Steps & calories
Options
nooshi713
Posts: 4,877 Member
Hi everyone,
I’m hoping some of you experienced people can clear something up for me. When it comes to calories burned, do steps taken or does distance covered matter more?
From what I have read, 2000 steps is on average about 1 mile of distance. So therefore, 10,000 steps is about 5 miles distance. 10,000 steps should fall into the active activity level.
I wear a fitbit. I often get 10,000 steps in a day but my distance covered is much less, usually only 2.5-3 miles. I am quite short, only 5 feet. I have measured my stride length in the past and noted it was several inches below “average”. Based on years of personal data, I have found that I burn significantly less calories than one would expect for activity level based on steps taken per day. I have always used steps to assign my activity level because basing it on a number of some kind seemed a more objective way than just trying to guess. I always thought the effort of taking steps would matter more than distance but I’m thinking that I was wrong all of this time.
I usually eat back the calories fitbit gives me at the end of the day but am wondering if I should stop doing that. Based on my weight trends, my actual calorie burn seems to fit more into the lightly active level despite the 10,000 steps. On less active days, when I get about 5-7 thousand steps, my actual calorie burn is more in line with sedentary, even though I wouldn’t think that many steps a day qualifies as sedentary.
Otherwise, I am a consistent and accurate logger using grams on a scale for everything solid.
Thoughts?
I’m hoping some of you experienced people can clear something up for me. When it comes to calories burned, do steps taken or does distance covered matter more?
From what I have read, 2000 steps is on average about 1 mile of distance. So therefore, 10,000 steps is about 5 miles distance. 10,000 steps should fall into the active activity level.
I wear a fitbit. I often get 10,000 steps in a day but my distance covered is much less, usually only 2.5-3 miles. I am quite short, only 5 feet. I have measured my stride length in the past and noted it was several inches below “average”. Based on years of personal data, I have found that I burn significantly less calories than one would expect for activity level based on steps taken per day. I have always used steps to assign my activity level because basing it on a number of some kind seemed a more objective way than just trying to guess. I always thought the effort of taking steps would matter more than distance but I’m thinking that I was wrong all of this time.
I usually eat back the calories fitbit gives me at the end of the day but am wondering if I should stop doing that. Based on my weight trends, my actual calorie burn seems to fit more into the lightly active level despite the 10,000 steps. On less active days, when I get about 5-7 thousand steps, my actual calorie burn is more in line with sedentary, even though I wouldn’t think that many steps a day qualifies as sedentary.
Otherwise, I am a consistent and accurate logger using grams on a scale for everything solid.
Thoughts?
1
Replies
-
Actual distance would matter more. 10,000 steps is in reality rather arbitrary. It comes from one of the first pedometers made in Japan who's brand name translates to "10K steps". It's a reasonable guideline to help people be more active in their daily lives, but not much more than that.
Also, I know my steps when I'm shuffling around the office doing stuff are a smaller stride than when I deliberately go for a walk, so I would cover less distance with, say...8K steps around the office than I would with 8K steps out walking my dog around the neighborhood.4 -
Interesting question. I only use steps as a trend since most of them are doing normal everyday activities. If I go for a walk or hike, I log it and only pay attention to the amount of time spent and distance covered.0
-
Distance counts more than number of steps.
But also: have you considered that the calories for steps might not be the 'issue', but rather your basal metabolism? You might simply not be average with regards to your BMR, most people fall within a fairly close range of the statistical average for their weight, gender, etc. but a minority fall further outside the range (both lower and higher) and that might simply be the case for you?2 -
I don’t have an answer for you but this is something I’ve also pondered on many times.
I’m the same height and, like you, have measured by stride length as a bit less than the standard length used in most calculations. I’ve altered the stride length in the Fitbit app to reflect my actual stride length.
I’ve just gone back through the last few months on my Fitbit app and picked up all the ‘mapped’ walks and done some calculations based on the steps recorded during those sessions and the mapped distance covered.
The number of steps I take in a mile averages out at 2,211, if that’s any help to you! I think that’s a more accurate way of comparing steps and distance covered than just picking the numbers directly off the dashboard on Fitbit because it’s filtering out the ‘non-steps’ caused by arm movements which aren’t associated with steps.
(I’ve noticed that my Fitbit will pick up steps when I’m actually rubbing body lotion into my legs using long strokes!)
Like you, my logic has always assumed that steps taken matters more in terms of calories burned than distance covered but I believe that’s not what’s generally stated, at least when comparing walking to running. 🤔1 -
Distance counts more than number of steps.
But also: have you considered that the calories for steps might not be the 'issue', but rather your basal metabolism? You might simply not be average with regards to your BMR, most people fall within a fairly close range of the statistical average for their weight, gender, etc. but a minority fall further outside the range (both lower and higher) and that might simply be the case for you?
Yes I have considered this and suspect it is true.
So the consensus so far seems to be that distance matters more. Makes sense.1 -
BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »I don’t have an answer for you but this is something I’ve also pondered on many times.
I’m the same height and, like you, have measured by stride length as a bit less than the standard length used in most calculations. I’ve altered the stride length in the Fitbit app to reflect my actual stride length.
I’ve just gone back through the last few months on my Fitbit app and picked up all the ‘mapped’ walks and done some calculations based on the steps recorded during those sessions and the mapped distance covered.
The number of steps I take in a mile averages out at 2,211, if that’s any help to you! I think that’s a more accurate way of comparing steps and distance covered than just picking the numbers directly off the dashboard on Fitbit because it’s filtering out the ‘non-steps’ caused by arm movements which aren’t associated with steps.
(I’ve noticed that my Fitbit will pick up steps when I’m actually rubbing body lotion into my legs using long strokes!)
Like you, my logic has always assumed that steps taken matters more in terms of calories burned than distance covered but I believe that’s not what’s generally stated, at least when comparing walking to running. 🤔
Interesting. I was hoping other short people would chime in. Thanks.0 -
As regards calories the primary relationship is mass moved over distance.
I'm not a Fitbit user but got the impression you can set your personal stride length.
But that might assume your steps are generally consisent walking. But if you are clocking up lots of movement at work then your stride could be very different for those steps.
1 -
I have seen this topic often, and honestly I have never understood the focus on either. To me, time in steady movement is what matters. I don't count steps, or pay attention to the distance I have gone. I only care how long I spent in steady movement (i.e. walking in my case). I also focus on upping my walking speed because this is a personal goal (as I am short so always a little slower) - incidentally getting faster will burn more calories as well.1
-
@nooshi713 it is the distance that is the primary determinant;
BUT:
it doesn't matter what the activity setting is CALLED, it is just a LABEL for a multiplier applied to your estimated BMR (or to be even more precise to your RMR estimate since MFP uses the Mifflin values)
So sedentary is 1.25* BMR calories, lightly is 1.4x, active is 1.6x, and very active is 1.8x BMR Calories for the day.
Fitbit assigns 1.0x BMR for every minute it doesn't detect movement. Any movement it detects it assigns a multiplier value based on what it THINKS you were doing during the time period in question. It assigns calories based on the values in the Compendium of Physical Activities. Averaged in 5 minute increments... which when added up together give you the total calories expended during your day.
The two totals (MFP and FITBIT) are then compared and MFP creates an "adjustment" up or down depending on whether negative adjustments are enabled. The adjustment is whatever value will equalize the two total daily expenditure values.
So what's the major caveat? All these values are ESTIMATES, guesses, based on... MEAN population estimates. These mean values are right on! for most people (by definition). But they're both appreciably lower and appreciably higher for an appreciable number of people. And they are a LOT lower and a LOT higher for a small but still meaningful number of people.
Even if you're in the bottom or top 1% of Calorie burners, out of the 8 billion people in the world this still represents 80,000,000 people!
The whole population of New York. Plus Greece without the tourists. Plus Mumbai. Plus all of Canada while we're at it!
So that's a FEW people anyway who are not the best at burning calories, or, who conversely are very good at it!
Is there a chance some of them end up finding MFP?2 -
I am 5' too, and I have wondered about this as well. I get that distance is said to be the most important thing when doing the calculations, but... I can't wrap my head on the disparity that it can cause.
I mean, if I look at my average numbers, I have 10k steps = 6.3km = 75 minutes. Someone much taller - and with a wider stride - who would walk for the same 75 minutes and the same 10k steps would obviously cover a longer distance than mine.
Then again, I want to have my exercise logged with a minimum of accuracy, but I don't need so much accuracy that I go crazy with the calculations and estimates. I have a Fitbit but I don't synch it with MFP, and I end up using MFP's "brisk pace" walking entry for my daily walks. It seems accurate enough, give or take a few cals, so it'll have to do for now.1 -
It takes me about 2500 steps to go a mile. I'm just shy of 5' 3". I need between 11000 and 12000 steps to go 5 miles.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions