Problems calculating calories burned

seang1980
seang1980 Posts: 1 Member
edited August 2019 in Fitness and Exercise
I walk as my main source of exercise. I tend to talk anywhere between 7-13 miles a day. Mostly my leisure walks are 3.5-3.7 miles and walking to work or the town centre is roughly the same. These walks take me 55-60 minutes so I know I am walking at just over 3.5 mph. The problem I am having is determining how many calories I am burning while walking. I have tried 3 different methods and the results give huge variations. For example, I walked 3.6 miles into town this morning. MFP calculated that I burned 160 calories doing this when using the step data from my iPhone. If I manually add the walk as exercise on MFP it calculates that I burned 337. I know that this is taking into account the speed at which I walked and duration but it’s more than double the amount of calories burned. To throw in another calculation, I did a couple of walks with MapMyWalk which calculated that I did a 3.56 mile walk and burned 409 calories. I accept that this not only takes into account weight and speed of walking but inclines in your route.

I guess what I am asking, in a very long way, is which of these do people think more accurately reflects the calories I’m burning? Looking at today, MFP is telling me that based on iPhone data I have burned 320 calories by walking 9 miles, yet manually adding it just 3.5 miles gives me more burned calories than that.

Just to add, Im male and I’m overweight at just under 14 stone. every app I have discussed (IOS health, MFP and MMW” have my correct height and current weight so there is no variation there that would account for such a huge difference in calculations.

Replies

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    edited August 2019
    Hm. That seems like a very big difference.

    I didn't find that to be the case with walking, I mean it's a straightforward calculation.

    You don't mention your height or weight and they both would have bearing. Being overweight means you burn a bit more because you're moving more mass, but in the interest of getting weight off and the fact you have fat stores to use as energy - using exercise calories is less important when overweight/obese.

    For the record, Apple devices don't sync very well with Myfitnesspal.

    When I was losing weight I looked up the calculation for walking based on my weight, distance and time and I used that. As it turned out it was close enough. I think I took an average, can't remember. In any case I decided to use 300 calories per hour of moderate exercise, and I use that no matter what kind of exercise I'm doing. It just makes it easier.

    I'd say use that middle one of 337.

    Whichever you choose, be consistent. Like if you use 337, keep using that calculator going forward. I mean, if you're using Myfitnesspal it makes it easier to just use their numbers. If you use the 409, keep using MapMyWalk. The 70 calories difference could be just the difference in the type of calculations that MMW and MFP use. Log food as accurately as you can and track your weight. Those are the three variables. If you do that for 4-6 weeks you'll get a better idea how accurate you are being with food and exercise. We all have to run that experiment. Exercise calories are difficult to calculate, so don't stress too much over it.



  • emmamcgarity
    emmamcgarity Posts: 1,594 Member
    Which activity level did you select on MFP? Step data typically is adjusting anticipated calorie burn for the day based on activity settings in MFP. From what I understand MMW has a tendency to overestimate calorie burns and I stopped using it.
  • hmhill17
    hmhill17 Posts: 283 Member
    MFP is usually the lowest for my walks, so I use that. It was about 60cal lower than the Nike app for my 3.3 miles on Thursday.
    For other things I don't know. For example, I did 51 minutes of seated elliptical this morning. Machine said 816 calories and 20.3 distance. I don't trust that at all because my height and weight aren't in it. Now, the MFP number for 51 minutes of elliptical trainer is almost the same. But since there's no designation for seated/standing, I would guess MFP assumes standing and I would think that would be a higher calorie count just because you're supporting body weight. Stationary bike general is significantly less. I've been using aerobics, general, because I didn't see the s on it and was thinking it meant just general aerobic exercise. But since it's lower than the other 3, I use it.
  • dougii
    dougii Posts: 679 Member
    There are plenty of online calculators you can use to get a pretty good comparison. Suffice it to say that a 25 minute brisk walk burns approximately 1 calorie for every pound of body weight. Running, even slow running at the same pace, increases the calorie burn a bit......
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    seang1980 wrote: »
    I walk as my main source of exercise. I tend to talk anywhere between 7-13 miles a day. Mostly my leisure walks are 3.5-3.7 miles and walking to work or the town centre is roughly the same. These walks take me 55-60 minutes so I know I am walking at just over 3.5 mph. The problem I am having is determining how many calories I am burning while walking. I have tried 3 different methods and the results give huge variations. For example, I walked 3.6 miles into town this morning. MFP calculated that I burned 160 calories doing this when using the step data from my iPhone. If I manually add the walk as exercise on MFP it calculates that I burned 337. I know that this is taking into account the speed at which I walked and duration but it’s more than double the amount of calories burned. To throw in another calculation, I did a couple of walks with MapMyWalk which calculated that I did a 3.56 mile walk and burned 409 calories. I accept that this not only takes into account weight and speed of walking but inclines in your route.

    I guess what I am asking, in a very long way, is which of these do people think more accurately reflects the calories I’m burning? Looking at today, MFP is telling me that based on iPhone data I have burned 320 calories by walking 9 miles, yet manually adding it just 3.5 miles gives me more burned calories than that.

    Just to add, Im male and I’m overweight at just under 14 stone. every app I have discussed (IOS health, MFP and MMW” have my correct height and current weight so there is no variation there that would account for such a huge difference in calculations.

    Walking calories are really simple; 0.3* bodyweight in lbs per mile. So c196lbs gives about 65 calories per mile. So about 230 Cal's for a 3.5 mile walk.

    Running is double that at 0.6*....
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    seang1980 wrote: »
    I walk as my main source of exercise. I tend to talk anywhere between 7-13 miles a day. Mostly my leisure walks are 3.5-3.7 miles and walking to work or the town centre is roughly the same. These walks take me 55-60 minutes so I know I am walking at just over 3.5 mph. The problem I am having is determining how many calories I am burning while walking. I have tried 3 different methods and the results give huge variations. For example, I walked 3.6 miles into town this morning. MFP calculated that I burned 160 calories doing this when using the step data from my iPhone. If I manually add the walk as exercise on MFP it calculates that I burned 337. I know that this is taking into account the speed at which I walked and duration but it’s more than double the amount of calories burned. To throw in another calculation, I did a couple of walks with MapMyWalk which calculated that I did a 3.56 mile walk and burned 409 calories. I accept that this not only takes into account weight and speed of walking but inclines in your route.

    I guess what I am asking, in a very long way, is which of these do people think more accurately reflects the calories I’m burning? Looking at today, MFP is telling me that based on iPhone data I have burned 320 calories by walking 9 miles, yet manually adding it just 3.5 miles gives me more burned calories than that.

    Just to add, Im male and I’m overweight at just under 14 stone. every app I have discussed (IOS health, MFP and MMW” have my correct height and current weight so there is no variation there that would account for such a huge difference in calculations.

    How exactly is MFP calculating calorie burn based on your iPhone step data?

    I'm assuming you don't have Apple synced because you didn't get an auto-workout created (which is good - Apple doesn't sync correctly anyway so don't do it).

    But did you tell MFP app to use iPhone as Step Source?
    In this case there is a distance behind those steps actually used for calculating calorie burn.
    And you may have been looking at the Adjustment figure - which is more than just the workout calories - so not accurate comparison to that. It's the difference in daily estimate from MFP using the step data, less MFP's base burn from just activity level.

    Used in this manner MFP app using the phone becomes almost a 3rd party activity tracker - except phones don't always see everything you do, and distance from step impacts is usually not as accurate even though it's the same type of accelerometer used in both.
    And if you only enabled this for the walk, another reason it would be a bad Adjustment figure.

    MMW as been famous for inflating calorie burn though.
  • KIKITVP
    KIKITVP Posts: 217 Member
    edited September 2019
    I also use walking/hiking as my main exercise. I find MFP is pretty accurate. I generally walk 12-14 mins per km and so log how many minutes I have done.

    I recently installed a pedometer on my phone (which doesn't use data) and it seems to confirm the MFP calorie burn. It is simply called 'pedometer'. In the app I entered my age, gender, height, weight which is all factored into the calculation.

    I walk practically everyday and my husband and I also hike at least once - usually more often - each week.
    I eat my calories back as I find 1200 cals/per day very tough.
    Good luck - keep on trekking!!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    KIKITVP wrote: »
    I also use walking/hiking as my main exercise. I find MFP is pretty accurate. I generally walk 12-14 mins per km and so log how many minutes I have done.

    I recently installed a pedometer on my phone (which doesn't use data) and it seems to confirm the MFP calorie burn. It is simply called 'pedometer'. In the app I entered my age, gender, height, weight which is all factored into the calculation.

    I walk practically everyday and my husband and I also hike at least once - usually more often - each week.
    I eat my calories back as I find 1200 cals/per day very tough.
    Good luck - keep on trekking!!

    Curious on your experience with that app.
    Ever walked a known distance and compared what the app said the distance was?

    Wondering if they are using the built in algorithms most accelerometers have for impacts to distance, and app just receives that data, or if they receive raw data and apply their own calc's.

    Thanks.

Categories