Walking - calories burned discrepancy when using phone pedometer.

philiptaylor544
philiptaylor544 Posts: 2 Member
edited December 19 in Fitness and Exercise
Hi there, hoping someone can help. I walk to work each morning, a distance of 2.2 miles which takes me half an hour, which is pretty much a pace of 4.5mph. If I manually add this exercise it’s described in the app as “very, very brisk pace” and 30 mins is recorded as approx 330 calories. However, if I let the app record the distance by interfacing with my phone’s pedometer, it only records it as 119 calories burned. My question is, which one do I believe? Can anyone shed any light on this? Many thanks in advance.

Replies

  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    For a reasonable net calorie estimate for walking multiply bodyweight in pounds by distance in miles by 0.3 as the efficiency ratio.
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,701 Member
    When it comes to walking, I estimate 200 calories per hour. That has seemed to work for me.

    So in your example, I'd go with the 119 calories burned and round down to 100.

    If you happen to lose weight too fast, you can up it again.
  • LivingtheLeanDream
    LivingtheLeanDream Posts: 13,342 Member
    Go by the 119 calories so you aren't tempted to eat more exercise calories back? that's what I would do. 330 seems way too much.
  • supriyap666
    supriyap666 Posts: 3 Member
    Calorie burned by walking depends on the weight of the person.
    Generally, per mile, you can lose 60 to 100 calories based on your weight.
    So, you can lose 119 calories for 2.2 miles according to your question.
  • philiptaylor544
    philiptaylor544 Posts: 2 Member
    Thanks all for your helpful and speedy responses! I think I’ll do as you have suggested and go with the 119 option. One question though, shouldn’t the number of calories burned scale with the intensity of the exercise? If I walk at a snail’s pace I’d expect to burn fewer calories than if I did one of those weird hip swingy fast walks that you see in the Olympics. Having said that, I guess the duration of the two efforts would be different so perhaps the overall result is the same. Thanks again though! 😊
  • lin_be
    lin_be Posts: 393 Member
    I believe it’s more about the distance walked than anything else. If you’re going 4.5mph than you’ll get their faster and won’t be moving as much. If you’re going 2mph than you have to step more, you’ll get there later but you’re moving more.

    I also use the @sijomial formula .33 x weight in lbs x miles.
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    edited January 2019
    philiptaylor544 wrote: »
    Thanks all for your helpful and speedy responses! I think I’ll do as you have suggested and go with the 119 option. One question though, shouldn’t the number of calories burned scale with the intensity of the exercise? If I walk at a snail’s pace I’d expect to burn fewer calories than if I did one of those weird hip swingy fast walks that you see in the Olympics. Having said that, I guess the duration of the two efforts would be different so perhaps the overall result is the same. Thanks again though! 😊

    The general rule of thumb seems to be that anything below 5 mph (12 minutes a mile) can be considered walking (with an incremental calorie burn of 0.31 X body weight in pounds per mile). Anything over 5 mph can be considered running for calorie burn calculations (with an incremental burn of 0.63 X body weight in pounds per mile).

    Intensity does make a little difference for calorie burn but it's not actually all that significant. The reason that walking burns fewer calories than walking is one of mechanics. When walking, one foot is on the ground at all times. When running both feet leave the ground at the same time, which means that the work involved with running doesn't only involve horizontal mileage but also a cumulative vertical distance gained from the small jump performed with each stride.

    5 mph seems to be the zone where it's really hard to maintain a pure walking stride above that speed and it's really hard to maintain a pure running stride below that speed. Of course, this 'cutoff' will be different for each individual, but it's not a bad rule of thumb.

    Info here isn't based on a true scientific study but is based on a couple of Runner's World articles published a few years ago. They're easily findable via Google if you want to read more.

    ETA - depending on your weight, the 119 number for two miles seems much more reasonable though since 4.5 mph is pretty close to running speed, it wouldn't be out of the question to assume a burn in line with the calculation for running.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories