (which does work out to pretty much exactly what Garmin gives me for a run). That comes pretty close to 400 calories per hour for me if doing a slower group run with traffic/wait stops (10-11 min average pace).
  • RadishEater
    RadishEater Posts: 470 Member
    myfitnesspal seems to give an accurate calorie estimate for me for walking. I pick between 2.5 or 3mph settings and input my time. I have been using it for over a year with success.
  • ahoy_m8
    ahoy_m8 Posts: 3,053 Member
    SummerSkier wrote: »
    Map my run seems fairly accurate to me. 400 cals for an hour run is reasonable? It is based on pace also so when I run faster I get more cals expended per hour. Please don’t burst my bubble :#

    I cannot comment on MapMyRun specifically, but in general, running faster *is* more calories per unit time! But it is also less time for a given distance. Most calculators give me essentially the same kcal/mile (within 10 calories) whether walking 14 min miles or running 7 min miles. It doesn't seem fair, does it? Running is def more effort, at least for me it is. But it's half the time spent exercising, too.

    My Fitbit actually gives me MORE calories for going slow. I think it is because Fitbit counts BMR in the elapsed time, i.e. the burn includes BMR for 56 min for 4 mi slow, which is twice the BMR for 28 min for 4 mi fast.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    SummerSkier wrote: »
    Map my run seems fairly accurate to me. 400 cals for an hour run is reasonable? It is based on pace also so when I run faster I get more cals expended per hour. Please don’t burst my bubble :#

    I cannot comment on MapMyRun specifically, but in general, running faster *is* more calories per unit time! But it is also less time for a given distance. Most calculators give me essentially the same kcal/mile (within 10 calories) whether walking 14 min miles or running 7 min miles. It doesn't seem fair, does it? Running is def more effort, at least for me it is. But it's half the time spent exercising, too.

    My Fitbit actually gives me MORE calories for going slow. I think it is because Fitbit counts BMR in the elapsed time, i.e. the burn includes BMR for 56 min for 4 mi slow, which is twice the BMR for 28 min for 4 mi fast.

    Vast majority of calc's and database methods will also include BMR though.

    Which is correct - here's the estimated calories burned during this chunk of time doing whatever you were doing. More time at low level calorie burn, more % is BMR.

    The reason the Fitbit gives higher, is probably because it's using HR-based calorie calculations, and at the extremes of that formula - right above daily activity, and right below anaerobic intensity - the calc's will be inflated.
    When HR-based is a decent estimate - it's in the middle of the range of clearly aerobic steady-state cardio.
    Anything outside that range is even more inflated.

    That's why Fitbit using HR-based for clearly daily activity stuff will cause inflated calories - and they try to minimize that by getting a handle on when it appears you clearly go into exercise levels.
  • ccsernica
    ccsernica Posts: 1,040 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    CarvedTones wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    For walking try
    (Weight in lbs x 0.3) x distance in miles =cals burnt.

    And compare to the numbers you are getting from apps/devices.

    Cheers, h.

    Or 8 calories per minute.

    That ignores walking speed. I often walk up to 4.5 mph but sometimes only 3.5 or so.

    Actually, it ignores distance.

    You're making a distinction without a difference. Ignoring distance is exactly the same as ignoring speed, since distance = speed x time.
  • Boxn_n_Bellydancn
    Boxn_n_Bellydancn Posts: 171 Member
    Mapmywalk gives me 160cal for 2 miles
  • thisPGHlife
    thisPGHlife Posts: 440 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    SummerSkier wrote: »
    Map my run seems fairly accurate to me. 400 cals for an hour run is reasonable? It is based on pace also so when I run faster I get more cals expended per hour. Please don’t burst my bubble :#

    I cannot comment on MapMyRun specifically, but in general, running faster *is* more calories per unit time! But it is also less time for a given distance. Most calculators give me essentially the same kcal/mile (within 10 calories) whether walking 14 min miles or running 7 min miles. It doesn't seem fair, does it? Running is def more effort, at least for me it is. But it's half the time spent exercising, too.

    My Fitbit actually gives me MORE calories for going slow. I think it is because Fitbit counts BMR in the elapsed time, i.e. the burn includes BMR for 56 min for 4 mi slow, which is twice the BMR for 28 min for 4 mi fast.

    Vast majority of calc's and database methods will also include BMR though.

    Which is correct - here's the estimated calories burned during this chunk of time doing whatever you were doing. More time at low level calorie burn, more % is BMR.

    The reason the Fitbit gives higher, is probably because it's using HR-based calorie calculations, and at the extremes of that formula - right above daily activity, and right below anaerobic intensity - the calc's will be inflated.
    When HR-based is a decent estimate - it's in the middle of the range of clearly aerobic steady-state cardio.
    Anything outside that range is even more inflated.

    That's why Fitbit using HR-based for clearly daily activity stuff will cause inflated calories - and they try to minimize that by getting a handle on when it appears you clearly go into exercise levels.

    Interestingly, Fitbit gives me the fewest calories for exercise when compared with the MapMy products and MFP. The individual MapMys (MapMyWalk, Run, Hike) are the highest. It seems like it shows both the calories you burned while exercising and the calories you would have burned anyway. MapMyFitness send to do a better job of just showing the additional exercise calories and usually matches with what MFP would give me. Fitbit gives me the fewest. Not off by much but still lower. It might help that I am using the Alta and not the Alta HR so it isn't conflating from unrelated increases in heart rate.

Categories