I am now looking at your post on the crazy numbers. Unless I know specifics like the accuracy of the activity band, personally I go by 105 calories a mile, and about 2100 steps a mile. Let’s figure this out for your case.

Your weigh less than 180, so calories will be less. If one is 160 pounds walking 2.5 to 3.5 mph mph, gives you about 85 calories a mile. I am referencing the following article for this: https://www.verywellfit.com/walking-...-miles-3887154 If your watch is correct with the steps and mileage, your pace comes to 2.3 feet. This is what your activity band is using for stride length. I think this is in the realm of what is possible, but your pace will vary. I think both the mentioned stride and calories should get you in the ballpark. However, I do not know your real stride length. Is there a way of entering this info on your activity monitor as a custom stride length? This is what I did. With my earlier band without GPS, it came pretty close to measured distances. My stride length is a bit over 2.5 feet. If the band has no GPS, stride length becomes critical in order to track distance.

So let’s look at your numbers. 17774 steps with a pace of 2.3 feet, comes to 7.7 miles which is close to 7.84 miles. This basically confirms the stride length that appears to be used by your activity band. At 85 calories a mile, this would make for a total of 666 calories, not 819 calories.

On your MMW walk, I assume the 2.84 miles should be more accurate than your wrist monitor. Also I would NOT assume MMW gets the steps correct. However, taking your above figures of 2.84 miles and using stride length of 2.3 feet, steps would come to 6500 steps, not 7000 Still, this is only an error of less than 10%. A larger stride length than this would reduce the steps taken to actually below 6500 steps. So I think anything greater than 6500 is problematic. Now if we look at the distance of 6 miles, this would come up with 13,773 steps, not 11,000. A longer stride, let’s say 2.9 feet, would give you the 11000 figure you came up with. Perhaps this is the longer stride that you have mentioned? The calories spent for six miles would be 510 calories, not the 791 calories that you referred to in your post.

So which is more correct? Your monitor band or your MMW walk? First, I think you need to set a custom stride length in order for my numbers to be more helpful. I will probably have to recalculate some values mentioned above with this information which may bring values that were found off to be more inline. Second, the steps counted for your MMW walk does not appear to be correct, but you did use that additional service to get the mileage correct. Am I understanding this correctly? Also the calories totalled by your band is incorrect, being much greater than the value should be. No surprise to you. To sum this up, 2300 steps for each mile. 85 calories per mile. Your band is using 2.3 feet per stride. Stride length is key to these numbers being accurate.

I did this in a hurry wanting to go to bed on time. I am really really tired. So
I may have made some errors. This needs feedback.