Calories

Karstey050

Does anyone know why I burn more calories in my fat burning zone (below 107bpm) than in my cardio zone (107+bpm) ?

Working2BLean

You must exercise longer

If you do a more intense fuel burning exercise for the same duration you do a low intensity low fuel burning exercise, you will burn more calories.

There may be a discrepancy on the machines you are using if they tell you that.

Calories are just fuel. Intense exercise burns more fuel in same given time.

There are a few heart rate zones. Maybe look up heart rate zones and check it out. It isn't complicated at all.

Good for you that you do both higher and lower intensity exercise.

Karstey050

I depend on MFP to calculate calories burned during my exercises. It's funny that when I walk outside I always get 75-85% in cardio rate, but when I do indoor walking exercises for the same amount of time my heart rate doesn't ever rise enough, it's 100% fat burn. And I sweat just as much! LOL! What I enter on MFP goes to my Fitbit and there it translates to time in the zones.

Karstey050

macgurlnet

You shouldn't be logging any step-based activities if you have a Fitbit. It will track them for you.

Also, it's better to log your non-step-based activities in Fitbit as it will give you a better calorie burn estimate than MFP will.

~Lyssa

Karstey050

Walking is my only exercise right now. If I don't enter it in MFP, Fitbit doesn't show any exercise for me. Steps, yes, but nothing that shows distance and speed and calories burned. Those are important to me!

Karstey050

I don't log my walking directly into Fitbit. Fitbit gets it from MFP because they are linked. Actually, MFP gets my walks from Walkmeter, which does all the calculations. After that, Fitbit records it automatically.

AnvilHead

The "fat burning zone" is irrelevant for weight loss anyway. Calorie expenditure is calorie expenditure, it doesn't matter which substrate your body is using for fuel.

Karstey050

AnvilHead wrote: »

The "fat burning zone" is irrelevant for weight loss anyway. Calorie expenditure is calorie expenditure, it doesn't matter which substrate your body is using for fuel.

Thank you! Still, it is strange that there is such a difference between indoors and outdoors. I need the cardio benefits more, that's all. I just wish that when the weather is bad and I can't walk outside, doing an indoor walking DVD session was as good as outdoors walking 2 miles, but it isn't.

donutbears

What kind of fitbit do you have? Even with the flex there should be an option through the app to just start the timer when you start your walk. If you have a charge or charge hr you just press and hold the left side button to begin recording your work out.

Karstey050

donutbears wrote: »

What kind of fitbit do you have? Even with the flex there should be an option through the app to just start the timer when you start your walk. If you have a charge or charge hr you just press and hold the left side button to begin recording your work out.

I have the Charge HR. That would be great for my indoor walking, but I love Walkmeter for outdoors. I know that Fitbit tracks outdoor routes also, but I haven't used it yet. Does Fitbit log walks on MFP?

janejellyroll

Karstey050 wrote: »

donutbears wrote: »

What kind of fitbit do you have? Even with the flex there should be an option through the app to just start the timer when you start your walk. If you have a charge or charge hr you just press and hold the left side button to begin recording your work out.

I have the Charge HR. That would be great for my indoor walking, but I love Walkmeter for outdoors. I know that Fitbit tracks outdoor routes also, but I haven't used it yet. Does Fitbit log walks on MFP?

If you have the Charge HR, you can just press the button on the side and it will track the details from your workouts. Press the button until it buzzes and then press it again when you are done with your workout.

cwolfman13

it's because you're selecting two different entries from the MFP database that is notorious for being wrong anyway...you're putting too much stock into the numbers from the database...you should cross check those with another source.

Karstey050

cwolfman13 wrote: »

it's because you're selecting two different entries from the MFP database that is notorious for being wrong anyway...you're putting too much stock into the numbers from the database...you should cross check those with another source.

So I should not enter a walk via Walkmeter? I should use only Fitbit for indoors and outdoors?

Karstey050

I just got back from a 2.50 mile walk. I tracked using Fitbit today and it seems to be more generous than Walkmeter! Thanks everyone for all the advice.

robertw486

Most devices seem to be on the high side for calorie burns. Not really important unless you are eating the calories back. As for the "fat burning zones" the fuel type doesn't matter. At lower intensities you burn more fat, as you get to higher intensities you burn more glycogen (carb stores). But in the end, the total calories is what matters for weight loss or maintenance.

If you use any device for walking that tracks miles via GPS, the following formula is based on actual testing and shows net calorie burn. The article it's from is linked below it

For walking - .3 x body weight in pounds x miles = net calorie burn

runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

Karstey050

robertw486 wrote: »

Most devices seem to be on the high side for calorie burns. Not really important unless you are eating the calories back. As for the "fat burning zones" the fuel type doesn't matter. At lower intensities you burn more fat, as you get to higher intensities you burn more glycogen (carb stores). But in the end, the total calories is what matters for weight loss or maintenance.

If you use any device for walking that tracks miles via GPS, the following formula is based on actual testing and shows net calorie burn. The article it's from is linked below it

For walking - .3 x body weight in pounds x miles = net calorie burn

runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

Thank you! It comes out WAY less than Fitbit says.

robertw486

Karstey050 wrote: »

robertw486 wrote: »

Most devices seem to be on the high side for calorie burns. Not really important unless you are eating the calories back. As for the "fat burning zones" the fuel type doesn't matter. At lower intensities you burn more fat, as you get to higher intensities you burn more glycogen (carb stores). But in the end, the total calories is what matters for weight loss or maintenance.

If you use any device for walking that tracks miles via GPS, the following formula is based on actual testing and shows net calorie burn. The article it's from is linked below it

For walking - .3 x body weight in pounds x miles = net calorie burn

runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

Thank you! It comes out WAY less than Fitbit says.

Keep in mind that many fitness trackers (and machines) report gross calorie burn, which includes the calories you would burn if you were sitting on the couch. But the above is considered fairly accurate for most normal walking paces.

Many devices and machines are very consistent, even if they read high. So you might be able to just figure out a factor and go with that. Let's say your Fitbit always shows your walks inflated 20 percent, you could just take the total number it gives and multiply it by .8. It just saves some math steps and lets you figure things out on the move as well.

Karstey050

Fitbit gave me 301 calories for a 2.30 mile brisk walk. The formula you gave me yielded 118 calories. That's a big difference!

Karstey050

Now that it shows in MFP, I got 123 calories for it. So, it looks like it turns out quite close to the net calories after all.