[tech/medical] What is it with walking calories and MFP/trackers?
yirara
Posts: 9,943 Member
Seriously, MFP grossly overstates calories for walking, and fitness trackers do the same. My Garmin estimated my calorie burn for a tiny 4km walk at 265 calories yesterday. My old Fitbit gave similarly crazy numbers. This can't be explained by gross vs net calories, neither with HR as my HR is substantially lower when walking compared to running and I've set zones to reflect this, based on HRmax estimate and a recent exercise test. Furthermore, there are apps out there advertizing these crazy burns as a way to lose weight quickly by just walking around the block every day. Btw, my running burns looks much more realistic. So what is it with walking? Is 0.3*weight*distance so wrong after all, or is walking just poorly implemented pretty much everywhere?
0
Replies
-
I use Strava on my phone (so no HR involved) just to record distance walked and the calorie estimates are ridiculously high. Correcting for net v. gross doesn't bring the estimates into what I would regard as reasonable so I use an online calculator.
It shouldn't be that it's assuming I'm running either as I'm only walking at about 3.5 mph.
Lazy programming perhaps using a running formula for both walking and running? Vanity calories?
0 -
I use Strava on my phone (so no HR involved) just to record distance walked and the calorie estimates are ridiculously high. Correcting for net v. gross doesn't bring the estimates into what I would regard as reasonable so I use an online calculator.
It shouldn't be that it's assuming I'm running either as I'm only walking at about 3.5 mph.
Lazy programming perhaps using a running formula for both walking and running? Vanity calories?
I made the same observations with various apps just looking at distance and not HR, or even steps and stride length. Glad I'm not the only one here Sijomial. My running and cycling calories are on average not too bad if I substract BMI from what is already supposed to be net calories (I don't use Strava or a powermeter). Walking is ridiculous wherever I look. So... no idea.0 -
Lots of trial and error in the beginning when I used the mfp calculations, I found out pretty fast their counts are way off! I don’t know why the estimates are so off for other trackers either but I now only use the free iRunner app for walking, running and hiking and the calorie burn has been spot on for me. I ALWAYS eat back ALL the calories it claims I’ve burned from these exercises and over the span of 7+ years my weight has responded accordingly so I know it’s accurate for me.1
-
OP, may I ask which Fitbit version you have? I've been using the Versa 2 for a couple of months now, and I've noticed from personal tests that it's pretty accurate in regards to the calories burned formula.4
-
fitnessguy266 wrote: »OP, may I ask which Fitbit version you have? I've been using the Versa 2 for a couple of months now, and I've noticed from personal tests that it's pretty accurate in regards to the calories burned formula.
Same here..I also have the Versa 2 and eat back the majority of the calories it says I burn. My weight seems to be reacting accordingly as I would expect.1 -
A "fitted" mean value will be accurate or near accurate for most, relatively not accurate (up or down) for some people, and extremely innacurrate for very few (but NOT zero) people.
It sounds like you're one of the few.
Comparing logged values and their expected results against the corresponding long term weight trend allows for a personalized correction.
My own correction is of the order of 3.5% of TDEE or less when logging accurately and closer to 5.5% when logging my food intake more loosely.
Even thought I exceed MFPs very active setting on the basis of deliberate walking I haven't found it needful to estimate how far off specifically walking is for me.
I HAVE noticed that on relatively inactive days my result deviations from tdee are almost zero, so most of the tdee error I discuss above is probably due to an overestimate of activity calories if I were to go with my gut feeling. Then again maybe if I don't move I lose some water weight!
It actually doesn't really impact me that much since on balance I would rather be active than inactive and the calories burned are tracked mostly for informational purposes and to ensure I have a cautionary flag waving in front of me when I hit the cookie jar!1 -
The .3 x weight x miles (and the .6 for running) came from a Runner’s World article that is no longer available. But it was based on a gross calorie burn of .5 x weight x miles - leaving the .3 as the net calorie burn.
If I subtract my BMR from the .5 x weight x miles, I end up higher than .3. Some others put it to the test a few years ago and also came up higher than .3 (more around .4-.45 or so) as a net figure.
That’s not going to make a massive difference in calorie calculations unless you’re walking a significant distance.
But, the .3 doesn’t seem to really be correct across the board. Perhaps that’s where it lands for a certain weight range? Who knows.
The .5 figure (at least for me) comes reasonably close to gross calorie burn based on METS.
3 -
I may be an outlier. For me the mfp numbers are about the same as those on my Garmin and I can eat 110% of the calories given and still maintain my weight.4
-
I find my Fitbit walking calories to be very accurate. I don’t earn many calories for my steps though.4
-
I find my Fitbit to be pretty accurate and walking is my major form of exercise. I'm 56, 5'3", ~117 lbs. I have to eat slightly more than MFP calories + Fitbit exercise calories to maintain.
I use "not very active" (aka sedentary) on MFP. Here are a few recent daily steps and exercise calories (guess which day was the one following my 2nd Covid vaccine):
5 -
I get more than twice for walking, thus in the range of 0.65 with any tracker. If I chose here very sliw pace walking it works, yet this is for my very fast walking pace -and very brisk again gives about double the calories.
I don’t have proper walking data, but years of running data. I don’t wabt to believe that brisk walking, that I can keep up effortlessly until I run out of energy costs the same caliries as running. Which is hard for me0 -
I get more than twice for walking, thus in the range of 0.65 with any tracker. If I chose here very sliw pace walking it works, yet this is for my very fast walking pace -and very brisk again gives about double the calories.
I don’t have proper walking data, but years of running data. I don’t wabt to believe that brisk walking, that I can keep up effortlessly until I run out of energy costs the same caliries as running. Which is hard for me
You may be walking quickly enough to be in the crossover area of efficiency. Walking very quickly can burn more calories than running slowly, but the exacts of the crossover points seem to be disputed even in various studies. But they all seem to agree that generally walking is most efficient at 3-4 MPH, and then efficiency drops and calorie burn goes up quickly with speed. Running efficiency is a much more linear progression, with efficiency increasing with speed.
The Runners World article was based on a study that compared the two, and the paces used were right at about 3 MPH for walking and 6 MPH for running. IIRC one of the primary goals was to compare to various prediction models that were available. ACSM models proved to be one of the more accurate, but in some cases the prediction models were off over 30% IIRC. If any tracker uses the wrong prediction model, there may be more variance in accuracy based on body composition, speed, etc... essentially anything included in the prediction model.
Also keep in mind that the tests showed that when adjusted for fat free mass, the gender differences more or less disappeared. But if a device uses a model based on averages for fat, being and outlier in the norm skews your data more. I recall that in the study the subjects for males tended to be on the leaner side for males, while the females were closer to an average fat mass. Somewhere around 12% for males and 24% for females.
So plenty of places for data errors, even when you drill it down fairly deep.
And it's possible that you are just an outlier to some extent. I worked with a woman that had a very brisk walking pace, to the point it was difficult to keep up with her without extra effort. She said she couldn't jog to save her life. It was just her natural walking pace as well. She was somewhat long legged for her height, but not super lean, and her stride was very long.4 -
I'm pretty sure my Garmin (FR245) also overestimates my walking calories. It's definitely much higher than using a MET-based estimate would give me.
Bizarrely enough, if I walk on the treadmill instead, my watch underestimates the calories. I compared two 1-hour walks at the same pace (12 min/km) with the same average HR (77 bpm). The outdoors walk gave me 265 kcal, the treadmill one (recorded as a "Treadmill running" activity on my watch) 108 kcal. Obviously there was more variance in my HR outdoors due to hills and wind and whatnot, but that discrepancy was pretty huge.0 -
I walked 14km yesterday. There were a few stops for photos and playing a game, but anyway, Garmin gave me a total of 837kcal. Which is a lot for flat terrain. Though to be fair, my old Fitibit Charge 2 would have given me closer to 1400
I still suspect Garmin is actually giving gross calories even though the workout overview states net. But that's still a rather high overall. 0 -
I walked 14km yesterday. There were a few stops for photos and playing a game, but anyway, Garmin gave me a total of 837kcal. Which is a lot for flat terrain. Though to be fair, my old Fitibit Charge 2 would have given me closer to 1400 I still suspect Garmin is actually giving gross calories even though the workout overview states net. But that's still a rather high overall.
Where does it say that it's net calories? I'm sure the calorie burns given by Garmin are gross, judging from the chunk taken out of my calorie adjustment every time I take long walks, partially compensating the relatively high calorie burn of the walk itself.2 -
Mapmyrun gives me a huge count for walking....BUT I eat them back, have for three years, and am maintaining. So it seems to be accurate for me, at least.4
-
rheddmobile wrote: »Mapmyrun gives me a huge count for walking....BUT I eat them back, have for three years, and am maintaining. So it seems to be accurate for me, at least.
I would say that you eating your walking estimates are effective rather than accurate which would need particular verification of purely that activity rather than being just a part of a multitude of estimates that results in your calorie balance.
But it's a good remender that accuracy is nice but it's not a requirement for successful weight control.
I lost weight using what I later discovered were inaccurate gym machine, walking app and heartrate numbers for a large exercise volume purely because I was consistent and made adjustments based on results.1 -
I walked 14km yesterday. There were a few stops for photos and playing a game, but anyway, Garmin gave me a total of 837kcal. Which is a lot for flat terrain. Though to be fair, my old Fitibit Charge 2 would have given me closer to 1400 I still suspect Garmin is actually giving gross calories even though the workout overview states net. But that's still a rather high overall.
Where does it say that it's net calories? I'm sure the calorie burns given by Garmin are gross, judging from the chunk taken out of my calorie adjustment every time I take long walks, partially compensating the relatively high calorie burn of the walk itself.
Hmm.. I can't find it anymore now on the app. It might only show up once the activity gets transferred. Odd one as it now only says calories burned. But when I transferred exercise to MFP 2-3 weeks ago I got the whole chunk of calories in a workout and no correction.0 -
Correctly working integration compares the TDEE values for the day that mfp and the alternative device believe to be true, and issues a single adjustment that continues to change value till midnight when it becomes final.
Correctly working integration eliminates any double counting.
Now my information is valid for Fitbit, which I use. I don't have a Garmin, though I believe they currently work the same with MFP (as compared to Apple watch which used to have issues).
If you start messing around by entering specific exercises directly on MFP you are actually manually overriding the detection values of your tracker for the specific time period.
To me this would mess with my attempt of having an independent evaluation of my burn absent my own input and feeling of how hard I FELT I worked, which could be more or less depending on my mood.
Other potential sources of error are: GPS instability, stride length, terrain flatness or steepness, terrain consistency (bouncing track vs sticky mud), dominant vs non dominant hand.
And.... outliers DO exist.... the little upper tail end of 8 billion, .. is still over 10 million
0 -
I think the important thing to remember is that it's all an estimate...the .3xWeightxMiles is an estimate...from my own data, I personally find it reasonable, but also quite conservative...which is better than being grossly over.
I wear a Garmin Instinct and I'd say overall it's pretty reasonable where gross calories are concerned in total, and for individual, isolated efforts like going for a walk or a ride, etc. My Garmin typically give me in the neighborhood of 250 calories for a 3 mile walk. The .3 formula give me around 175...if I subtract my estimated BMR calories from 250 it actually comes out to 175.5...so pretty close on that front...any discrepancies I've noticed are when distance and time are increased or if my HRM on my watch starts doing weird things...this can happen in both directions. I went on a walk the other day and my watch told me that my average HR on the walk was 56 when in reality on the same walk, it's usually around 90-95 or so.0 -
I walked 14km yesterday. There were a few stops for photos and playing a game, but anyway, Garmin gave me a total of 837kcal. Which is a lot for flat terrain. Though to be fair, my old Fitibit Charge 2 would have given me closer to 1400 I still suspect Garmin is actually giving gross calories even though the workout overview states net. But that's still a rather high overall.
Where does it say that it's net calories? I'm sure the calorie burns given by Garmin are gross, judging from the chunk taken out of my calorie adjustment every time I take long walks, partially compensating the relatively high calorie burn of the walk itself.
Hmm.. I can't find it anymore now on the app. It might only show up once the activity gets transferred. Odd one as it now only says calories burned. But when I transferred exercise to MFP 2-3 weeks ago I got the whole chunk of calories in a workout and no correction.
I looked up my last long walk, to illustrate:
Of those 33k steps, 5k were not included in my walk. And 5000 steps would usually be enough to have a positive calorie adjustment, hence my conclusion that Garmin shows gross calories.
Which is confirmed when I see that my active calories for the whole day is a lower number than the calorie burn for my walk:
More on-topic, my walking calories seem inflated as well. For the above walk, the 0.3 formula plus BMR gives me about 800 calories. The walk was actually hilly and quite fast, but it seems a stretch to go from 800 to 1200 calories for that.0 -
I walked 14km yesterday. There were a few stops for photos and playing a game, but anyway, Garmin gave me a total of 837kcal. Which is a lot for flat terrain. Though to be fair, my old Fitibit Charge 2 would have given me closer to 1400 I still suspect Garmin is actually giving gross calories even though the workout overview states net. But that's still a rather high overall.
Where does it say that it's net calories? I'm sure the calorie burns given by Garmin are gross, judging from the chunk taken out of my calorie adjustment every time I take long walks, partially compensating the relatively high calorie burn of the walk itself.
Hmm.. I can't find it anymore now on the app. It might only show up once the activity gets transferred. Odd one as it now only says calories burned. But when I transferred exercise to MFP 2-3 weeks ago I got the whole chunk of calories in a workout and no correction.
I looked up my last long walk, to illustrate:
Of those 33k steps, 5k were not included in my walk. And 5000 steps would usually be enough to have a positive calorie adjustment, hence my conclusion that Garmin shows gross calories.
Which is confirmed when I see that my active calories for the whole day is a lower number than the calorie burn for my walk:
More on-topic, my walking calories seem inflated as well. For the above walk, the 0.3 formula plus BMR gives me about 800 calories. The walk was actually hilly and quite fast, but it seems a stretch to go from 800 to 1200 calories for that.
Your adjustment at the bottom is a whole day tdee adjustment.
The 0.3 formula generally yields a lower result than met based formulas.
Almost every fitness tracker and most apps use met based formulas.
There was one article on runerworld that examined and proposed the 0.3 formula. I can't say that I've seen that research plastered all over the place beyond that one article.
Thus I don't know (and don't believe) that the preponderance of evidence supports 0.3 vs met values
Met values calculate gross calories and there exist corrected met values for certain situations.
Net calories from MFP should not only exclude 1x BMR calories.
They should exclude the MFP base calories value for the same time frame, and this starts from BMR * 1.25 for sedentary/not very active and tops at BMR * 1.8 at very active1 -
I ate back my Fitbit cals (almost all) and lost as expected or more when I did (I walked a decent amount during the average day, although also usually got cals from other exercise too).
I now have an Apple watch and ignore the cals since I'm doing TDEE averaged over the week, but the numbers seem pretty reasonable for walking.1 -
There was one article on runerworld that examined and proposed the 0.3 formula. I can't say that I've seen that research plastered all over the place beyond that one article.
Yeah, most other sources, including others at RW, are higher. It always seemed lower than what is correct for me also. (Rather than trying to estimate cals from specific walks, I do find it easier to use the activity multipliers or a step tracker, however, as both have generally worked fine for me.)2 -
I walked 14km yesterday. There were a few stops for photos and playing a game, but anyway, Garmin gave me a total of 837kcal. Which is a lot for flat terrain. Though to be fair, my old Fitibit Charge 2 would have given me closer to 1400 I still suspect Garmin is actually giving gross calories even though the workout overview states net. But that's still a rather high overall.
Where does it say that it's net calories? I'm sure the calorie burns given by Garmin are gross, judging from the chunk taken out of my calorie adjustment every time I take long walks, partially compensating the relatively high calorie burn of the walk itself.
Hmm.. I can't find it anymore now on the app. It might only show up once the activity gets transferred. Odd one as it now only says calories burned. But when I transferred exercise to MFP 2-3 weeks ago I got the whole chunk of calories in a workout and no correction.
I looked up my last long walk, to illustrate:
Of those 33k steps, 5k were not included in my walk. And 5000 steps would usually be enough to have a positive calorie adjustment, hence my conclusion that Garmin shows gross calories.
Which is confirmed when I see that my active calories for the whole day is a lower number than the calorie burn for my walk:
More on-topic, my walking calories seem inflated as well. For the above walk, the 0.3 formula plus BMR gives me about 800 calories. The walk was actually hilly and quite fast, but it seems a stretch to go from 800 to 1200 calories for that.
Your adjustment at the bottom is a whole day tdee adjustment.
The 0.3 formula generally yields a lower result than met based formulas.
Almost every fitness tracker and most apps use met based formulas.
There was one article on runerworld that examined and proposed the 0.3 formula. I can't say that I've seen that research plastered all over the place beyond that one article.
Thus I don't know (and don't believe) that the preponderance of evidence supports 0.3 vs met values
Met values calculate gross calories and there exist corrected met values for certain situations.
Net calories from MFP should not only exclude 1x BMR calories.
They should exclude the MFP base calories value for the same time frame, and this starts from BMR * 1.25 for sedentary/not very active and tops at BMR * 1.8 at very active
For the bolded : I know. I'm not sure what message you're trying to convey though, sorry 🙂 I was just using the active calories part to illustrate that Garmin gives gross calories for exercise sessions (since those active calories, with my long walk and 5000 steps on top of that, were lower than the burn for my walk).
As for MET values for walking, totally new territory for me. If you think the 0.3 formula isn't correct, what alternatives do you propose?
I tried the calculator here:
https://metscalculator.com
For 'walking and hiking at a normal pace through fields and hills' I got 1360 calories. But what is a 'normal' pace? And what kind of elevation differences for 'fields and hills'?
And 'walking, 3.5mph, level, brisk, firm surface, walking for exercise' gives me 1100 (but the walk was actually hilly and speed was 3.6mph).
Those two entries would indicate that my Garmin is actually pretty accurate for walking.
I know my Garmin TDEE is pretty accurate, but since I don't log many walks (aside from hikes, I don't start exercise sessions for walking) I wasn't sure about the walks.0 -
I walked 14km yesterday. There were a few stops for photos and playing a game, but anyway, Garmin gave me a total of 837kcal. Which is a lot for flat terrain. Though to be fair, my old Fitibit Charge 2 would have given me closer to 1400 I still suspect Garmin is actually giving gross calories even though the workout overview states net. But that's still a rather high overall.
Where does it say that it's net calories? I'm sure the calorie burns given by Garmin are gross, judging from the chunk taken out of my calorie adjustment every time I take long walks, partially compensating the relatively high calorie burn of the walk itself.
Hmm.. I can't find it anymore now on the app. It might only show up once the activity gets transferred. Odd one as it now only says calories burned. But when I transferred exercise to MFP 2-3 weeks ago I got the whole chunk of calories in a workout and no correction.
I looked up my last long walk, to illustrate:
Of those 33k steps, 5k were not included in my walk. And 5000 steps would usually be enough to have a positive calorie adjustment, hence my conclusion that Garmin shows gross calories.
Which is confirmed when I see that my active calories for the whole day is a lower number than the calorie burn for my walk:
More on-topic, my walking calories seem inflated as well. For the above walk, the 0.3 formula plus BMR gives me about 800 calories. The walk was actually hilly and quite fast, but it seems a stretch to go from 800 to 1200 calories for that.
Your adjustment at the bottom is a whole day tdee adjustment.
The 0.3 formula generally yields a lower result than met based formulas.
Almost every fitness tracker and most apps use met based formulas.
There was one article on runerworld that examined and proposed the 0.3 formula. I can't say that I've seen that research plastered all over the place beyond that one article.
Thus I don't know (and don't believe) that the preponderance of evidence supports 0.3 vs met values
Met values calculate gross calories and there exist corrected met values for certain situations.
Net calories from MFP should not only exclude 1x BMR calories.
They should exclude the MFP base calories value for the same time frame, and this starts from BMR * 1.25 for sedentary/not very active and tops at BMR * 1.8 at very active
For the bolded : I know. I'm not sure what messaged you're trying to convey though, sorry 🙂 I was just using the active calories part to illustrate that Garmin gives gross calories for exercise sessions (since those active calories, with my long walk and 5000 steps on top of that, were lower than the burn for my walk).
As for MET values for walking, totally new territory for me. If you think the 0.3 formula isn't correct, what alternatives do you propose?
I tried the calculator here:
https://metscalculator.com
For 'walking and hiking at a normal pace through fields and hills' I got 1360 calories. But what is a 'normal' pace? And what kind of elevation differences for 'fields and hills'?
And 'walking, 3.5mph, level, brisk, firm surface, walking for exercise' gives me 1100 (but the walk was actually hilly and speed was 3.6mph).
Those two entries would indicate that my Garmin is actually pretty accurate for walking.
I know my Garmin TDEE is pretty accurate, but since I don't log many walks (aside from hikes, I don't start exercise sessions for walking) I wasn't sure about the walks.
Good questions Lietchi. I know my running calories fit very well with my maintaining calories and eating back 100% of the runs. I'm fairly confident that the 0.6whatever multiplyer for running works for me. Yes, I'm sure Garmin displays gross calories as well. Garmin gave me 307 calories for a 5k yesterday. It's actually pretty spot on for weight, clothes, and correcting for gross calories. I just can't get my head around the walking...
for example:
5km running - 307 gross calories
11km walking - 646 gross calories
Ok, of course walking took longer, but if I compare net calories then this is still roughly the same calorie number per 5km.
Ok, lets check mfp, as it doesn't depend on HR data (though my walking HR is substantially lower than running). Lets use the time I actually needed without short breaks.
slowish running: 350 calories
brisk walking: 499 calories
This does look better. Hmm.. not sure what to do with this to be honest.0 -
Ha, I just calculated the number of calories per km and I have roughly the same number for my (treadmill) runs versus my (outdoor) walks. It is puzzling
0 -
-
I started off with Runkeeper but its estimates were fanciful. Believe they later changed to the same METS based method as MFP uses.
Then used 0.3 x lbs x miles.
Currently use this calculator which is more nuanced for different walking and running speeds which do have a range of efficiency rather than the average efficiency that 0.3 is trying to find. https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
Usefully it has a net calorie option.
1 -
I started off with Runkeeper but its estimates were fanciful. Believe they later changed to the same METS based method as MFP uses.
Then used 0.3 x lbs x miles.
Currently use this calculator which is more nuanced for different walking and running speeds which do have a range of efficiency rather than the average efficiency that 0.3 is trying to find. https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
Usefully it has a net calorie option.
Good calculator! It gave me 376kcal net for a recent longer walk. A bit more than 0.3* but not substantially more. Looks fairly realistic to me I think.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions