Baby wearing calorie burn?
Options
Replies
-
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Aha! It's actually in the database but only for a 15lb baby. It says I should burn an extra 230 calories for an hour (presumably I add that to the burn for walking 5 miles in slightly over an hour, which is a lot more than that)
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/exercise/calories-burned/walking-carrying-infant-or-15-lb-load-201
This isn't an extra 230 calories on top of what you would already burn. This is saying that the burn rate for that much activity was 230 calories.
It can't because it didn't know my speed. When I input my speed for walking with no extra weight it gives me 329.SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
But wouldn't your own body weight make a difference? 30lbs is 25% of my weight. It's the same as someone who's 200lbs carrying 50lbs (or an Olympic bar plus 5lbs) for 5 miles straight.BrianSharpe wrote: »Well, this may not be 100% in this situation but it should be close.......
Runners World suggests using .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) so carrying an extra 30 lbs for 5 miles would represent an additional 45 calories expended.
@Heartisalonelyhunter
It would make a difference to how hard it feels for different size/strength people - but calories don't have feelings!
That wasn't my question. I said nothing about 'feelings'.
Allow me to translate: that was sarcasm[/quote
0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Aha! It's actually in the database but only for a 15lb baby. It says I should burn an extra 230 calories for an hour (presumably I add that to the burn for walking 5 miles in slightly over an hour, which is a lot more than that)
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/exercise/calories-burned/walking-carrying-infant-or-15-lb-load-201
This isn't an extra 230 calories on top of what you would already burn. This is saying that the burn rate for that much activity was 230 calories.
It can't because it didn't know my speed. When I input my speed for walking with no extra weight it gives me 329.
It's a BS entry. It's inaccurate. It's garbage.0 -
You are misunderstanding me. This particular activity is based on a slower walking speed than you walked. It is probably based on a 3mph walk carrying a 15 pound load.
0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Aha! It's actually in the database but only for a 15lb baby. It says I should burn an extra 230 calories for an hour (presumably I add that to the burn for walking 5 miles in slightly over an hour, which is a lot more than that)
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/exercise/calories-burned/walking-carrying-infant-or-15-lb-load-201
This isn't an extra 230 calories on top of what you would already burn. This is saying that the burn rate for that much activity was 230 calories.
It can't because it didn't know my speed. When I input my speed for walking with no extra weight it gives me 329.
It's a BS entry. It's inaccurate. It's garbage.
I agree.
OP, I would suggest you simply enter it as having walked 5 miles at your current weight, not including the 30# munchkin. The additional calorie burn isn't worth the brain damage required to figure it out. Chalk it up as a bonus in getting you to your goal weight faster.0 -
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Aha! It's actually in the database but only for a 15lb baby. It says I should burn an extra 230 calories for an hour (presumably I add that to the burn for walking 5 miles in slightly over an hour, which is a lot more than that)
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/exercise/calories-burned/walking-carrying-infant-or-15-lb-load-201
This isn't an extra 230 calories on top of what you would already burn. This is saying that the burn rate for that much activity was 230 calories.
It can't because it didn't know my speed. When I input my speed for walking with no extra weight it gives me 329.
It's a BS entry. It's inaccurate. It's garbage.
I agree.
OP, I would suggest you simply enter it as having walked 5 miles at your current weight, not including the 30# munchkin. The additional calorie burn isn't worth the brain damage required to figure it out. Chalk it up as a bonus in getting you to your goal weight faster.
I'm at goal weight. I don't actually calorie count so it doesn't really matter to me, it just occurred to me that the effort expended walking that fast with 25% of your body weight must account for something.0 -
@HeartisalonelyhunterHeartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
But wouldn't your own body weight make a difference? 30lbs is 25% of my weight. It's the same as someone who's 200lbs carrying 50lbs (or an Olympic bar plus 5lbs) for 5 miles straight.BrianSharpe wrote: »Well, this may not be 100% in this situation but it should be close.......
Runners World suggests using .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) so carrying an extra 30 lbs for 5 miles would represent an additional 45 calories expended.
@Heartisalonelyhunter
It would make a difference to how hard it feels for different size/strength people - but calories don't have feelings!
That wasn't my question. I said nothing about 'feelings'.
Understood what you said but it's still wrong.
Imagine instead of a person moving 30lbs over a distance you are using an electric motor.
A motor of 1000watts power may struggle but a 3000w motor would be well within its capabilities.
But the calorie burn (energy) is still the amount used moving that 30lbs over the distance - whether that is easy or hard or a different percentage of the capabilities of the motors makes no difference to the energy used.
Does that analogy make sense?0 -
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Aha! It's actually in the database but only for a 15lb baby. It says I should burn an extra 230 calories for an hour (presumably I add that to the burn for walking 5 miles in slightly over an hour, which is a lot more than that)
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/exercise/calories-burned/walking-carrying-infant-or-15-lb-load-201
This isn't an extra 230 calories on top of what you would already burn. This is saying that the burn rate for that much activity was 230 calories.
It can't because it didn't know my speed. When I input my speed for walking with no extra weight it gives me 329.
It's a BS entry. It's inaccurate. It's garbage.
I agree.
OP, I would suggest you simply enter it as having walked 5 miles at your current weight, not including the 30# munchkin. The additional calorie burn isn't worth the brain damage required to figure it out. Chalk it up as a bonus in getting you to your goal weight faster.
Agreed.
I eat to fuel my fitness and encourage others to do the same. But getting caught up in minutiae like this will undermine your weight loss. Focus on being fit and healthy and not on justifying an extra serving of mashed potatoes based on specious mathematics.0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
But wouldn't your own body weight make a difference? 30lbs is 25% of my weight. It's the same as someone who's 200lbs carrying 50lbs (or an Olympic bar plus 5lbs) for 5 miles straight.BrianSharpe wrote: »Well, this may not be 100% in this situation but it should be close.......
Runners World suggests using .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) so carrying an extra 30 lbs for 5 miles would represent an additional 45 calories expended.
The OP was asking how many additional calories would be burned as a result of carrying the extra weight, her total caloric expenditure would be premised on her weight plus the weight she was carrying.
Your analogy is mistaken in that calories expended are not proportional; you or I or Hulk Hogan would burn the same number of additional calories carrying a 30lb child over the same distance.
0 -
Like I said, I weigh 120lbs, do not log and am not trying to justify eating anything or lose any weight. I was simply asking a question.SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Aha! It's actually in the database but only for a 15lb baby. It says I should burn an extra 230 calories for an hour (presumably I add that to the burn for walking 5 miles in slightly over an hour, which is a lot more than that)
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/exercise/calories-burned/walking-carrying-infant-or-15-lb-load-201
This isn't an extra 230 calories on top of what you would already burn. This is saying that the burn rate for that much activity was 230 calories.
It can't because it didn't know my speed. When I input my speed for walking with no extra weight it gives me 329.
It's a BS entry. It's inaccurate. It's garbage.
I agree.
OP, I would suggest you simply enter it as having walked 5 miles at your current weight, not including the 30# munchkin. The additional calorie burn isn't worth the brain damage required to figure it out. Chalk it up as a bonus in getting you to your goal weight faster.
Agreed.
I eat to fuel my fitness and encourage others to do the same. But getting caught up in minutiae like this will undermine your weight loss. Focus on being fit and healthy and not on justifying an extra serving of mashed potatoes based on specious mathematics.
0 -
@HeartisalonelyhunterHeartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
But wouldn't your own body weight make a difference? 30lbs is 25% of my weight. It's the same as someone who's 200lbs carrying 50lbs (or an Olympic bar plus 5lbs) for 5 miles straight.BrianSharpe wrote: »Well, this may not be 100% in this situation but it should be close.......
Runners World suggests using .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) so carrying an extra 30 lbs for 5 miles would represent an additional 45 calories expended.
@Heartisalonelyhunter
It would make a difference to how hard it feels for different size/strength people - but calories don't have feelings!
That wasn't my question. I said nothing about 'feelings'.
Understood what you said but it's still wrong.
Imagine instead of a person moving 30lbs over a distance you are using an electric motor.
A motor of 1000watts power may struggle but a 3000w motor would be well within its capabilities.
But the calorie burn (energy) is still the amount used moving that 30lbs over the distance - whether that is easy or hard or a different percentage of the capabilities of the motors makes no difference to the energy used.
Does that analogy make sense?
Yes it does. Thanks0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »I'm at goal weight. I don't actually calorie count so it doesn't really matter to me, it just occurred to me that the effort expended walking that fast with 25% of your body weight must account for something.
It does count for something, but how much is the question. I don't think you are going to find an exact answer.
I believe that calorie burn calculators tie back to the MET (metabolic equivalent of task) values of the given activity. There are formulas that factor in the weight of the individual, the duration of the exercise, and the MET value of the activity.
For what it's worth, you can review the MET values for walking at various speeds and inclines here. The entries that you see on MFP are often times the same descriptors, word for word, that you see in the Compendium of Physical Activities (which lists MET values for various activities). See here: https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/walking
Here's a screen shot that compares some of the values. You can see that the original descriptor for the 15-pound baby carrying was based on slow walking:
0 -
That's actually why I asked. I have a Fitbit HR and it says I burn about 150 more calories when I wear him then when I don't based on my heart rate.Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »I walk and wear my 30lb baby in a carrier a lot. Yesterday I walked 5 miles wearing him in the carrier. How much would the weight I'm carrying add to my calorie burn? Just curious really because I can't find the answer anywhere!
Maybe you should get a HRM. That would be way more accurate than guessing0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »Well, this may not be 100% in this situation but it should be close.......
Runners World suggests using .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) so carrying an extra 30 lbs for 5 miles would represent an additional 45 calories expended.
That's accurate enough and, as one can see, not a significant increase.
@Azdak
I've seen similar questions posted on MFP and on other websites.
One suggestion that I have seen is to calculate the burn rate that you would normally get walking at a given speed at your present weight. Then, recalculate the burn rate using your weight + the weight of the load you are carrying.
For example, if she weighs 120 pounds and walks at 3mph for 5 miles and burns X calories, she should then recalculate for a weight of 150 pounds (120 + 30 lbs for baby) walking at 3mph for 5 miles, and this presumably yields a calorie burn of Z (where Z - X = Y the difference in calories burned by adding the 30 pounds).
Is this a legitimate way to estimate the calorie cost of carrying a given load? Or, is this wrong?
Sure it is; and that's exactly how he got the figure of 45 extra calories.0 -
Go with the lower estimates you're seeing here. It's too risky (read:weight gain) to guess high.
+1 to the poster who said to just log your usual 5 mile burn, the baby is an extra bonus. You have nothing to lose but more weight.0 -
Go with the lower estimates you're seeing here. It's too risky (read:weight gain) to guess high.
+1 to the poster who said to just log your usual 5 mile burn, the baby is an extra bonus. You have nothing to lose but more weight.
She's not trying to lose weight. It seems it was just a rhetorical "let's make the MFP monkeys dance" question.0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
That's actually why I asked. I have a Fitbit HR and it says I burn about 150 more calories when I wear him then when I don't based on my heart rate.Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »I walk and wear my 30lb baby in a carrier a lot. Yesterday I walked 5 miles wearing him in the carrier. How much would the weight I'm carrying add to my calorie burn? Just curious really because I can't find the answer anywhere!
Maybe you should get a HRM. That would be way more accurate than guessing
Therein lies the problem, there's not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure.
You could have 2 individuals of equal weight walk the same distance. Individual A is out of shape and has a higher heart rate than individual B. All other things being equal A does not burn more calories than B but most heart rate monitors (which only measure time & heart rate) would incorrectly state that they did.0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »Well, this may not be 100% in this situation but it should be close.......
Runners World suggests using .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) so carrying an extra 30 lbs for 5 miles would represent an additional 45 calories expended.
That's accurate enough and, as one can see, not a significant increase.
@Azdak
I've seen similar questions posted on MFP and on other websites.
One suggestion that I have seen is to calculate the burn rate that you would normally get walking at a given speed at your present weight. Then, recalculate the burn rate using your weight + the weight of the load you are carrying.
For example, if she weighs 120 pounds and walks at 3mph for 5 miles and burns X calories, she should then recalculate for a weight of 150 pounds (120 + 30 lbs for baby) walking at 3mph for 5 miles, and this presumably yields a calorie burn of Z (where Z - X = Y the difference in calories burned by adding the 30 pounds).
Is this a legitimate way to estimate the calorie cost of carrying a given load? Or, is this wrong?
Sure it is; and that's exactly how he got the figure of 45 extra calories.
Thanks. This was my thought, but I wasn't sure if I was thinking too simply.
@Heartisalonelyhunter
Using whatever calorie burn calculator you would normally use, just enter your weight as 150 pounds (instead of 120) for walking 5 miles in just over an hour.
0 -
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Go with the lower estimates you're seeing here. It's too risky (read:weight gain) to guess high.
+1 to the poster who said to just log your usual 5 mile burn, the baby is an extra bonus. You have nothing to lose but more weight.
She's not trying to lose weight. It seems it was just a rhetorical "let's make the MFP monkeys dance" question.
So now you can only ask a question if you're trying to lose weight? Thanks for rewriting the forum rules as well as the definition of sarcasm...0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »I'm at goal weight. I don't actually calorie count so it doesn't really matter to me, it just occurred to me that the effort expended walking that fast with 25% of your body weight must account for something.
It does count for something, but how much is the question. I don't think you are going to find an exact answer.
I believe that calorie burn calculators tie back to the MET (metabolic equivalent of task) values of the given activity. There are formulas that factor in the weight of the individual, the duration of the exercise, and the MET value of the activity.
For what it's worth, you can review the MET values for walking at various speeds and inclines here. The entries that you see on MFP are often times the same descriptors, word for word, that you see in the Compendium of Physical Activities (which lists MET values for various activities). See here: https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/walking
Here's a screen shot that compares some of the values. You can see that the original descriptor for the 15-pound baby carrying was based on slow walking:
Thanks for this!0 -
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Go with the lower estimates you're seeing here. It's too risky (read:weight gain) to guess high.
+1 to the poster who said to just log your usual 5 mile burn, the baby is an extra bonus. You have nothing to lose but more weight.
She's not trying to lose weight. It seems it was just a rhetorical "let's make the MFP monkeys dance" question.
Sigh. I guess my first sentence applies regardless, she could gain by overestimating burns and eating it back.
I really hope I don't get a response that she doesn't eat back exercise calories, because then the entire question is a moot point, and you'd be right.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions