Calories burned per walking step

The formula for walking is weight in lbsx0.3xmiles walked. I average 2300 steps per mile. Based on that 12700 steps is 5.5 miles for me.

Here's a fun experiment. If you complete your 12,000 steps early in the day, it will give a larger calorie adjustment than if you take that 12,000th step late at night. This is because your fitness tracker is not alloting a specified number of calories per step, but rather calculating how many calories you have burned beyond the activity level you specified with MFP when you set up your profile.

I estimate no more than 200 calories per hour when walking ... more likely 180 cal.
In an hour I walk at least 5 km and at most 6 km
According to this converter, 5 km = 6561.68 and 6 km = 7874.02
http://www.kylesconverter.com/length/kilometers-to-steps

So maybe 100 cal per 3600 steps?

chris_blunt wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. My steps are being counted by my iPhone, and I have the Fitbit and Pacer apps installed. Those apps seem to sync together and they all report that my 12,700 steps are equal to 9.1 km and correspond to 530 calories with an active walk time of 2 hours 53 minutes. I'm currently 83 kgs. It's only MFP that says I've only burned 240 calories.

Experiment a little........

Log all 530 calories as exercise (eat those calories back) and see if you continue to lose weight at your expected rate. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the "number" is. What matters instead is how that number fits your MFP settings, your food intake measurement, etc.

You can be over on food intake and under on exercise and lose weight at the expected rate, or visa versa. Your expected rate of loss will be the bottom line.

Many people here find FitBits to be pretty accurate. This thread is super helpful: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10098937/faq-syncing-logging-food-exercise-calorie-adjustments-activity-levels-accuracy/p1

chris_blunt wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. My steps are being counted by my iPhone, and I have the Fitbit and Pacer apps installed. Those apps seem to sync together and they all report that my 12,700 steps are equal to 9.1 km and correspond to 530 calories with an active walk time of 2 hours 53 minutes. I'm currently 83 kgs. It's only MFP that says I've only burned 240 calories.

Whatever MFP activity level you selected, even sedentary, expected you to burn so many calories daily already.

MFP does not do any math converting steps to calories burned.
It is receiving a daily calories burned figure from whatever you are syncing from. (caveat - Apple is NOT sending the same info and if that is what MFP is getting it from, you are getting an adjustment too low.)

If the Exercise Diary says Fitbit adjustment, it's merely the difference between what it reported and what MFP was already expecting.

So some of what you burned was already planned on - the 240 adjustment was the extra.
You could have a massive workout and sleep more of the day and get no adjustment.
You could have no workout and merely more active and get a big adjustment.

Also, all these apps are making calculations on averages for like calorie burn, base and movement combined, for avg person your gender, age, height, weight.

You keep losing muscle mass like you are undoubtably doing now and it's estimate will be farther off than even normal potential.

Unless you are pretty short, 83 kgs isn't that overweight to support a deficit of that much (which I'm sure your body has adapted by now and it isn't anymore) and I'm betting no Dr would support that, even research studies are on obese people for that kind of deficit.

You've already comment how much more you need to exercise to compensate for lost weight - imagine what happens if (or when) you get sick and can't exercise - how little must you eat then just to maintain.

chris_blunt wrote: »

TeaBea wrote: »

Experiment a little........

Log all 530 calories as exercise (eat those calories back) and see if you continue to lose weight at your expected rate. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the "number" is. What matters instead is how that number fits your MFP settings, your food intake measurement, etc.

You can be over on food intake and under on exercise and lose weight at the expected rate, or visa versa. Your expected rate of loss will be the bottom line.

I'm very happy with my rate of weight loss. I'm consuming between 800 and 900 calories a day and losing around 2kgs per week. Down 20kgs since the beginning of July. My BMR has dropped from around 1,900 to 1,700 calories/day, so I'm having to exercise more as time passes to make up for that.

your BMR(what you burn just by being alive) will drop if you eat too little.but how have you gauged that it dropped that much? 900 calories is too little for most toddlers

chris_blunt wrote: »

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

your BMR(what you burn just by being alive) will drop if you eat too little.but how have you gauged that it dropped that much? 900 calories is too little for most toddlers

I determined it by using the BMR calculator here, inputting my original weight of 102kgs and current weight of 83kgs. My BMR has gone down by 200 calories/day due to the weight reduction.

https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/bmr_calculator.htm

I'm actually feeling fine and very comfortable on my current diet. Two Slimfast shakes a day plus a 400 calorie balanced meal and a teaspoonful of Manuka honey each morning.

as you lose weight you need less calories to fuel your body yes. but for most people thats not going to make a difference in their BMR by a lot. thats like a 350 lb person their BMR is say 1600 but they can eat 2500 calories to lose weight. once they are 200 lbs they may need to eat like ay 2000 or less to lose but their BMR isnt going to change much. BMR changes a bit due to getting older, or the longer you are on a deficit or really low calorie diets but its not going to be a big change. but for you eating less than 900 calories is probably why your BMR has went so far down. but your calories going down is due to weighing less and your body needing less calories to maintain your weight.

your TDEE goes down sure. but you eating 900 calories is way less than your BMR which isnt good since you are NOT obese. losing lean mass can also reduce BMR too which is another reason you should not eat so little.eating so little is what caused your BMR to be lower than it should be. eat more because right now you arent eating enough to even cover the calories your body needs to function properly. youre probably going to crash and burn soon at this rate because your body isnt getting the fuel it needs to function properly at rest let alone being active.

chris_blunt wrote: »

comptonelizabeth wrote: »

Surely your bmr is a calculation of the bare minimum of your calorie needs, if you were asleep or in a coma? It doesn't reflect the needs of someone engaging in normal daily activity, let alone exercise?

I understand what you're saying, but there are plenty of BMR calculators out there, some from quite authoritative sources. There's even one right here on MFP.

https://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmr-calculator

All of them require you to input your weight to calculate your BMR, and if you change that by about 20kgs the result changes by about 200 calories/day.

What might be a factor to consider is the impact of body composition on those conclusions. Given the rapid r rate of weight loss, and the very low calorie intake it's likely that your loss of muscle, connective and organ tissue is higher than those would account for.

I think the very clear message here is that much of the conventional advice doesn't really apply when dealing with edge cases like this. MFP terms of service are explicit about very low calorie diets, so you're not going to find anyone really spring what you're doing.