Walking calories vs Running calories

[shipo]

My metrics:

• Age: 59
• Height: 5' 8"
• Weight: 210 lbs.
• Gender: Male
• Resting BPM: 43
• Body shape: A bit plump

Per the MapMyWalk web site's calorie counter, I should burn calories at about the following rates:

• Walk: 3.5 miles in 1 hour on flat ground, 5,150 steps (per Fitbit) -- Total calories burned: 443
• Run: 8.0 mostly flat miles in 1:17, 12,388 steps (per Fitbit) -- Total calories burned: 1,555

Per my Fitbit Surge:

• Walk: 3.5 miles in 1 hour on flat ground, 5,150 steps -- Total calories burned: 572 (avg BPM: 105)
• Run: 8.0 mostly flat miles in 1:17, 12,388 steps -- Total calories burned: 1,141 (avg BPM: 138)

Steps per calorie burned per the MapMyWalk site:

• Walk: 11.63
• Run: 7.97

Steps per calorie burned per my Fitbit Surge:

• Walk: 9.00
• Run: 10.86

While I don't know the complete accuracy for the above calorie burn esitmates, I'm thinking the Fitbit is way-WAY wrong.  To my way of thinking, the MapMyWalk estimate seems reasonable, however, there is no way you can convince me the Fitbit Surge's estimate which says walking at a moderate pace will burn *MORE* calories per step than running at a 9:30 pace.

Am I the only one with this issue or is the algorithm used by Fitbit pretty messed up?

[Dominique]

Check the Compendium of Physical Activities referenced in this post. Running at 6 mph would be 9.8 METs and at 6.7 mph 10.5 METs. In your case, speed was about 6.2 mph. Your BMR would be 1742 calories (as per this online calculator, which uses more or less the same formula as Fitbit). That’s 1742 / 1440 = 1.21 calories per minute.

Running 77 minutes you would therefore burn:

1) at 6 mph: 9.8 x 1.21 x 77 = 913 calories

2) at 6.7 mph: 10.5 x 1.21 x 77 = 978 calories

Fitbit says: 1141 calories. It’s a bit higher, but closer than what MapMyWalk claims.

[shipo]

While I *might* accept the 1,141 calories as what was burned for last night's 8 mile (12.8 km) run, there is no way I'm going to believe a 3.5 mile (5.6 km) walk at a leisurely pace is going to burn 572 calories. So, either the Fitbit is over-reporting the walk, under-reporting the run, or some of each.

As I stated in my post, the Fitbit says I burn more calories per stride during a moderate paced walk than running at a 9:30 pace; not possible.

[BWright1175]

Before I got my Charge HR, I put together a calculator based on the formulas used by LiveStrong to fairly accurately calculate the calories my wife and I burned while walking/running on our treadmill, as the treadmill is simply going by averages.  Now that I have the HR, I no longer use the calculator, but I brought it back out to check some recent workouts for comparison.

Yesterday morning, I ran 1.66 miles in 20 minutes at a standard 1% incline.

Fitbit shows 255 calories burned.

MapMyRun shows 341 calories burned.

The LiveStrong calculator shows 266 calories burned.

So in my case, the fitbit was fairly accurate, in my opinion.

Using your walk numbers:

Fitbit showed 572

MMR showed 443

LiveStrong shows 368

For your run:

Fitbit showed 1141

MMR showed 1555

LiveStrong shows 1261

For your distances... were you using the GPS measured distance in Map My Run?  Or did you use the distance provided by your Fitbit, then log that walk/run into Map My Run?

The reason I ask is if you do the math, your steps and distances don't add up.

At 5'8" tall, your average walking stride should result in around 2000 to 2200 steps per mile... but your numbers put you at less than 1500 steps per mile.  Conversely, your running steps should be much lower, but that equals out to just over 1500 steps per mile, which is probably about right for your height.

[Dominique]

Walking at 3.5 mph is 4.8 METs (according to the same source), so one hour of such walking would burn (in your case): 4.8 x 1.21 x 60 = 348 calories.

[Dominique]

---

@shipo wrote:

So, either the Fitbit is over-reporting the walk, under-reporting the run, or some of each.

---

Also see what this article says about aerobic exercise tracked by consumer fitness trackers.

[shipo]

Answers to your questions:

For my running distances, they were using the Fitbit Surge GPS in Run mode; confirmed via MapMyRun (the Fitbit said 8.06 miles, MapMyRun says 8.12, close enough for me).

For the walking distances, nice catch.  My bad, when I was transposing the walking numbers from my log into the original post, I was reading the wrong line in the log.  The following shows updated numbers, they're better, but still highly questionable.

Per the MapMyWalk web site's calorie counter, I should burn calories at about the following rates:

• Walk: 3.5 miles in 1 hour on flat ground, 6,738 steps (per Fitbit) -- Total calories burned: 443
• Run: 8.0 mostly flat miles in 1:17, 12,388 steps (per Fitbit) -- Total calories burned: 1,555

Per my Fitbit Surge:

• Walk: 3.5 miles in 1 hour on flat ground, 6,738 steps -- Total calories burned: 572 (avg BPM: 105)
• Run: 8.0 mostly flat miles in 1:17, 12,388 steps -- Total calories burned: 1,141 (avg BPM: 138)

Steps per calorie burned per the MapMyWalk site:

• Walk: 15.21
• Run: 7.97

Steps per calorie burned per my Fitbit Surge:

• Walk: 11.78
• Run: 10.86

I am still highly dubious of the Fitbit walking calorie burn estimate.

[JohnRi]

I remember reading an article about runners vs walkers.  The article was talking about the health risks to runners for injuries vs walker injuries.  And what it said was that walkers can burn as many calories as runners, but they have to walk roughtly twice as far, and twice as long.  The article was geared more toward avoiding injuries tied to running.  But did lost of testing on calories burned.  I wish I knew the link to the article.

Dominique and I will disagree, but I say the surge takes into account what your heart rate is when figuring out how many calories you burn.  Mapmywalk can't do that, and only looks at your height, weight, and distance to figure it out.

So I think your surge is more accurate than mapmywalk.  I've used both, and for me mapmywalk was always under reporting my calories burned.  But back in those days, a walk to my mailbox was a cardio activity...

[shipo]

I've heard such things before, however, to my feeble brain at least, there is no way say a six-mile walk in two hours burns as many calories as say a six-mile run in an hour.  That said, I'd like to see the science behind the studies.

So far at least, the only measurement I've seen which supports the twice as far/twice as long notion is the Fitbit app, all other resources I've seen in the internet suggest a rather significant difference between running and twice as far/twice as long walking when it comes to calorie burn.

[Dominique]

---

@shipo wrote:

I'd like to see the science behind the studies.

---

Check the METs in the Compendium of Physical Activities: walking at 3.5 mph is 4.8 METs, while running at 7.0 mph is 11.0 METs. You would therefore burn slightly more running at 7.0 mph for one hour than walking at 3.5 mph for two hours. However, many people (even if overweight/out of shape) can walk relatively easily for two hours at 3.5 mph, while running for one hour straight at 7.0 mph already requires some level of cardio fitness. So what @JohnRi wrote makes perfect sense.

[Colinm39]

---

@shipo wrote:

I've heard such things before, however, to my feeble brain at least, there is no way say a six-mile walk in two hours burns as many calories as say a six-mile run in an hour.  That said, I'd like to see the science behind the studies.

So far at least, the only measurement I've seen which supports the twice as far/twice as long notion is the Fitbit app, all other resources I've seen in the internet suggest a rather significant difference between running and twice as far/twice as long walking when it comes to calorie burn.

---

@shipo Here is a link to the Walkers site and quotes some University studies supporting the claims.

Ironically, last week my Physio suggested I walk slower to help build up my thigh muscles after my total hip replacement. I had been walking faster to transfer the weight from left to right to ease the sciatic pain. That has gone because my worn out hip had been resting on the sciatic nerve.

[shipo]

@Colinm39, thanks for your thoughts.

I have no problem believing a slow walk burns more calories per mile than a fast walk per mile, or for that matter, more calories per mile than running.  That said, the calories burned per stride cannot possibly be higher walking than running.